North Korea - Invade or sanction ?

Question

Well, it appears that the 'bottom of the bucket' part of the world is catching up with the west in terms of nuclear weapons.

Realistacly, What in YOUR opinion is best deserved to N korea ?

I personally believe a full scale invasion + disarmament is what is needed to certify there nuclear program is shut down.

They pose a threat to the western world, and if a 'soft touch' of sanctions are imposed, as aposed to military actions, then more hostile nations will surely follow suit, e.g. iran etc.

These are nations that have publicly declared they would like isreal for example, wiped off the face of the earth.

Nations that have stated further aggravation by America / the west shall be considered as an act of war.

As ive said N.Korea needs to be invaded in order to secure stability for the free world.

But realistically i doubt it will happen due to the fact its a Large populous Army, and has much more advanced weapons then our recent conquests had.

Discuss.

If people are so 'oh lets not talk about invading a country that has nukes, lets all just hug each other instead'

FACT: you have your face stuck up your own ****, and clearly cant see the world for the cold barron world it is.

Its a matter of survival, either we let a hostile nation freely develop there own Nuclear weapons programme, and eventualy they will have the means to attack us.

OR

We take preventive actions now.

Kinda like the ww2 / neville chamberlain effect.

If we simply took out hitler in chamberlains rule (instead of trying to appease him), ww2 wouldnt of happened.

Answer 1

First off, I'm not squeamish about going to war against NK if that's what it takes. But maybe we should ask ourselves if there's another way....? Maybe something a little radical and untried.

Looking at this from an economic viewpoint, invading North Korea would be a very, very expensive proposition for the developed world. The Iraq war has cost something like 335 billion dollars to date. That's not counting the cost of human life as well, which of course you can't put a price on (or at least, it would be distasteful to do so).

But that's peanuts compared to the potential cost of another Korean war. First off, the army of the DPRK is four times the size of Saddam Hussein's. And Koreans are very tenacious fighters. (I know something about this as I am married to one). These guys invented Tae Kwon Do, remember. Secondly, they have 20,000 artillery pieces just north of the DMZ targeted on the South Korean capital of Seoul, one of the world's great hubs of industrial activity, particularly semiconductor manufacture. Make no mistake, this war would have a huge economic impact, even if the conflict remained a conventional one.

Let's instead look at this form a different angle. Why are the North Koreans so p*ssed off and isolationist? Well, it has a lot to do with pride and the fact that they feel excluded by a world that is hostile to them. Yes, it's their own fault, I know - or more correctly, the fault of their leadership. Forget the communist idealogy cr*p, that's just an excuse to justify bad behaviour, same as it was / is in Russia and China. None of those countries were ever really communist.

Instead of having a hugely expensive war that will cost at least thousands, possibly millions of lives, is there some way to make those guys less p*ssed off? They live in a very impoverished country, that's why they are so hard-bitten and belligerent (especially those who are actually aware of how prosperous their South Korean cousins across the border are).

Take a look at this satellite photo of NK. It's the big black blob in between China and South Korea, just north of that huge glittering cluster of lights that is Seoul (you can see the DMZ lit up as a snakey line running west-east from Seoul):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Korean_peninsula_at_night.jpg

Maybe all they need is to get invited to a really good party. NK has a population of 20 million. Suppose we spend 10,000 dollars a head on making them happy instead of trying to kill them. 10,000 dollars is a king's ransom to a typical NK citizen. Now I don't mean just hand them 10,000 dollars each, that would be plain stupid. But 200 billion dollars would build an infrastructure for their entire country and be cheaper than the Iraq war, and MUCH cheaper than a second Korean war.

Maybe those guys just need a big hug and let bygones be bygones.

Rewarding bad behaviour? Not exactly, just giving them a helping hand in catching up with the rest of the world.

Yes, the west has been giving NK aid already and that hasn't worked. But let's consider the scale involved here. The sort of aid the west has been giving them has been in the region of 200 million dollars per year, in a good year. That's ten dollars per head. That's just propping up the regime, it's not a life-changing amount of money.

NK currently has around 12 billion in foreign debt. This is one of the things that has held them back from joining the economic party. Write that debt off and spend 200 billion to build them an infrastructure. Cheaper than a war and an investment in the global economy.

