Why Do Western Nations Nerf Their Military Responses?

[David Floyd]

In yet another example of a Western or Westernized nation backing down and essentially doing nothing in the face of aggression, South Korea has concluded North Korea intentionally sunk a South Korean warship, but is not willing to respond militarily.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051803094.html?hpid=topnews

Bunch of ****ing pussies, if you ask me. What good is having a military - a superior military, for that matter - if you aren't going to use it?

I mean, if, say, the PRC intentionally sunk a USN warship, I would expect military strikes to begin immediately. Not that that would happen, of course, because the US doesn't have the balls anymore to do so.

You know what started this bull****? Proportionate response doctrines. But **** that. In the nation-state/global sense, if you punch me in the face, I'm going to make you bite the curb while I stomp on the back of your head, straight up American History X style. That's how you stop a global bully - you ****ing kill him.

[DaShi]

Two wars are enough right now.

[David Floyd]

I'm talking about South Korea. South Korea could curbstomp the North without US assistance.

[DanS]

There's value sometimes in a curbstomping, although South Korea could deal more effectively with North Korea through other means.

[Ecofarm]

Lil Kim would love to send millions of his starving populace into the meat grinder. We don't need to give him an excuse to do so.


I'm a hawk, bigtime, but fighting nK is not reasonable unless absolutely necessary. Not because of the damage Kim might do to South Korea, but because of the damage he would do to his own people.

[Al B. Sure!]

From the Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin, the US has gone to war over similar incidents (although those were much more shady than this one it seems).

I'm speaking as someone who doesn't know much about S. Korea but S. Korea has never struck me as a particularly military-oriented nation. They seem perfectly fine producing their consumer electronics and playing StarCraft all day

[David Floyd]

I'm a hawk, bigtime, but fighting nK is not reasonable unless absolutely necessary. Not because of the damage Kim might do to South Korea, but because of the damage he would do to his own people.

Since when are we, or South Korea, responsible for what Kim Jong Il does to his own people. Goddamnit! That attitude is part of the problem!

[Ecofarm]

Dude, I support the immediate invasion and nation building of Iran because that would have purpose.

Inciting Kim to send literally millions into slaughter does not serve a purpose. North Korea is a poor, resource-less country that we cannot hope to nation build in and have a penny left for ourselves.


All we can do is press for change economically and diplomatically with nK. Nation building there is not reasonable and neither is inciting Kim to slaughter millions of his own. North Korea is a sht sandwich that I'm not willing to eat. Unless we spend every last dime we have to bring them into the 20th century after invasion, there's just no upside.

[David Floyd]

We/South Korea aren't inciting Kim to do anything of the sort. He started it by sinking a South Korean destroyer. Obviously, economic sanctions don't do ****. I guess it's time to start bombing Pyongyang and knocking over golden statues of Kim. If he decides to launch human wave attacks across the DMZ into South Korean killing fields, that's up to him.

[Ecofarm]

Well, I would not do that to the people of North Korea without a promise of a better tomorrow for them. I don't think it would be right. I put people ahead of politicians in my priorities.

[David Floyd]

That's a poor basis for foreign policy. The message it sends to Kim Jong Il is that he can do whatever the **** he wants without the threat of meaningful retaliation.

[Riesstiu IV]

Dude, I support the immediate invasion and nation building of Iran because that would have purpose.

That's stupid. We haven't even successfully nation built Iraq or Afghanistan and you advocate bombing then rebuilding a nation of 75 million?

[Ecofarm]

That's a poor basis for foreign policy. The message it sends to Kim Jong Il is that he can do whatever the **** he wants without the threat of meaningful retaliation.

Pretty much. That's how it is.

Unless you want to incite him into human waves, and can see a benefit from that... then that is how it will remain for the foreseeable future.

Like I said, it's a sht sandwich, and it's one we cannot afford to eat.


@Reis:

Let's not get off-topic. My point was to show David that I am not averse to military action.

[David Floyd]

I bet you wouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, either.

Also, that's why people like you don't get to run countries, and when they do (Jimmy Carter, for example), they do so in ways that spectacularly fail. Who the **** ever heard of letting rogue nations do as they please for fear of inciting them into launching a LOSING war?

[giblets]

Apparently trillions is a small price to pay to "liberate" middle eastern countries but we can't afford to occupy north korea.