NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: What to do with North Korea? They prevaricate, obfuscate, even sometimes try to placate, but they just keep right on developing nuclear weapons. This situation reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" missions to Nazi Germany: "Perhaps if we give Hitler part of Checzoslovakia he'll go away. Perhaps if we allow Germany to merge with Austria? Perhaps if we don't get all upset when he moves into the Sedatenland?"


A Sucker Bet (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20 Kristof)


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 17, 2005
PYONGYANG, North Korea

Every single home in this country has two portraits on the wall, one of the Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, who is still president even though he died 11 years ago, and one of his son, the Dear Leader, Kim Jong Il. Inspectors regularly visit homes to make sure the portraits are well cared for.

Every subway car carries those same two portraits as well, and every adult wears a button depicting the Great Leader. And every home (or village, in rural areas) has an audio speaker, which starts broadcasting propaganda at 6 each morning to tell people how lucky they are.

Children spend long hours in day care centers from the age of 6 months, sometimes returning to their parents only on weekends. Men normally perform seven or more years of military service. Disabled people are sometimes expelled from Pyongyang, a green and well-groomed capital that is one of the prettiest in Asia, because they are considered unsightly.

And although the national ideology is juche, or self-reliance, the U.N. World Food Program feeds 6.5 million North Koreans, almost one-third of the population. Even so, hunger is widespread and has left 37 percent of the children stunted.

Yet North Korea focuses its resources on prestige projects, like an amazing 10-lane highway to Nampo (with no traffic).

Many conservatives in and out of the Bush administration assume that North Korea's population must be seething and that the regime must be on its last legs. Indeed, the Bush administration's policy on North Korea, to the extent that it has one, seems to be to wait for it to collapse.

I'm afraid that could be a long, long wait. The central paradox of North Korea is this: No government in the world today is more brutal or has failed its people more abjectly, yet it appears to be in solid control and may even have substantial popular support.

From a brief visit like mine, it's hard to gauge the mood, because anyone who criticizes the government risks immediate arrest. But Chinese and other foreigners I've spoken to who live in North Korea or visit regularly say they believe that most North Koreans buy into the system, just as ordinary Chinese did during the Maoist period.

Likewise, over the years I've interviewed dozens of North Koreans who have fled to China or South Korea, and they overwhelmingly say that while they personally dislike the regime - that's why they fled - their relatives believe in the Kim dynasty with a quasi-religious faith. They say that when everyone is raised to worship the Dear Leader, when there are no contrary voices, people genuinely revere the leader.

Most say the faith is not as strong as it was a dozen years ago, mostly because so many people have heard whispers of Chinese prosperity. But they still laugh at the idea that the Dear Leader is about to be toppled.

"I think we'll have regime change in America before we have regime change in North Korea," says Han Park, a Korea specialist at the University of Georgia. He estimates that 30 percent of North Koreans have a stake in the system, and that most of the rest know so little about the outside world that they don't realize how badly off they are.

A hermetic seal is the main reason the Kim dynasty has survived so long. When I arrived at Pyongyang airport, I was obliged to hand over my cellphones and satellite phones, to be picked up on my departure. Even many senior government officials have no access to the Internet.

From the moment I landed at the airport, I kept trying to change money. But the airport refused, my hotel refused and shops refused. Foreigners are supposed to pay for everything only in foreign currency and be isolated from the local economy. (Finally, a friendly Korean official - they were all surprisingly friendly, with unexpectedly good senses of humor - gave me a few coins as souvenirs for my children.)

If the American policy premise about North Korea - that it is near collapse - is highly dubious, our essential policy approach is even more so. The West should be trying to break that hermetic seal, to increase interactions with North Korea and to infiltrate into North Korea the most effective subversive agents we have: overweight Western business executives.

Instead, we maintain sanctions, isolate North Korea and wait indefinitely for the regime to collapse. I'm afraid we're helping the Dear Leader stay in power.