Now go ahead, give in to the jerking of your knees and give me those thumbs-down, because as we all know, people would rather spend upwards of a trillion dollars on a war that will leave millions dead and the world ecomomy in tatters than spend 200 billion dollars on a global economic investment that will make 20 million people happy and nobody dies. I'd rather my taxes were spent on the latter, personally speaking.

PS - Message for Fishy, the chap who posted after me - do I know you?

Answer 2

Invading N. Korea means the USA will have to start a military services draft. We don't have the numbers of soldiers it would take to invade unless we start a draft and recruit two million soldiers.We might need to given the situation in Iran right now. I believe, however, the USA is heading in the right directions by bringing this issue to the table, impose sanctions, and try to talk this potential horrible situation out to find an agreement among all nations. Also the USA is not in serious harm's way with N.Korea have nukes, it's Japan, and other Asian nations.

Answer 3

I think for the time being,sanctions is the most realistic way of handling N.Korea, and the UN's act of choosing a South Korean as the new UN secretary just in time is worth an applause.Give it some time, and the North Koreans will learn their lesson.I think we have to move on somehow and focus on more practical issues of declaring nuclear-free zones by obtaining cooperation from political powers such as China and Japan.Step by step,we can work toward a nuclear-free world.

Answer 4

We cannot invade North Korea, if we invade North Korea, we will go to war. North Korea's greatest ally is China, if we go to war with N. Korea, we go to war with China. And we cannot Nuke N. Korea, because we would hit South Korea. If we invade we might bite off more than we can chew. Of course we would disarm N. Korea of their Nuclear Weapons Program, and possibly remove Kim Jong ill from power, but there would be major consequences, take the following into consideration:
1. China has the largest military in the world.
2. N. Korea has underground tunnels big enough to drive a truck through.
3. We will probably go into World War III(if we aren't already)
4. We take a bigger chance of getting nuked.
5. We put S. Korea in even more danger.
6. We will lose many more of our soldiers
7. N. Korea and their allies have modern and advanced weaponry, armor, etc.
However Kim Jong Ill is a big kid, and need to be removed from power, and we need to get rid of their Nuclear Weapons Program, but I don't think we can risk going to war. We are trapped between a "Iraq" and a hard place. I doubt if Sanctions will work, but we can try.

Answer 5

No one has the stomach for more war and no soldiers.
The last time it was a disaster.
It looks like sanctions again that will not work NK needs nothing from the west, China will support NK regardless.
We should look to find which country is supplying the technology to such as NK and others like Iran and put sanctions on them also.

Answer 6

Sanctions have been in place for many years. Additional sanctions wouldn't do any good. Mounting a full scale invasion is not an option, since we don't have the troop strength. That would also put S.Korea in danger. Through our military, about the only effective option that we might have is mounting a covert special ops. mission to eliminate certian members of their upper levels of government.

Answer 7

keep in mind whilst the U. S. did that in the process Iraq? It became a heck of a good style of artwork and fee, plus all those injured and lifeless, and to no longer point out no longer very sturdy for the financial device. possibly it became needed, even with the undeniable fact that it became no walk interior the park, even even with the incontrovertible fact that Saddam became defeated interior of three weeks. we are waiting because of the fact we would rather no longer do it if we are in a position to get out of it. Plus, they DO have nukes, and that they could shoot off a rocket. it would desire to be greater risky than invading Iraq. and then, after removing the government, a sparkling one must be commonly used by some ability. and picture how tricky it rather is going to be to control a gaggle of human beings who've purely had their suitable chief deposed, and characteristic little theory of what is going on. We might could sometime, even with the incontrovertible fact that..

Answer 8

I hope for the U.N. top pull it together and make sanctions. Peace, PLEASE!!
The Iraq invasion has set a tone for war around the world and a hot bed for more terrorists. That is simply an observation, not intended to take a conservative OR a liberal stance.
I hope we are able to calm this tone down.

Answer 9

What do you think the consequences of war could be. Thee North Koreans may not be like the Middle East. They may fight to the death. Also in a country where many are dying, war will make it worse. They apparently have nuclear capabilities, so their close neighbors could be in peril as well.

Sanctions may also cause trouble because NK may try to start a war itself. This is a complicated issue.

Answer 10

Just a quick question. Why shouldn't they have nuclear weapons as apparently they are only a deterrent, which is why we are about to spend billions on a new trident programme while telling most of the rest of the world they can't have them. Who made us the police force of the world?