Which war would bring about a worse scenario: The U.S.A. attacking Iran, or the U.S.A. attacking North Korea?

Question

It is generally believed that Iran is seeking to become a nuclear power. And North Korea has made it clear that they want to have nuclear weapons. There are many nations that would not tolerate either of these countries having nuclear weapons.
The United States has already invaded a country (Iraq) on the premise that it had WMDs. And both Iran and North Korea are on the axis of evil. So it stands to reason that the U.S.A. attacking Iran or North Korea is at least a possibility. Which scenerio would be worse for the world? Surely attacking Iran would would be disaterous to the economy, not to mention being militarily complicated. But attacking North Korea would be no cake walk either. They have a huge military that is 'dug in'. They would respond with everything they have and invade the south. Either of these potential wars would make Iraq look easy. Which one would be worse for the world and for the United States? And why? And will we ever see these events happen?

Answer 1

Both are very dangerous scenarios ... but North Korea would be worse than North Korea

With Iran, the fanatic leader may have allies in the immediate area as well as some limited support from Russia, but there are more and stronger nations allied against Iran than just the U.S. Even a nation like China is not too fond of Ahmadinejad or the idea of a nuclear Iran. Also, the U.S. already has a military presence in the Middle East, so deployment situations would be easier to establish. Iran's military structure is strong, but if Iraq could give them a run for their money, then more developed nations with a better military system would shut down Iran's conventional nartial threat.

North Korea is more dangerous on multiple levels. While Iran is trying to build a nuclear arsenal with outside help, North Korea is doing this internally. Also, Kim Jong-Il is far more calculating and devious than Ahmadinejad could ever be. Furthermore, North Korea has silent support from China (which currently is the biggest threat to the U.S. in regards to military might). The last time there was any major military action in Korea, the Chinese launched approximately one million soldiers to back the North Korean objectives. Logistics would also stretch out our military forces too thinly, which would weaken military strength of presence in that peninsula. While South Korea would like to see its northern neighbor punished, the new Secretary General to the UN (a South Korean diplomat named Ban Ki-Moon) would rather for a "peaceful" unification or rectification with North Korea. This would make UN support (which is worthless in my opinion, but apparently vital in the eyes of nations that have staunch anti-American views) less favorable than regarding the Iran situation. Also, looking at the high volume of imported goods received from that area, the economic outlook is more dire if a war were to erupt there than in Iran (oil vs. electronics, cars, generally-processed daily goods, plastics, clothes, shoes, etc.) There are more negative aspects to look at if the scenario you mention focuses on North Korea instead of Iran.

Answer 2

North Korea is probably not a viable option simply because in order to attack North Korea we would have to have the support of Japan, China and South Korea. In recent polls, South Korea is less afraid of DPRK than the average American--really saying something considering they've been at war for 50+ years.

Iran is a much more pressing concern. We already have such a vast troop presence in the region and the neo-cons, still in power despite the election, have a real interest in legitimizing their belief that creating a god-fearing democracy in the Middle East will simplify all our lives and pay huge dividends to future generations. It almost goes without saying that Iran and Iraq sit atop vast oil reserves and this resource is going to kill many more people than it saves.

The other issue is our troop strength. We have the ability, at any time, to attack one or the other, or both of these countries if we so choose. Reinstating the draft would become necessary in all but the shortest possible scenarios and surgical strikes.

The real danger is not going to directly come from one of these countries, but from the passionate energy this will infuse terrorist groups with. An attack, a war of choice such as the current campaign, will damage our credibility so greatly in the world that only a handful of dictators and sycophantic leaders will condone the policy.

To answer your question, neither option is reasonable without a first-strike from one of these two countries. I don't think we will see this happen--but a ton of bombasticism and mendacity is sure to be the order of the day for the next few years.

Answer 3

I think attacking N. Korea would be worse. Personally I don't believe either is much of a nuclear threat at this time, but North Korea has a large conventional army that has been given preferential treatment in their country, and that would provide all the excuse they need to start marching south into South Korea.

I doubt Iran could field much of a conventional force, plus they have no enemy neighbor to attack, other than Iraq where we would decimate them. Israel is a long ways away.

Answer 4

Iran.

There is no cohesion to the North Korean people. They do not have an Islamist agenda, there is no deep conviction that unites them, as such they would be just a nation to conquer. In Iran after the war was over the fighting will have just begun, much in the same way that happen in Iraq.

If you want a precedent for this think of Iberia in the Roman times, that was the first territory conquered by the Romans, but the Iberos were the last to be subdued, they fought the Romans much in the same way the Iraqis are fighting us today for over six centuries.

Answer 5

Invading Iran would probably be a bit worse, but it's probably going to happen. Russia and China have major financial assets in Iran, and have many oil contracts with the Iranians. Any US attack will piss off Russia and China, and they may decide to escalate the situation with nukes. Unless the US handles the situation gently, or works with Russia and China closely, I think we're in for a major world war very soon. With the administration low in the polls and support for the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan waning, I wouldn't put it past Bush to launch an attack on Iran as yet another attempted distraction from domestic issues, then hand it off to the poor bastard who gets elected in '08, who will probably get more than their fair share of blame. Oh well, at least nuclear war will fix the overpopulation problem really quickly..

Answer 6

The National-Union believes that war again in general is the worse scenario. America already had a war with Korea and we're practically at war with Iran over Iraq. The National-Union believes that we have proven ourselves to be offensive, now we have to plan a defense to retreat, http://www.voteprimous.com

Answer 7

Germany will never attack North Korea. So there will be no response.

Answer 8

I simply say world will not accept classic wars any more governments should be changed or inforced to change thier planing with improoving of people ability to deffend themselves against governments.I THINK IT IS BETTER TO SUPPORT UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE JOB SERIOUSLY.

Answer 9

North Korea. They have a stong military and China would get involved.

Answer 10

Iran would be worse. Not only do they have a better military, they have more friends who agree with them. We'd get some help with N. Korea.