If Bush could strike a deal with China on North Korea, it wouldn't be too long before that little idiot of a leader collapses.

If Bush could strike a deal with China on North Korea, it wouldn't be too long before that little idiot of a leader collapses.
He'd be hung by his own party until dead for collaborating with commies.

He'd be hung by his own party until dead for collaborating with commies.
No, I don't think so. Besides, as a "lame duck" President, he has a lot more leeway than during his first term.

yaeh omg liek nuke htem already!!1111 ....

No, I don't think so. Besides, as a "lame duck" President, he has a lot more leeway than during his first term.
His base would be mighty pissed, and he relies on his base to stop his approval ratings from scrapping rock bottom (and if they do, he can kiss his political capital goodbye).

COMMENTARY: What to do with North Korea? They prevaricate, obfuscate, even sometimes try to placate, but they just keep right on developing nuclear weapons. This situation reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" missions to Nazi Germany: "Perhaps if we give Hitler part of Checzoslovakia he'll go away. Perhaps if we allow Germany to merge with Austria? Perhaps if we don't get all upset when he moves into the Sedatenland?"The situation is actually more similar than you'd think. Chamberlain struck deals with Hitler because Great Britain and France would have had difficulties defending themselves at the time. Germany was inferior when it came to land units, but the air power ratio was even greater in favor of the Reich in those days. It wasn't until Poland that Chamberlain felt he had the military to properly face Hitler. And the battle of Britain was damn close. Imagine if the odds had been even more in favor of the Germans.

Anyway: The situation with North Korea is the following: Kim Jong-Il has (or might have) the ability to nuke the American West coast. We aren't capable of containing him properly as Chamberlain wasn't capable of containing Hitler. We're biding our time just as much as Kim is.

The situation is actually more similar than you'd think. Chamberlain struck deals with Hitler because Great Britain and France would have had difficulties defending themselves at the time. Germany was inferior when it came to land units, but the air power ratio was even greater in favor of the Reich in those days. It wasn't until Poland that Chamberlain felt he had the military to properly face Hitler. And the battle of Britain was damn close. Imagine if the odds had been even more in favor of the Germans.

Anyway: The situation with North Korea is the following: Kim Jong-Il has (or might have) the ability to nuke the American West coast. We aren't capable of containing him properly as Chamberlain wasn't capable of containing Hitler. We're biding our time just as much as Kim is.
To one side of him: China, to the other, South Korea with the US on their side. Hitler, at least, had a slim chance of winning. North Korea, no matter which way it goes, has no chance, and he knows it. Nukes won't come out, because Kim isn't stupid, and he knows that any attempt to launch one will turn his country into glass.

To one side of him: China, to the other, South Korea with the US on their side. Hitler, at least, had a slim chance of winning. North Korea, no matter which way it goes, has no chance, and he knows it. Nukes won't come out, because Kim isn't stupid, and he knows that any attempt to launch one will turn his country into glass.The thing is, Chamberlain had little chance of winning as Bush has little chance of winning should some West Coast metropolis go down.

The thing is, Chamberlain had little chance of winning as Bush has little chance of winning should some West Coast metropolis go down.
He's a lame duck now, so he isn't up for re-election.

That said, MAD should hold (it isn't even mutual, but the cost of losing one city to a nuke is close enough to it for the US. This isn't the cold war, we're out of the age of megadeaths and acceptable losses), I don't think Kim is suicidal.

He's a lame duck now, so he isn't up for re-election.

That said, MAD should hold (it isn't even mutual, but the cost of losing one city to a nuke is close enough to it for the US. This isn't the cold war, we're out of the age of megadeaths and acceptable losses), I don't think Kim is suicidal.He's paranoid though. Last I heard, women are still not allowed to use bicycles on the empty streets because they "cause too many accidents"; that ban was only recently lifted for men. Should Kim think he's doomed or cornered, he might just act irrationally.

