It seems that China and Russia are going to render any UN efforts to curb Kim Jong Il nuclear proliferation ineffective. The United States has warned that a nuclear armed N. Korea would be unacceptable, and it looks like Korea may get away with this if the United States continues to depend on the UN to resolve this issue. Should the United States take it's own measures? I don't mean an invasion. I mean a punitive strike to destroy N. Korea's nuclear facilities. We told them not to do it, the whole world told them not to do it. Will we and should we act alone if the UN continues to be ineffective?
2006-10-14 06:09:45 · 13 answers · asked by replicant21 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
You have summarized the problem very well. And I wish it were as easy as you seem to suggest. I WISH I KNEW THE RIGHT ANSWER.
If we were not in the middle east all wrapped up there, I would feel as you seem to that we should neutralize their capability. Unfortunately, there is reality we have to face that goes like this. We can't support a military large enough to slap every stupid in-bred fanatic dictator in the world. The Russians and the Chinese are already on NK's team. China's not gonna take kindly to any action we take because they are already overwhelmed with refugees from NK. If any more hostility takes place, they will be flooded with refugees again.
I simply don't know the right answer, but using military force against NK doesn't seem to be the best choice right now.
2006-10-14 06:28:22 · answer #1 · answered by snvffy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But . . . but who the hell are WE?
You seem to have an outsize perception of the power and influence of the United States. 'We' are but one country in a world of over 250 sovereign nations. 'We' don't order anyone around. The influence 'we' have had has been either gained through espionage and setting up puppet dictators or through coercion of so-called allies with the help of multinational corporations.
Military power is simply a tool. The US military is overextended, undersupplied, and badly balanced (troop strength is sapped, useless, expensive weapons systems are out of control) with a budget that is 67% of the whole US Government budget. With all of that, do you realize that the Chinese army is larger in number than the whole US population? And that since most industrial production has moved to China, that the US military can't even get tents or socks unless China chooses to give them to us?
I wouldn't go around swinging any 'unilateral punitive action' big sticks on behalf of the United States, in any case.
2006-10-14 06:34:59 · answer #2 · answered by nora22000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bush administration can't act on this like they did in Iraq. N. Korea has an army of over 1 million troops (the largest in the world, I think) and we have thousands of troops on the border between N. and S. Korea who would be in harm's way if we were to strike first. N. Korea would also likely send bombs raining down all over S. Korea killing millions of innocent people if we were to attack them. It is a very delicate situation and diplomacy makes a lot more sense in this case then rushing into another war.
2006-10-14 06:17:14 · answer #3 · answered by Harry Manback 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
fifty seven% of those human beings want a militia reaction against the North. After that what do we do with regard to the conflict on terror? what's the purpose of the attack going to be? Are we arranged to combat 3 wars at as quickly as, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea? as quickly as we commence, will the powers that be be arranged to respond to the question, WHY? How will all of us understand whilst to resign the attack? How do we pay for this conflict? the place wil the lads and kit come from? do we pass to the UN, begging for different international locations to assist us this time? what often is the end results of this militia journey? Alot of ingredient to think of roughly. I say we ought to continually pass away the militia determination under the table for this one. for now!
2016-10-19 09:35:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, no, most definitely NOT!
We MUST have the imprimatur of the UN on any action we take or some people won't like us and we couldn't live with that again!
No, we just have to bite the bullet and ask for permission before we ever again take military action.
Why, you ask? Well, because the Weak Sisters say so.
2006-10-14 06:14:47 · answer #5 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. We need to negotiate. Bush is supposed to be the LEADER of this country. He keeps putting his head in the sand. He needs to get over there and negotiate with their leaders and do it now.
2006-10-14 06:34:59 · answer #6 · answered by Wiser1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think all the countries that have nukes should point it in there direction and scare the **** out of them
2006-10-14 06:17:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No...but I do feel that the US should issue the following warning to the DRNK:
IF YOU AIM ANYTHING AT THE US, IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR @SS!
2006-10-14 11:31:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love my country & served during desert storm. I think the US should mind its own beezwax! Who the &^%$ are WE to JUDGE another country???? presumptuous, aint it?
2006-10-14 06:12:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think US has it's hands full already with Iraq and Afghanistan?
2006-10-14 06:16:39 · answer #10 · answered by Artguer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