North Korea -- What should be do?

Quote: Wizard

Sometimes war is the lesser of multiple evils. Casualty counts are the kind of thing that must be considered in taking any military action. If I had a son in South Korea I might consider his odds better with 10,000 casualties than the possibility of 10,000,000 if North Korea develops and uses nuclear weapons. Even if there is a 1% chance of that, the expected casualties of not acting would be 100,000 -- 10x as much as 10,000.

I don't think North Korea ever intends to use any nukes against anyone, it's just blackmail to get money.

Quote: DRich

What is necessary war?

World War 2
Mexican War (aka "War of Mexican Aggression")
US Civil War
British defense of Falkland Islands
Israeli defense in 1967, 1973

To name just a few.

Quote: Nareed

I don't think North Korea ever intends to use any nukes against anyone, it's just blackmail to get money.

As blackmail goes, it is a pretty effective strategy.

Quote: Pacomartin

But if there is widespread famine among 25 million people, than it will cause havoc in America as well.

Why? I don't care if 25 million so-called people starve to death. Korean, Chinese, Russian, ... they've all had widespread famines that never affected anything inside our borders. Stalin starved millions of people to death, Mao's "iron rice bowl" was propaganda, there were famines... he covered it up. Korea is perpetually near starvation but the propagandists eat well.

Everytime there are those ads on TV about starving people in Arica, I write protest letters to the TV stations.
I do not think we should allow US citizens to return from those cesspit countries: you like garbage so much, wallow in it!

If they can not afford to BUY food... why should we care about them at all?

Quote: Pacomartin

As blackmail goes, it is a pretty effective strategy.

They may also be using them as defense against attack. You don't attack someone with nukes.

Seriously. What can they do? Nuke South Korea? For what? Nuke China? they'd get nuked back ten-fold. Ditto if they nuke the US for some reason. IN fact, if North Korea ever uses nukes, it might be against their own people if they ever get out of line.

Quote: Nareed

They may also be using them as defense against attack. You don't attack someone with nukes.

That is the primary reason any nation uses nukes. But in order to be a credible defense, the opposing nation has to believe that you have some reasonable first strike capability. If you think about it, the difference between an actual first strike, and responding on the first day of a war is not that different from a logistics standpoint.

Liquid fueled rockets for nuke delivery take TIME.... and invite a pre-emptory strike even though it just might severe sabre rattling.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Syria is actually a bigger problem for the U.S. Using chemical weapons against children, and getting videotape of victims on media outlets around the world has taken things to a whole new level. The Trump administration will have to take decisive action, Russian friends or nyet.

Not to diminish what is going on in Syria, but I'm far more worried about North Korea. Syria is at least a civil war in a small country that isn't making threats against anybody else, except I would imagine that they are not exactly in love with Israel.

Meanwhile, North Korea poses a large military threat to its neighbors and is actively trying to develop a nuclear ICBM capable of reaching the US.

I don't know any figures off the top of my head, but I would be interested to see a comparison of deaths in Syria from war to North Korea of famine.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Syria is actually a bigger problem for the U.S. Using chemical weapons against children, and getting videotape of victims on media outlets around the world has taken things to a whole new level. The Trump administration will have to take decisive action, Russian friends or nyet.

Looks like you got your wish.

Quote: Nareed

Any war undertaken in self-defense, or in defense of a third country, against an invading or occupying force or a clear and present danger.

I think that statement is so broad it borders on ridiculous. What is self defense? When is a threat imminent? Why is letting a third party occupy your territory worse than losing human lives? What is the value of a single human life? What is the value of a 100,000 lives? Where should we draw the lines?

I am both conservative and liberal and i don't believe there is a right answer for any of the above. I don't think war is ever necessary it is just a matter of where we individually decide to value personal freedom and choices. How drastically would the world change if we lost 700 million people (10%)?