Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Iraq got invaded because Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, which it turned out he didn't. Whereas Kim most probably has and I don't see anybody invading North Korea?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The issue is that he actually has them. He might use them, which is the problem(NK is defo insane enough).

    Evidence has occured showing that ultimately, both US and UK went in after sadam fully aware he had no weapons of mass destruction. We went in safe in the knowledge of that fact.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    North Korea already has a sophisticated nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program and the launch methods to use them. It has the backing of China and the ability to do untold damage to South Korea. It has nothing to do with oil before the pseudo intellectuals get here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emre944)
    Iraq has oil, North Korea doesn't.
    Not this again. Oil output from invaded countries has dropped significantly since there invasion. Also the USA does not controll the oil once it has pulled out so has actually gained very little. They would have been far better off oil wise to leave Saddam in power.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    North Korea already has a sophisticated nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program and the launch methods to use them. It has the backing of China and the ability to do untold damage to South Korea. It has nothing to do with oil before the pseudo intellectuals get here.
    I believe this a grossly inaccurate synopsis of the Korean peninsula.

    Firstly, it would be wrong to call North Korea's WMD programme sophisticated. Given that countless amounts of unsuccessful weapon tests, the recycling use of Sino-Soviet technology and, contrary to your assertion, little to no practical methodology in applying the theoretical basis for the WMD programmes. The size of their nuclear arsenal, the majority of educated estimates believe is to 5-15 sub-50KT fission warheads, with might I add, no evidence to suggest they are deployable in any meaningful way. That however, isn't to understate the potential damage that five Hiroshima sized devices could do the region and the US, but I very much doubt their ability to successfully deploy them.

    Secondly, I have read no critical evidence to suggest that China has the "full backing" of the Chinese government. Quite the contrary infact, given China's previous "fury" and "frustration" with the North Korean. North Korea being a strategic ally in the Korean Peninsula is beginning to reap more detriments then it is benefits. Let us not forget UNSC Resolution 2094, which states:

    * Condemns in the strongest terms North Korea's ongoing nuclear activities, including its uranium enrichment program, and reaffirms the obligation on North Korea to abandon all existing nuclear, other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

    Which is had the full support of the Chinese representatives in the United Nations.

    That said, fully accept your point about South Korea. The sheer utility of force that North Korea has at its disposal to severely cause havoc and destruction in Seoul, on physical and economic scales is unprecedented given the amount of mobilised artillery stationed on the border that can easily, within minutes, issue a heavy artillery barrage. Herein lies the fundamental difference between the two conflicts. Operation Iraqi Freedom did not have the factor of unavoidable, untenable costs of a counter-action to any foreign invading force which the North Korean regime possess in respect to Seoul.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    I believe this a grossly inaccurate synopsis of the Korean peninsula.

    Firstly, it would be wrong to call North Korea's WMD programme sophisticated. Given that countless amounts of unsuccessful weapon tests, the recycling use of Sino-Soviet technology and, contrary to your assertion, little to no practical methodology in applying the theoretical basis for the WMD programmes. The size of their nuclear arsenal, the majority of educated estimates believe is to 5-15 sub-50KT fission warheads, with might I add, no evidence to suggest they are deployable in any meaningful way. That however, isn't to understate the potential damage that five Hiroshima sized devices could do the region and the US, but I very much doubt their ability to successfully deploy them.

    Secondly, I have read no critical evidence to suggest that China has the "full backing" of the Chinese government. Quite the contrary infact, given China's previous "fury" and "frustration" with the North Korean. North Korea being a strategic ally in the Korean Peninsula is beginning to reap more detriments then it is benefits. Let us not forget UNSC Resolution 2094, which states:

    * Condemns in the strongest terms North Korea's ongoing nuclear activities, including its uranium enrichment program, and reaffirms the obligation on North Korea to abandon all existing nuclear, other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.

    Which is had the full support of the Chinese representatives in the United Nations.

    That said, fully accept your point about South Korea. The sheer utility of force that North Korea has at its disposal to severely cause havoc and destruction in Seoul, on physical and economic scales is unprecedented given the amount of mobilised artillery stationed on the border that can easily, within minutes, issue a heavy artillery barrage. Herein lies the fundamental difference between the two conflicts. Operation Iraqi Freedom did not have the factor of unavoidable, untenable costs of a counter-action to any foreign invading force which the North Korean regime possess in respect to Seoul.
    Ok perhaps sophisticated was the wrong word. However in comparison to Saddam's it is mire advances. Also the US seems to think there is in their words a moderate chance that north Korea now has nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. They released a.report.suggesting a moderate chance then suddenly came out.saying the opposite.

    As for China sure they are clearly getting sick and tired of north Korea but they dont seem willingly to allow an unprovoked invasion of north Korea as well as this they are still propping on the nk regime. They vote for sanctions yet refuse to implement them. Perhaps again full support is.too strong a word but there is still a lot of support for nk.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrumpyCat)
    Evidence has occured showing that ultimately, both US and UK went in after sadam fully aware he had no weapons of mass destruction. We went in safe in the knowledge of that fact.
    No, there were intelligence reports available that suggested Iraq did have WMDs. It was a simply case of massive confirmation bias by Bush and Blair, that's all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IShouldBeRevising_)
    Iraq got invaded because Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, which it turned out he didn't. Whereas Kim most probably has and I don't see anybody invading North Korea?
    the DPRK has a much larger force than Saddam did and one which actually poses a threat with little upside from any invasion... no one was going to back Saddam up and he didnt have the power to lay waste to an industrial titan next door to him like the north koreans did, war would be a very bad thing for involved in the korean peninsular and on a wider global scale.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.