Does North Korea need to be an Arab state for war to be declared?

Watch
Meus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
I'm just curious. We went to war in Iraq because we were told Saddam Hussein was developing or was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Years later and countless dead, still no WMD but we still went there because the tooth fairy told us he had it.

Iran, we suspect they have intentions to develop WMD's and war looked inevitable at one point there but aggression towards it is still by default.

And then the North Koreans lift their considerably sized balls and place them on the table, and demonstrate they not only have developed WMD's but are testing them, and not one paper, not one source or journalist has even uttered the suggestion of war with the UN busying in writing resolutions and statements in how naughty the North have been.

Explain this to a noob please.
0
reply
Rlemkin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
They actually have nuclear weapons, the public gets upset at 10 casualties in a day, imagine the response to hundreds or thousands being killed. Also China is generally pro-NK.. or atleast would not support military action.

This isn't a very full explanation but i'm sure others will expand
0
reply
Sakujo
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 years ago
#3
Iraq pretty much fell out with the whole world so it was easy to invade as it had the support of most nations. N. Korea still has friends in terms of Russia and China which help it out in terms of resolutions. But the strength of their friendship is being tested and pressure is being applied by Western powers on Russia and China to cut ties with N. Korea.

Also, I think it has to do with selling the war. Being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, most countries don't want to be involved with N. Korea. Also, considering how we messed up Iraq and Afghanistan, no one wants to see a repeat. Excpet maybe with Iran but that's because they threaten the oil supply and scare Israel.

And finally, why would anyone want to invade N. Korea except maybe to help out the South.
0
reply
Abba Eban
Badges: 0
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
It seems like you're implying that Iran is an Arab nation. It is not.
0
reply
bourney
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
Just wait until they find oil under N.Korea, and watch the free for all commence.
0
reply
Joluk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 years ago
#6
The North Korean army far outmatches the Iraqi army, if the US invaded, they'd be faced with millions of angry brainwashed suicidal Korean soldiers.
0
reply
Locke54
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
Plus the fact that the British army is already overstretched with it's residual commitment in Iraq, it's increasing commitment in Afghanistan and it's various ongoing missions around the world (Sierra Leone, Kosovo etc) and the American army isn't in much better shape.

Of course the Chinese and possibly Russians would defend the North Koreans to the end of time in the United Nations, and if the US decided to go at it unilaterally (well probably with the help of Japan and South Korea) China and Russia would **** bricks and it'd cause a massive international crisis.
0
reply
DizzeeBlud
Badges: 0
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
yeah
0
reply
token
Badges: 0
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
(Original post by Meus)
I'm just curious. We went to war in Iraq because we were told Saddam Hussein was developing or was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Years later and countless dead, still no WMD but we still went there because the tooth fairy told us he had it.

Iran, we suspect they have intentions to develop WMD's and war looked inevitable at one point there but aggression towards it is still by default.

And then the North Koreans lift their considerably sized balls and place them on the table, and demonstrate they not only have developed WMD's but are testing them, and not one paper, not one source or journalist has even uttered the suggestion of war with the UN busying in writing resolutions and statements in how naughty the North have been.

Explain this to a noob please.

To answer your question, if North Korea were a relatively weaker nation with abundant resources (such as oil), then war would have been declared way back in 2004 when they started testing these WMDs.

Just this morning, North Korea threatened South Korea with heavy military response if they attempt to intercept and ensure that a North Korean cargo is not containing WMDs.

All the nations appear to be afraid that North Korea may unleash one of it's long range missiles on anybody who questions or challenges their power. This would lead to inevitable catastrophe. Not what the world needs at this time of difficulty.
0
reply
HJV
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 years ago
#10
I think the fact that North Korea has the fifth largest standing army in the world might have something to do with it. The joke of an Iraqi army was defeated over in a couple of days.

North Korea has over one million active personnel in their military and a reserve of almost eight million.

(Yes, that's five times as many active personnel as in the British Armed Forces right now. If you include reserves, the North Korean military is about 21 times the size of the British one).