To one side of him: China, to the other, South Korea with the US on their side. Hitler, at least, had a slim chance of winning. North Korea, no matter which way it goes, has no chance, and he knows it. Nukes won't come out, because Kim isn't stupid, and he knows that any attempt to launch one will turn his country into glass.

I don't know about the stupid thing...

---

I don't know about Korea, it's a much too tricky of a situation for the US to take in it's own hands.

---

I think we should all refer to both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il by their full names. It gets kind of unnerving when you call them 'Kim.'

But it's just a suggestion.=P

He's paranoid though. Last I heard, women are still not allowed to use bicycles on the empty streets because they "cause too many accidents"; that ban was only recently lifted for men. Should Kim think he's doomed or cornered, he might just act irrationally.
Don't let him. Either try to breach his little corner of the world through economic means or the radio (let's bring back the voice of america)/media, or let him be and wait for him to die, then hope that we get someone better in office after him. Dictatorships rarely last past the second generation.

Don't let him. Either try to breach his little corner of the world through economic means or the radio (let's bring back the voice of america)/media, or let him be and wait for him to die, then hope that we get someone better in office after him. Dictatorships rarely last past the second generation.VOA is still around, actually... hasn't been gone. The problem with radios and such is that its nearly impossible to get any information into N. Korea. As for the dictatorship... it's still a communist state. That means there will most likely be another party member to replace him. The USSR didn't collapse after Stalin, but who knows, the world might get lucky. (And yes, I'll be sure to refer to Kim Jong-Il by his full name from now on :D)

I think we should all refer to both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il by their full names. It gets kind of unnerving when you call them 'Kim.'



Actually, from what I've read, about 25% of all Koreans have "Kim" as their surname.

Actually, from what I've read, about 25% of all Koreans have "Kim" as their surname.

Oh yes, I know that. But talking about how Kim might be suicidal get's kind of creepy for us Kim's out there.

VOA is still around, actually... hasn't been gone. The problem with radios and such is that its nearly impossible to get any information into N. Korea. As for the dictatorship... it's still a communist state. That means there will most likely be another party member to replace him. The USSR didn't collapse after Stalin, but who knows, the world might get lucky. (And yes, I'll be sure to refer to Kim Jong-Il by his full name from now on :D)
Well, over there anyway. I don't think we have anything with VOA going on in South Korea.

And yes, the USSR didn't collapse after stalin, but it did after Gorbachev. Remember, they're currently on their second leader, and are in worse straights then the Russians back in the 80's. I don't think they can pull a china, the market for cheap labors a bit saturated, nor do they really have the strength to keep an iron grip on the country while trying to make it able to feed itself. It could happen.

Well, over there anyway. I don't think we have anything with VOA going on in South Korea.

And yes, the USSR didn't collapse after stalin, but it did after Gorbachev. Remember, they're currently on their second leader, and are in worse straights then the Russians back in the 80's. I don't think they can pull a china, the market for cheap labors a bit saturated, nor do they really have the strength to keep an iron grip on the country while trying to make it able to feed itself. It could happen.
But Gorby didn't die...

Well, over there anyway. I don't think we have anything with VOA going on in South Korea.

And yes, the USSR didn't collapse after stalin, but it did after Gorbachev. Remember, they're currently on their second leader, and are in worse straights then the Russians back in the 80's. I don't think they can pull a china, the market for cheap labors a bit saturated, nor do they really have the strength to keep an iron grip on the country while trying to make it able to feed itself. It could happen.


The thing is, though, the way the North Korean government is acting nowadays, they might not care that their people are starving.

It sounds like a real-life version of 1984. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to alter Korean to reinforce faith in the government.

Frankly I fail to see what all the fuss is over North Korea.

Do nothing.

That's worked well enough for fifty years, after all.

