Why has there never been appetite for a North Korean military intervention?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of intervention. I think the Iraq War was a huge mistake and I think it's right we've stayed out of Syria.
But of all the places in the world, North Korea is the one that requires an intervention.
Why? Because the North Korean situation is the greatest atrocity in modern history, on par with everything the Nazis did. You just have to look at what goes on in their camps to feel ashamed of being human.
Of course, the nuclear issue is what keeps the regime safe. But we know they cannot mount a nuclear warhead on a missile yet. They cannot retaliate against the US.
They can still retaliate against South Korea with conventional weapons. But a swift military operation to destroy their airfields and artillery sites - which the US must know the locations of - would surely be possible.
I suppose everyone is hoping for the country to just collapse. But what happens if they develop a nuclear missile before then? The regime will then be completely untouchable, and a madman would have a credible nuclear threat.
But of all the places in the world, North Korea is the one that requires an intervention.
Why? Because the North Korean situation is the greatest atrocity in modern history, on par with everything the Nazis did. You just have to look at what goes on in their camps to feel ashamed of being human.
Of course, the nuclear issue is what keeps the regime safe. But we know they cannot mount a nuclear warhead on a missile yet. They cannot retaliate against the US.
They can still retaliate against South Korea with conventional weapons. But a swift military operation to destroy their airfields and artillery sites - which the US must know the locations of - would surely be possible.
I suppose everyone is hoping for the country to just collapse. But what happens if they develop a nuclear missile before then? The regime will then be completely untouchable, and a madman would have a credible nuclear threat.
Scroll to see replies
No oil innit.
Maybe as China & India increase their wage rates, the cheap labour may be appealing eventually.
Maybe as China & India increase their wage rates, the cheap labour may be appealing eventually.
(edited 10 years ago)
No oil, No resources, China
Distance
Distance
P.S Glad the BBC propaganda got to you, comparing North Korean prisons to the Nazi's
If anything guantanamo bay is a much closer resemblance but you wont see that analogy on television
If anything guantanamo bay is a much closer resemblance but you wont see that analogy on television
Original post by Bill_Gates
No oil, No resources, China
Distance
Distance
China is growing tired of the North's aggressive rhetoric. We'll have to see if they veto the security council resolution.
Original post by Bill_Gates
P.S Glad the BBC propaganda got to you, comparing North Korean prisons to the Nazi's
If anything guantanamo bay is a much closer resemblance but you wont see that analogy on television
If anything guantanamo bay is a much closer resemblance but you wont see that analogy on television
So you mean that the UN is lying about the hundreds of thousands that have died in Prisoner Camps or do millions need to die in camps before we start comparing North Korea to nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia ?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Kemalist
No oil innit.
Maybe as China & India increase their wage rates, the cheap labour may be appealing eventually.
Maybe as China & India increase their wage rates, the cheap labour may be appealing eventually.
Original post by Bill_Gates
No oil, No resources, China
Distance
Distance
The US has absolutely no need to get oil through war. They are predicted, by pretty much everyone, to become the largest oil producer in the world soon. They have more than enough under their own soil. Yet they would be far more likely to intervene in Syria or even Iran then in North Korea.
Original post by Bill_Gates
P.S Glad the BBC propaganda got to you, comparing North Korean prisons to the Nazi's
If anything guantanamo bay is a much closer resemblance but you wont see that analogy on television
If anything guantanamo bay is a much closer resemblance but you wont see that analogy on television
More the UN report and previous reports.
I'm getting pretty tired of people saying the US is the worst country in the world. Yes, they do terrible things in Guantanamo, yes they are not as free as they pretend, yes they have their own things to answer to, but they are not close to NK. A child won't be born and raised in Guantanomo, starved and tortured for life, because of something a family member allegedly did before they were even born.
Original post by paddyman4
The US has absolutely no need to get oil through war. They are predicted, by pretty much everyone, to become the largest oil producer in the world soon. They have more than enough under their own soil. Yet they would be far more likely to intervene in Syria or even Iran then in North Korea.
Exactly. There is absolutely nothing the US will achieve. If they intervene, they will also have to oversee the introduction of a new stable government which respects "democratic rights," new constitution, new stuff etc etc. and also will have to rebuild the economy from scratch. Too much effort.
And all this in a country which borders both China and Russia. Daring, don't you think?
(edited 10 years ago)
Also, there was an invasion of North Korea. It failed because of millions of Chinese soldiers poured over the border.
North Korea would be a very difficult place to invade. Something like 70% of the land is mountainous and the other 20% is made up of rice paddies and flood plains. Due to the terrain, infantry would play the major role and, as the land heavily favours the defender, the North Koreans would simply have to dig in and they could inflict massive casualties. They have been digging in for 50 years now.
Furthermore, Seoul is only 35 miles from the North Korean border and there are estimated to be around 10,000 or so North Korean artillery pieces aimed right at it. Just a small bombardment of Seoul would result in heavy civilian casualties.
While North Korea is definately operating a horrifying system of prison camps, it would simply cost too much in blood and treasure to do anything.
Furthermore, Seoul is only 35 miles from the North Korean border and there are estimated to be around 10,000 or so North Korean artillery pieces aimed right at it. Just a small bombardment of Seoul would result in heavy civilian casualties.
While North Korea is definately operating a horrifying system of prison camps, it would simply cost too much in blood and treasure to do anything.
(edited 10 years ago)
A war with North Korea would be slaughter on a scale almost unimaginable. They have next to no technology or capability for war. They would send hundreds of thousands, if not millions to their deaths - and then what? Despite the holocaust that is North Korea being laid bare - the idiot care bears in this country would blame "the West" for all the unnecessary deaths. You can't have intervention against a basket case nation with an alien mentality AND avoid killing them.