On top of that, there's practically nothing of any value in North Korea.
0
reply
stefano
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 years ago
#11
Also, I'm not completely sure about this but is there any relevance in the fact that Kim Jong is going to die soon, and the hand over of power to his son could cause all sorts of internal disruption and dispute- maybe civil war or a split in the party will eliminate the global threat??
(Bit similar to the Zimbabwe situation and waiting for mugabe to die)
0
reply
Renal
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 years ago
#12
Iran has no resources worth fighting over.
Iran is half the world away.
Iran has a functional military.
Iran has powerful friends.
Nobody has the resources to do anything about it.

Compare and contrast...
0
reply
Byllie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 years ago
#13
Can we just clear up here, iran does not need invading, Israel can look after itself, as it has mercilessly demonstrated on a number of occassions
0
reply
CHEM1STRY
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 years ago
#14
(Original post by Byllie)
Can we just clear up here, iran does not need invading, Israel can look after itself, as it has mercilessly demonstrated on a number of occassions
If by itself you mean with millions of dollars of American backing, then I agree.
0
reply
The Bachelor
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 years ago
#15
Bush was kinda dumb anyway
0
reply
maths-enthusiast
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 years ago
#16
First of all, the underlying assumption in some posts is that the FZE (Failed Zionist Entity) needs to be protected by the UK or USA. Why is that?

The counterarguments brought also make the same assumptions, that the FZE needs to be protected, only that it can do it by its own self.

Back to the original thread, the reason is less to do with DPRK being an Arab or nonarab state and more to do with it actually owning WMD. If Iraq owned WMD, it too would not have been attacked. It's because it didn't own WMD, it was easy to attack.

Do you think Iraq or any other country would be attacked if they could send USA and UK back to stone age with a few nuclear weapons tipped ICBMs?
0
reply
Khanlario
Badges: 0
#17
Report 11 years ago
#17
hey man i love this thread. i so stole it and made it my fbook status thanks lol
0
reply
A Stranger in Moscow
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 years ago
#18
(Original post by maths-enthusiast)
First of all, the underlying assumption in some posts is that the FZE (Failed Zionist Entity) needs to be protected by the UK or USA. Why is that?

The counterarguments brought also make the same assumptions, that the FZE needs to be protected, only that it can do it by its own self.

Back to the original thread, the reason is less to do with DPRK being an Arab or nonarab state and more to do with it actually owning WMD. If Iraq owned WMD, it too would not have been attacked. It's because it didn't own WMD, it was easy to attack.

Do you think Iraq or any other country would be attacked if they could send USA and UK back to stone age with a few nuclear weapons tipped ICBMs?
Or you could just call it Israel.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 years ago
#19
(Original post by Meus)
I'm just curious. We went to war in Iraq because we were told Saddam Hussein was developing or was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Years later and countless dead, still no WMD but we still went there because the tooth fairy told us he had it.
Well, aside from the international law issue, Iraq's weapons and associated inspections were part of the ceasefire conditions imposed after the Gulf War. It was because they broke ceasefire conditions, rather than simply international law, that we saw it as justifiable to invade.

Plus, we're probably a bit scared of the North Koreans.
0
reply
Democracy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 years ago
#20
(Original post by Meus)
I'm just curious. We went to war in Iraq because we were told Saddam Hussein was developing or was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Years later and countless dead, still no WMD but we still went there because the tooth fairy told us he had it.

Iran, we suspect they have intentions to develop WMD's and war looked inevitable at one point there but aggression towards it is still by default.

And then the North Koreans lift their considerably sized balls and place them on the table, and demonstrate they not only have developed WMD's but are testing them, and not one paper, not one source or journalist has even uttered the suggestion of war with the UN busying in writing resolutions and statements in how naughty the North have been.

Explain this to a noob please.
Here's an explanation: Iran is not an Arab state.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (57)
17.27%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (93)
28.18%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (125)
37.88%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (44)
13.33%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (11)
3.33%

Watched Threads

View All