Should Kim think he's doomed or cornered, he might just act irrationally.
so...lets keep trying to corner him...we might get lucky one of these days :D
http://www.ki4u.com/nuke-bomb1.jpg

But Gorby didn't die...
You know what I mean. Whoever was before Gorby.

Would've been nice if Clinton took North Korea out in his first term, as opposed to bargaining with one of the most evil men of our time. :rolleyes:

Would've been nice if Clinton took North Korea out in his first term, as opposed to bargaining with one of the most evil men of our time. :rolleyes:


No it really wouldn't. A sudden collapse of North Korea would hold disastrous effects for the entire region. And if Clinton had moved to invade, the ensuing war would have killed millions. He made the right call with his decision.

No it really wouldn't. A sudden collapse of North Korea would hold disastrous effects for the entire region. And if Clinton had moved to invade, the ensuing war would have killed millions. He made the right call with his decision.

I say we strike a deal with China, and let them invade. Well, that won't work in real life, South Korea will be pissed as fuck. I say North Korea will go the way of the Soviet Union, with slow decline until a leader finally appears that brings it all down in one dramatic decline. Or China does invade.

Actually, why not just leave North Korea alone? Growing numbers of South Koreans oppose our presence there, and protest against the US troops and bases regularly. Pull that entire force out, and let the South Korean government practice its "Sunshine Policy" without a US military umbrella to save their asses if something goes wrong. After all, the US has no vital interests in the area. All we're doing is risking war and a possible nuclear attack on the West Coast in exchange for walking the tightrope of appeasing a crazy dictatorship and the privilege of seeing Korean students protest against us in the streets of Seoul. They don't need us anymore, so let's leave and start treating both countries like adults who can solve their problems without Uncle Sam holding their hand every step of the way.

Would've been nice if Bush took North Korea out in his first term, as opposed to bargaining with one of the most evil men of our time. :rolleyes:

Quote obviously modified.

Anyways, I agree with the previous person, we should do nothing...for now, anyways. The second they set foot in south korea, gloves off. Second they set foot in china...well, china has its ways of dealing with that. Second it starts firing off its missiles, so do we.

Though I agree with better diplomatic and buisness ties with them.

Edit: Give south korea a few nukes, with just enough range to level Pyongyang, and a couple other large cities.

Actually, why not just leave North Korea alone? Growing numbers of South Koreans oppose our presence there, and protest against the US troops and bases regularly. Pull that entire force out, and let the South Korean government practice its "Sunshine Policy" without a US military umbrella to save their asses if something goes wrong. After all, the US has no vital interests in the area. All we're doing is risking war and a possible nuclear attack on the West Coast in exchange for walking the tightrope of appeasing a crazy dictatorship and the privilege of seeing Korean students protest against us in the streets of Seoul. They don't need us anymore, so let's leave and start treating both countries like adults who can solve their problems without Uncle Sam holding their hand every step of the way.

A lot of products are made in Korea. Cars, trinkets, asian foodstuffs. As for our troops there, a gradual reduction while we replace them with South Korean forces, and then, we pull out. Lets do this over 20 years. We have to let South Korea walk on its own.

any attempt to launch one will turn his country into glass.
I thought that only worked if the country was made of sand?

I thought that only worked if the country was made of sand?

Well isn't rock just large grains of sand?

Actually, why not just leave North Korea alone? Growing numbers of South Koreans oppose our presence there, and protest against the US troops and bases regularly. Pull that entire force out, and let the South Korean government practice its "Sunshine Policy" without a US military umbrella to save their asses if something goes wrong. After all, the US has no vital interests in the area. All we're doing is risking war and a possible nuclear attack on the West Coast in exchange for walking the tightrope of appeasing a crazy dictatorship and the privilege of seeing Korean students protest against us in the streets of Seoul. They don't need us anymore, so let's leave and start treating both countries like adults who can solve their problems without Uncle Sam holding their hand every step of the way.