What country wants to deal with millions of brainwashed Koreans?
1. Even though China are getting increasingly fed up with North Korea, they aren't really keen on the idea of the US invading and occupying their doorstep.
2. The level of ideological control. Most people tend to assume it's like the old Eastern Bloc, but really it's in a different league.
3. Who's going to pay for it? The GDP per capita ratio between North and South Korea is about 18:1 (for comparison, between West and East Germany in 1990 it was about 3:1 - and East Germany had a noticeably smaller proportion of Germany's total population than North Korea does of Korea's). Neither China, nor the US, nor South Korea want to pay to cover that gap.
4. It would be a blatant violation of international law. Horrible as the North Korean regime is, from a legal perspective they haven't really done anything to legitimise an invasion.
2. The level of ideological control. Most people tend to assume it's like the old Eastern Bloc, but really it's in a different league.
3. Who's going to pay for it? The GDP per capita ratio between North and South Korea is about 18:1 (for comparison, between West and East Germany in 1990 it was about 3:1 - and East Germany had a noticeably smaller proportion of Germany's total population than North Korea does of Korea's). Neither China, nor the US, nor South Korea want to pay to cover that gap.
4. It would be a blatant violation of international law. Horrible as the North Korean regime is, from a legal perspective they haven't really done anything to legitimise an invasion.
Original post by anarchism101
1. Even though China are getting increasingly fed up with North Korea, they aren't really keen on the idea of the US invading and occupying their doorstep.
2. The level of ideological control. Most people tend to assume it's like the old Eastern Bloc, but really it's in a different league.
3. Who's going to pay for it? The GDP per capita ratio between North and South Korea is about 18:1 (for comparison, between West and East Germany in 1990 it was about 3:1 - and East Germany had a noticeably smaller proportion of Germany's total population than North Korea does of Korea's). Neither China, nor the US, nor South Korea want to pay to cover that gap.
4. It would be a blatant violation of international law. Horrible as the North Korean regime is, from a legal perspective they haven't really done anything to legitimise an invasion.
2. The level of ideological control. Most people tend to assume it's like the old Eastern Bloc, but really it's in a different league.
3. Who's going to pay for it? The GDP per capita ratio between North and South Korea is about 18:1 (for comparison, between West and East Germany in 1990 it was about 3:1 - and East Germany had a noticeably smaller proportion of Germany's total population than North Korea does of Korea's). Neither China, nor the US, nor South Korea want to pay to cover that gap.
4. It would be a blatant violation of international law. Horrible as the North Korean regime is, from a legal perspective they haven't really done anything to legitimise an invasion.
3)You dont necessarily have to unite the two Koreas. Just oust the old regime and guide N.Korea away from communism.
The income gap would disappear in about a generation if other Asian countries are anything to go by. Compare China with Japan in 1970 for instance and now.
4)Pretty sure international law also outlaws enslaving/torturing/killing your own citizens?
China is opposed, I remember hearing a reason for this which was there is potential for a mass exodus of people out of North Korea into China if intervention occurs and people flee North Korea.
Seriously... you guys are aware there was this thing called the Korean War right?
When a UN force pulled N.Korea's pants down and tanned it's arse, then big brother China got involved and a de facto peace came into play which is why we have the DMZ at the 38th Parallel.
Why would the UN get involved? There are still treatises and understandings in place between the NATO countries and Russia and China in regards to a lot of territorial and military movement restrictions left over from the Cold War. Though it would be unlikely Russia could take exception to An invasion of N. Korea, especially if it risks destabilizing a country close to their doorstep not to mention the undesirable prospect of having American forces that little bit closer to their borders.
When a UN force pulled N.Korea's pants down and tanned it's arse, then big brother China got involved and a de facto peace came into play which is why we have the DMZ at the 38th Parallel.
Why would the UN get involved? There are still treatises and understandings in place between the NATO countries and Russia and China in regards to a lot of territorial and military movement restrictions left over from the Cold War. Though it would be unlikely Russia could take exception to An invasion of N. Korea, especially if it risks destabilizing a country close to their doorstep not to mention the undesirable prospect of having American forces that little bit closer to their borders.
Original post by Zürich
3)You dont necessarily have to unite the two Koreas. Just oust the old regime and guide N.Korea away from communism.
Possibly, but I think you underestimate the strength of Korean nationalism, even in South Korea.
The income gap would disappear in about a generation if other Asian countries are anything to go by. Compare China with Japan in 1970 for instance and now.
Well, sort of. While the income gap between Japan and China has substantially closed in the last couple of decades, it's still pretty big - Japan's GDP per capita is still about four times that of China. Using European countries as an analogy, Japan's GDP per capita is similar to that of Britain or France, whereas China's is similar to that of Albania or Bosnia.
4)Pretty sure international law also outlaws enslaving/torturing/killing your own citizens?
It may sound surprising, but not really, no.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel A-Level Geography Paper 2 | [6th June 2023] Exam Chat
- Korean military service and Uni
- Two-year leave of absence for the military service
- any koreans?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- I have some question about ICL
- Which course do i pick?
- Applying to Study Korean - My Experience
- If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Do Japanese/ Korean girls like Indian/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh guys?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- 💜 BTS 💜
- Acne
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Korean Studies Sheffield
- Southerners - Could You Live Up North?
- y13 - growing my grades , jack and the beanstalk ver
- How come the NK Flag is on here?
- Can anyone here speak an asian language?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
