Should the US take an active military and diplomatic presence in North Korea to ensure that the regime's leadership ceases to produse nuclear weapins, ultimately saving millios of life around the world?
2006-10-24 12:07:03 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
what are the your pros and cons
2006-10-24 12:09:27 · update #1
The US currently has 63,000 solders in South Korea
2006-10-24 12:15:23 · update #2
don't worry ......... this great president have everything covered ...... in the event of a nuclear strike by North Korea ......... we will attack Poland
2006-10-24 12:12:03 · answer #1 · answered by AlfRed E nEuMaN 4 preSIDent 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
North Korea is not yet a viable threat to the U.S. Their 'nuclear' test was a dud... only around 200 tons TNT equivalent. And they have no reliable delivery system i.e., no ICBM's. Their missiles are a joke. They fly off in any direction and have no reliable guidance systems.
As far as I'm concerned the U.S. should ignore the little, malignant dwarf that runs the country... unless and until they do become a threat. Until then, it should be China's problem and Russia to deal with North Korea! After if one of Kim Jung Il's missiles goes astray, it's going to land in one of their countries... not the U.S.
Your anxiety that North Korea's nuclear capability threatens the lives of millions of people around the world is grossly out of proportion to the actual threat!!
2006-10-24 19:23:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off that is a leading question. Secondly, the US already has two open fronts in Afganistan and Iraq. To open a 3rd front and stretch our supplies and manpower any further would be stupid. Where would we get the soldiers to have a military strike? I don't think we have enough soldiers guarding the demilitiization zone between North and South Korea to effectively deal with this issue.
2006-10-24 19:14:09 · answer #3 · answered by Redd Morgan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
America is acting as our Global Police. It is very unfair for North Korea and other countries which have nukes. America also have these weapons of mass destruction and yet no country and even UN opposed to it.
UN should be the one responsible for this and not a fellow country.
2006-10-24 19:21:13 · answer #4 · answered by dennis 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did it in Iraq and they weren't even a threat. They should have saved their trip there and went to North Korea...but they won't. There is no oil there and we don't need rice right now.
2006-10-24 19:09:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no one well placed cruise missile armed with a small tactical nuke will take care of little kim,problem solved,next.
2006-10-24 19:20:16 · answer #6 · answered by truckman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope.
2006-10-24 19:08:41 · answer #7 · answered by Harvie Ruth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should kill North Korea.
ì°ë¦¬ë ë¶íì 죽ì¬ì¼ íë¤.
2006-10-27 21:38:35 · answer #8 · answered by xinnybuxlrie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no comment
2006-10-24 19:11:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