This is a painfully bad argument. Any economist could tell you that their problem is the US's problem too. The US economy is intertwined tightly with both the Japanese and Chinese economies, as well as the Korean to a somewhat lesser extent, which would be undoubtedly affected by any war. Who is buying the US debt, might I point out?
The world is not a black and white picture mate. The US cannot do whatever the hell it wants and it is not simply present in South Korea as a favor. It is looking after its interests, pure and simple, which are met so long as everything is stable.

A lot of products are made in Korea. Cars, trinkets, asian foodstuffs. As for our troops there, a gradual reduction while we replace them with South Korean forces, and then, we pull out. Lets do this over 20 years. We have to let South Korea walk on its own.

*chokes on his coffee* 20 years!? Jesus Christ man, are you daft? Pull all US troops out as fast as we can load them on planes and their gear on ships. There are only about 30 000 there anyway. The ROKs will be able to augment their own forces by that much inside of two years. I realize a lot of stuff is made in South Korea, but that's no special reason why American lives should be put at risk. KIA cars aren't that important.

Chellis, I like your thinking. Too many people insist on non-proliferation at all costs, yet fail to realize that nuclear weapons do have their uses. For example, Pakistan and India have gone to war three times since 1947. Now that they've both got nukes, chances that they'll go to war again? Slim to none.

This is a painfully bad argument. The dumbest economist could tell you that their problem is the US's problem too. The US economy is intertwined tightly with both the Japanese and Chinese economies, as well as the Korean to a somewhat lesser extent, which would be undoubtedly affected by any war. Who is buying the US debt, might I point out?
The world is not a black and white picture mate. The US cannot do whatever the hell it wants and it is not simply present in South Korea as a favor. It is looking after its interests, pure and simple, which are met so long as everything is stable.

So just because they're buying T-Bills, we should repay the favor putting our troops in harm's way? Also, China and Japan have very little to do with North Korea. If the DPRK tried an attack on either one, it'd be a fiasco at best and national suicide at worst for the North Koreans. "Painfully bad argument," indeed. :rolleyes:

I thought that only worked if the country was made of sand?

Fine, let's substitute "a parking lot" for the word glass. Good enough for you, Mr. Nitpicker? :p

So just because they're buying T-Bills, we should repay the favor putting our troops in harm's way? Protection of interests. Its the US's choice to be there.

Also, China and Japan have very little to do with North Korea.
They have plenty to do with South Korea. :rolleyes:

If the DPRK tried an attack on either one, it'd be a fiasco at best and national suicide at worst for the North Koreans. "Painfully bad argument," indeed. :rolleyes:

If the DPRK tried anything, it would likely be in the event of an otherwise imminent implosion of leadership.

And while we are at it, :rolleyes:

COMMENTARY: What to do with North Korea? They prevaricate, obfuscate, even sometimes try to placate, but they just keep right on developing nuclear weapons. This situation reminds me of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" missions to Nazi Germany: "Perhaps if we give Hitler part of Checzoslovakia he'll go away. Perhaps if we allow Germany to merge with Austria? Perhaps if we don't get all upset when he moves into the Sedatenland?"



Wow, I strongly suggest you do more research into the situation. North Korea was labelled one of the 9 countries of the axis of evil by George W Bush in his speech in relation to removing certain dictatorships from power.

This speech scared North Korea so they asked if USA would sign a non-aggression treaty and George W Bush refused saying he had no interest to sign it! North Korea THEN kicked out the UN inspectors and started to develop nuclear weapons. Note they kicked out UN inspectors after Bush and C. Rice noted they would not under any circumstances sign a non-aggression treaty with North Korea, NOT BEFORE!

You cannot blame North Korea for their actions as they are doing what they are do for self preservation. If you were the leader you would do the same. Today the situation is that they have or are about to have these weapons and have an ally in communist China.

The above is factual, check BBC news and do your research the articles on this are there!

