Oh Crap, there goes the Neighborhood...

[Mav]

Out of curiosity and my faulty memory, what's the problem with economically starving North Korea to death, again? Arguably you'd need China to go along with it, but you could easily set up a naval blockade and embargo around the rest of the country. And I figure if you offer to give the territory over to China after the revolts and the collapse of the government, they might just go along with it.

[StruckingFuggle]

I will treat others as they would treat me. You want me to be nice to you? Then be nice to me.

So wait - you hold this philosophy, and you continue to treat others poorly, and then expect them to be nice to you? How, exactly, is that supposed to work?

Furthermore, I had always thought that you argued for some sense of autonomy, that you decided for yourself how you will act - and yet here you argue that your actions are decided for you by other people. Curious.

If you raise your fist against me I will do my damnedest to make sure you hit the floor without every touching me. There are always two ways of breaking a cycle fuggle. One of them involves the two parties coming to a mutual agreement. The other involves only one party being left around. In the event of no agreement being reached, I will not break the cycle by being the one that gets slaughtered.

I charge that with being a possible false dichotomy, and then refer to my previous comment - I question how you would expect two parties both holding the philosophy quoted above to even begin to come to some sort of mutual agreement.

As to a 'buildup', there would be no need for one. It's been built up for 50 years.

Sitting there ready to go and be mobilized overnight in an offensive that would do more than make an incursion across the DMZ and into the northern part of SK?

---

Out of curiosity and my faulty memory, what's the problem with economically starving North Korea to death, again? Arguably you'd need China to go along with it, but you could easily set up a naval blockade and embargo around the rest of the country. And I figure if you offer to give the territory over to China after the revolts and the collapse of the government, they might just go along with it.

Not like it'll do much to the average person in NK, they're already pretty shafted ... but for all the people in power there other than the glorious leader, once their lifestyle stops being so comfortable and glorious, that's when the knives start getting sharpened and the tiny, old men start baking a new bean. I do worry about the effects of a revolution / the crumbling of an entrenched regime and the power vacuum that's likely to follow on the normal citizens of NK, but I guess them getting shafted in the violent growing pains of a country like North Korea is, by now, a fairly foregone conclusion.

[adciv]

I will treat others as they would treat me. You want me to be nice to you? Then be nice to me.

So wait - you hold this philosophy, and you continue to treat others poorly, and then expect them to be nice to you? How, exactly, is that supposed to work?

If you raise your fist against me I will do my damnedest to make sure you hit the floor without every touching me. There are always two ways of breaking a cycle fuggle. One of them involves the two parties coming to a mutual agreement. The other involves only one party being left around. In the event of no agreement being reached, I will not break the cycle by being the one that gets slaughtered.

I charge that with being a possible false dichotomy, and then refer to my previous comment - I question how you would expect two parties both holding the philosophy quoted above to even begin to come to some sort of mutual agreement.

Simply put. I'm am at first either positive or neutral towards someone. I do not treat others negatively at first. Either they treat me negatively or positively. If they respond negatively, so be it.

Furthermore, I had always thought that you argued for some sense of autonomy, that you decided for yourself how you will act - and yet here you argue that your actions are decided for you by other people. Curious.

Nice straw man. Or do you not try to defend yourself if someone tries to rob you or kill you pr bring harm upon you? Do you decide to do nothing? Or do you decide to shoot back. I've decided that my course of action is dependent on how the other person behaves. I will not be nice if they decide to be an ass or bring harm upon me.

*edit*Ah, something I forgot to include before.

... Thus perpetuating the cycle ...

Thus ENDING the cycle. Stand up to the bully, and they back down. Smack down the pirates, they give up. Barbary or Somalian. That which the robber is afraid of is someone who will go after them. Not doing anything or giving in is the worst thing to do as it only encourages the bad behavior on their part.

[Eihger]

Its not like we can't say " Oh we thought they have WMD and intend to use them" They have shown they have them and very vehemently said they intend to use them.

