It's such a shame that i the past we have offered many olive branches and concessions to NK and in return they just carry on with threats and provocative behaviour....how long can this go on for?
North Korea
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
It's such a shame that i the past we have offered many olive branches and concessions to NK and in return they just carry on with threats and provocative behaviour....how long can this go on for?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,525
Why don't you sign up to the army so you fight them then?
Or expect others to die whilst you sit back?
While I am not an advocate of needless warfare and certainly not a supporter of Trump, I cannot see any advantage to letting North Korea have a functional nuclear deterrent. Doing so buys the regime security internationally. Nuclear armed states can act more belligerently and get away with it because they are stronger and people don't want to mess with them. Secondly, if they suddenly secure their position internationally and you cease pressuring them out of fear that they continue to develop a more sophisticated nuclear arsenal or increase its size or, worst of all, use it, then you condemn the civilian populace to suffer under arguably the world's cruelest regime.
North Korea should have been dealt with long ago.
Until they actually do something instead of just **** talk?
You talk about the people suffering but it is a long-held view among many analysts that western sanctions *only* hurt the civilian population, not the leadership.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/sanctions-against-north-k_b_10474178.html
(first result on Google, many more available)
That's sort of the point though, it's meant to pressure the leadership. If people are hungry they're more likely to revolt
I think you misunderstand NK - they've been quite open about the fact the ultimate "goal" of having nukes is to force the US to stand back while they retake the peninsula. Its pretty much the idea of their military first led society - not just about security but a goal, if a bit unrealistic, of one day being in a position to push back against the US aggressors and reunify the country.
They won't feel more secure and not attack anyone - they will just keep working towards their ostensibly ultimate goal.
EDIT: Not to say it isn't about security as it is partly that - especially after things like Iraq and Libya but it doesn't end there.
So punish the innocent until they are desperate enough to stage a futile peasants uprising against a nation with a ratio of military personnel to unarmed populace among the highest in the world?
Make them so desperate they're suicidal? And that sounds like a good, ethically justifiable position for the West to take?
Geez Louise.
Anyway history has shown that millions dying in NK does not cause revolt. It's already happened. Over half a million died in one bad famine iirc.
Until it happens it's just words.
NK knows what the consequences of attacking the South will be. Now and in future.
I agree it is just words that they might never actually be in any position to make good on but still - letting NK have nukes is a massive wildcard that likely won't end with just the leadership feeling more secure and things dying down a bit.
Yup - for a revolt like that to have any chance of succeeding they need both the ability to grow it in the urban centres and access to weapons, etc. and both in NK are heavily stacked against an uprising - much of their considerable military hardware is in storage guarded by loyalists and the urban centres are populated by a large percentage of the "elites" and the like who are kept with just enough they have something to lose compared to the larger population that it makes it hard for an uprising to grow there.
Soldato
Exactly, just look at what happens when you put it off, Iraq for example, should have removed Saddam in the 90s, the conflict was inevitable, as Saddams legacy of genocide, chemical weapons and harboring terrorists would have only been carried on by his psychopathic sons after his death.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,525
Lol what
Soldato
Never heard of this guy then? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/20/israel
And the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer was found in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Klinghoffer
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,525
Says it all. "We want to go to war"
Care to mention the number of attacks by Israel - IDF towards unarmed civilians?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...shot-head-unarmed-family-go-the-a7510411.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-charge-dropped-from-murder-to-a6962101.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...int-eliyahu-alfei-menashe-baraa-a7322456.html
And how Israel came to be.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I barged into your home, threw your children out your bedroom (this is now mine) then demanded a "buffer zone" and used violence on your family.
And in a few years time, encrouching further into your other rooms, so eventually all your family lives in the understairs toilet.
The two are not the same...
Well it's too late now, the US and Japan has lost it's chance to deal with NK and will now have to put up with a petulant child on their doorstep. I think China will regret holding back as well in the long run as it's a real disabling factor. NK are stupid enough to start threatening China as well.
Soldato
To be fair, i think China has been in a hard position recently. The new regime has treated China as everyone else, where as the old one was somewhat friendly and co-operative. Kim Jong Il told China in advance of anything major. He listened to China like a politician would, being forced to keep a less aggressive weapons development program and keep a more diplomatic approach to international relations. They did this by striking much needed trade deals and giving aid, as well as trading leverage in border disputes. Kim Jong Un threw this relationship out of the winodw and China is not exactly thrilled at having someone as brash and uncooperative as Un next door, more so since Trump has been around to poke at him.
China have tried to continue a diplomatic approach, in the hope of earning NK trust back and getting a grip on the situation. This seems ineffective in hindsight but it has been the most effective, safest and proven strategy for it in the past. China was the carrot, the US was the stick and NK a starving mule. Now Un is in power the work animal has been replaced with something wild and undomesticated.
China will be pivotal in settling the matter cleanly, one way or another.
China have tried to continue a diplomatic approach, in the hope of earning NK trust back and getting a grip on the situation. This seems ineffective in hindsight but it has been the most effective, safest and proven strategy for it in the past. China was the carrot, the US was the stick and NK a starving mule. Now Un is in power the work animal has been replaced with something wild and undomesticated.
China will be pivotal in settling the matter cleanly, one way or another.
Oh absolutely, there's no decent low-impact solution without China being on-board. But i feel the time taken for China to get on board gave NK the chance to get the nuke. China was slow to act and has made a huge mis-step in doing so, now they have a rabid and messy dog in their back yard and can't do anything about it short of putting it down with huge casualties.
Even just 5 years ago China with US support would have put an end to NK with minimal issues. But with the media in both the west are seeing conspiracies everywhere because people are moving to the right of politics which makes governments scared to get on with each other
Associate
Don't seem to be seeing many doomsday crazies today.