Anyone who rips me for being anti-American is wrong. I am pro-American, however I am frustrated when I see a leader who does not learn from history leading the nation. Bush went after Iraq with a zeal because he was frustrated with Saddam over his disrespect for America. I understand why he did it but it was foolish because his advisors told him there would be an increase in terrorism as a result which there has been (plus of course the precident has now been set where if a country disagrees with the UN they can just go ahead and do whatever they want anyhow - as Bush did in Iraq. We will pay for Bush's precident sometime in the future when some leader does as Bush did to his enemy except he uses nuclear weapons...). The US economy is running a huge deficit because of the war in Iraq which will hurt the US in the long run. A strong military is dependant on a strong economy which is why China is snapping up major US companies such as Unocal (which is even more frustrating that the US government does not block this sale as there is no way a US company could buy a Chinese company).

Again, I support America, however I do not support a leader who has no foresight and is hurting the nation because of his economic policies, or lack of wise economic policies as exists in this case.

North Korea can flatten Seoul with conventional artillery in minutes, since the whole city is rather close to the border, just north of which sit several artillery armies. If you can imagine thousands of shells and rockets raining down on a Western city ... that's one salvo.

I suppose the US could carpet-nuke the whole border, thus destroying the North Korean artillery positions. South Korea will no doubt have a thousand thoughts to express on the matter - gratitude is unlikely to be one of them. :rolleyes:

It would be like the Parisians standing in their burning city in Team America, being told "Don't worry, we have saved you from the terrorists!"

I doubt the Chinese would be happy to watch that scenario play out either.

The most responsible thing to do is to wait for the country to collapse. The views of North Korea's immediate neighbours count for a lot more than those of America, and any pre-emptive attack on the country would be an automatic assumption of responsibility for the consequences. We should have learned by now, that if a war is to be started, it is best in the long term, to let the enemy assume the guilt.

Protection of interests. Its the US's choice to be there.


They have plenty to do with South Korea. :rolleyes:

If the DPRK tried anything, it would likely be in the event of an otherwise imminent implosion of leadership.

And while we are at it, :rolleyes:


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You sure like those emoticons, don't you? "Mr. President, we cannot allow a rolleye gap!"

If the DPRK's leadership was about to implode, and they tried some kind of last-gasp gamble, why would US troops be required to quell their attack? I'm sure the regional powers would do a dandy job of it on their own. Likewise, I'm sure the South Korean economy will keep rolling right along without US troops watching over it every minute of the day.

This speech scared North Korea so they asked if USA would sign a non-aggression treaty and George W Bush refused saying he had no interest to sign it! North Korea THEN kicked out the UN inspectors and started to develop nuclear weapons. Note they kicked out UN inspectors after Bush and C. Rice noted they would not under any circumstances sign a non-aggression treaty with North Korea, NOT BEFORE!

I have one quibble with what you wrote, namely that North Korea was doing work on nuclear weapons long before Bush ever made the Axis of Evil speech. Long before he was even president, in fact. They just chose to make their weaponry public as a result of his uncompromising stance, that's all.

North Korea can flatten Seoul with conventional artillery in minutes, since the whole city is rather close to the border, just north of which sit several artillery armies. If you can imagine thousands of shells and rockets raining down on a Western city ... that's one salvo.

I suppose the US could carpet-nuke the whole border, thus destroying the North Korean artillery positions. South Korea will no doubt have a thousand thoughts to express on the matter - gratitude is unlikely to be one of them. :rolleyes:

They could probably wreck the NorKor artillery with conventional weapons, too. And let's not forget that, though the artillery could absolutely ruin Seoul, there's still the matter of the tens of thousands of landmines in the DMZ. The North Koreans would still be no closer to overrunning the place than they were before the war.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You sure like those emoticons, don't you? I'm just working with what you've been giving me.