You know which other country has WMDs? Almost everyone and yours too. So why should you be the only country who likes the smell of napalm in the morning, eh?

I say intervene now, take he slap on the wrist and stern talking to and be on with it, one less dictator and innocent lives safe.

And how many innocent people must die in your righteous war? Or do those not count since they aren't American? Because you sure sound like that´s all thats counts

The differences we go out of our way not to use ours. They have intent to use theirs the moment they can. On all the nations that opposed them as well. If you want to go ahead and play the " innocents die in war no matter what" ploy I'll call your bluff.

Say North Korea continues their ICBM program ( illegal to ALL countries and making them is a big no no). First they will drop on Seoul hitting major population centers, 5-10,000,000 dead. Next they will try to hit an American city within range. LA 11,000,000 dead. The ensuing war and carnage will leave millions more dead, tens of million wounded, Massive loss in global economy, and further destabilization with American cities crumbling due to economic shock Millions starving and displaced in California, tens of millions in Korea.

If We strike now before they have sufficient atomic power, we can stave major city disasters, and with Americas stanch, "No more carpet bombing cities" policy we can easily avoid civilian casualties and limit them to couple thousands. The Ensuing war will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths ( if they don't surrender)
So yeah I think I am more righteous.


Also keep in mind your strategy of "wait and see" HAS NEVER WORKED!EVER! When you have the advantage strike and strike hard

[StruckingFuggle]

It doesn't matter if killing a few innocents saves more (or it may, that could be argued), it should never feel right, let alone RIGHTEOUS, merely ... necessary. Grim resolve, not a sense of feeling righteous.

It's not better. It's not more right. It's fucking UNFORTUNATE, and (hopefully) only being pursued, not because it's the best option, but rather because it is the least bad and reality must be confronted.


Though still, why is violent intervention the only option? Like Mav suggested, we haven't tried starving the leadership of North Korea of their luxury... a lot of which, iirc (sadly, can't source that) is imported into NK. That's part of how he keeps power - because he provides for the people who keep everyone else in his line. But, nope, gotta go for the easy and immediate way. And hey, removing a tyrant from power always cleans up the nation they've been running and makes it a happy place, right? Iraq was such a happy place after the Hussein regime crumbled, wasn't i.... oh, wait.

[adciv]

Though still, why is violent intervention the only option? Like Mav suggested, we haven't tried starving the leadership of North Korea of their luxury... a lot of which, iirc (sadly, can't source that) is imported into NK. That's part of how he keeps power - because he provides for the people who keep everyone else in his line.

Actually, we have been. Another non-military method Bush tried.

[Eihger]

Luski I get the feeling you're under the impression that Americans are going out of their way to shoot innocent people in Iraq. Because I garendamntee Americans are the SMALLEST reason of civilian deaths in Iraq, so small that theres no reason to bring it up. Iraqis are killing more Iraqis than Americans. Fuck Iraqis soldiers are killing more iraqis!

While starving them out could work, you don't want a desperate man feeling more desperate. Backing them into a smaller corner seems like a bad move.

[Mav]

But an active war is a good idea? I'll try to go easy on this Eigher, since I don't think you're being intentionally stupid about anything, but let's think things out first:

First, North Korea doesn't have a missile of hitting LA. On paper it does, and we worry about it. But all the test missiles they've fired have come up significantly short of even hitting Hawaii or Alaska.

Second, you're right. Nuking Seol would be devastating, and most likely something they could do. However, given that America has the largest, most capable nuclear arsenal in the world, it would be suicide. What ally of NK would be willing to jump in front of the nuclear bullet we send back? China and Russia support North Korea because it benefits them. It would not benefit China or or Russia to get dragged into a nuclear war. Even if we limited ourselves to conventional warfare, North Korea loses. The best estimates I've read place them with enough uranium for 6 nuclear bombs. 7 by years end. We could carpet bomb them into oblivion before they nuked enough of our military. Still, while bigger dangers do come from potential nuclear attacks on Tokyo or Seol, it would still end the current regime's power. If they lose power, then what is the point of the action?

Third, North Korea itself has proven how unreliable its technology is. There is no guarantee that the nuclear weapons they did fire would properly activate or hit their target. And while you do make a point of it being dangerous to wait for them to perfect this technology, we could easily destroy the regime through a largely economic war long before they had the time to improve their weapons.

Fourth, in the event of a dedicated war, even North Korea's "allies" would be unable to stop us. While China has been significantly improving its military might, within recent years high ranking Chinese generals have admitted that nuclear weapons would be its only way to stop a war against America, due to our superior conventional military. Despite the aggressive posturing of Chinese and Russian governments, they wish to avoid war with us for the same reason North Korea should. It'll end their power. It's also the same reason our government wishes to avoid war with them. Populations do not enjoy war.

Fifth, go read Asimov's Foundation. Do it. Now. Trust me.

Also, Adciv, refusing to sell American luxury products is not the same as a complete embargo of all goods. I believe you made what you typically refer to as a straw man argument.


Edit: So the overall point that I left out, is while an embargo could make them feel desperate, it will also force them to cave into the only method of remaining in power, which is cooperation. We're playing chess here, and the point is to force them to choose between their rook and their queen.

[adciv]

No strawman. Fuggle said we should starve the leadership of their luxury. I pointed out how we had taken steps to do so. He never said anything about a complete embargo of all goods. Although, I'm not sure how much is left.

As to NKs missile range, both SK and Japan are both well in range. Further, I'm not sure we would nuke NK for the simple matter that either China, SK, Russia or Japan would then get the prevailing winds right into them. We don't want to piss off any of them.

[ampersand]

Also, a commentary I read in the USAToday today suggests North Korea may have enough nuclear fuel to create six to ten nuclear missiles at the most right now. So if you're going to hit, hit them now before they diplomatically stall their way towards tripling their amount of fuel.

I'm not saying I completely agree with Mav's "hit them now/make them sweat" strategy, but I'm not sure there's anything left to do at this point anyway.

[Mav]

You guys are tempting me to reread my own post.

I'm pretty sure I've already discussed the possibilities of Tokyo or Seol being targeted by a missile (Adciv). Furthermore, I have not suggested a direct military attack at this time (Ampersand). Also, perhaps I'm giving Fuggle more credit than he deserves, but I interpreted his reference to luxury not as American produced "luxury items", but the luxury of eating something other than corn or rice. However, he did misinterpret my intention of removing the current government through said embargo - the whole point is to cause revolt.

[adciv]

The revolt would have to come from those who are currently in the government as the peasants, as I understand it, view Kim as something like one step down from God or higher. The question then comes down to how to target those in the government and luxury goods are supposedly how Kim buy's loyalty. A general embargo might not do much, especially if we can't get China on board.

[Makh]

There is something you need to carve in your brain, the people of North Korea will not revolt no matter what magical sanctions you try. You can not expect to gain popular support in a society that is very Orwellian and isolated. They will use it for governmental propaganda, mostly against you. This will only create more resentment and anger toward your country, if that is possible.

Diplomatic talks. Very boring, but the most suitable option.

[JermCool]

Right, because, you know, Kim Jong Il has been so forthcoming during previous diplomatic talks.

Look how they canned their nuclear and weapons programs in exchange for being taking off the terrorism watch list.

[Mav]

Exactly. And you fail to consider how problematic dissent can be, Makh. Especially when it's amongst your own ranks, and not the peasants. If we build a wall around them, and have the ability to enforce it with military might, all the propaganda in the world won't matter. What are they going to do? Make a suicide charge? How about Russia gives North Korea everything North Korea wants, instead? I don't see Russia jumping to the call.