If the DPRK's leadership was about to implode, and they tried some kind of last-gasp gamble, why would US troops be required to quell their attack? Historically this has not always been the case. Right now it is, which is why the US is toning down efforts there, but in the past the DPRK was seemingly much more willing to invade. So the US was there as an overarching deterrent, as well as part of its Cold War policy.

Currently, the US is there less as a point of deterrence, since the South Koreans could feasibly do the job now, but as a way of maintaining political influence in a region where its influence has been steadily declining since the late 60s and in which the only likely competitor for the US in the next 20 years, China, is fast gaining sway.

I'm sure the regional powers would do a dandy job of it on their own. Do you know anything on East Asian history? Getting China and Japan to do anything together at this point would be near impossible, especially a military exercise. Maybe one or both of them might step up (theoretically, if NK did anything to South Korea, it would likely target sites in Japan as well), but not both.

And let's not forget that, though the artillery could absolutely ruin Seoul, there's still the matter of the tens of thousands of landmines in the DMZ. The North Koreans would still be no closer to overrunning the place than they were before the war.
They won't have to over-run anything, they won't even try. All they have to do is fire a couple of salvos and the city burns. But if North Korea starts it, then all ends well for the allies. If it's America that starts it...LMAO. That's going to be a tricky one to explain. :p

It sounds like a real-life version of 1984.

Literally. All they need is the two-minutes hate to complete the picture.

Historically this has not always been the case. Right now it is, which is why the US is toning down efforts there, but in the past the DPRK was seemingly much more willing to invade. So the US was there as an overarching deterrent, as well as part of its Cold War policy.

I'm well aware of the history of the Cold War and the Korean "police action," thank you very much. It's irrelevant to deciding whether American troops should stay or not.


Currently, the US is there less as a point of deterrence, since the South Koreans could feasibly do the job now, but as a way of maintaining political influence in a region where its influence has been steadily declining since the late 60s and in which the only likely competitor for the US in the next 20 years, China, is fast gaining sway.

And what kind of influence are they getting? Whatever it is, I'm not sure it's worth the potential cost of, say, Los Angeles being turned into a parking lot.


Do you know anything on East Asian history? Getting China and Japan to do anything together at this point would be near impossible, especially a military exercise. Maybe one or both of them might step up (theoretically, if NK did anything to South Korea, it would likely target sites in Japan as well), but not both.

Thanks for stating the blindingly obvious. Here's your sign.

No it really wouldn't. A sudden collapse of North Korea would hold disastrous effects for the entire region. And if Clinton had moved to invade, the ensuing war would have killed millions. He made the right call with his decision.
There is no progress without pain, and all Clinton did was postpone the inevitable. The country will collapse, regardless, and cause disaster, regardless.
North Korea had no capacity to wage a nuclear war, and Clinton had a very powerful military. Why not use it and put him out of commission.

Quote obviously modified.
:rolleyes: The oppurtinity to invade North Korea was presented to Clinton first. No other threats in his first term.

There is no progress without pain, and all Clinton did was postpone the inevitable. The country will collapse, regardless, and cause disaster, regardless.
North Korea had no capacity to wage a nuclear war, and Clinton had a very powerful military. Why not use it and put him out of commission.

...
Clinton probably did not want to lose Seoul to the North Korean artillery and short-range missiles.

Why Clinton "do nothing"?
Cause the China and Russia don't want? (and this contry can destruct more than one cities on the us west coast)

Who accept than North Korea have the bomb, if it's not one off his allied?
When their allied want they have no more bomb, they will stop to give them Uranium.

It's like stupid to compare Nazi's and this pathetic "power"

There is no progress without pain, and all Clinton did was postpone the inevitable. The country will collapse, regardless, and cause disaster, regardless.
North Korea had no capacity to wage a nuclear war, and Clinton had a very powerful military. Why not use it and put him out of commission.


:rolleyes: The oppurtinity to invade North Korea was presented to Clinton first. No other threats in his first term.

I bet the South Koreans wouldn't have gone along with this, which effectively scuttles your plan.