Why Do Western Nations Nerf Their Military Responses?

[Wezil]

I put people ahead of politicians in my priorities.

Are you opposed to sanctions on NK?

[David Floyd]

And to clarify, I'm A-OK with inciting him into launching human wave assaults with his trained army, such as it is, inflicting a million casualties, and then ousting him from power.

For ****'s sake, North Korea is quite possibly supplying weapons technology to Iran. I don't care if you kill all of them. If the North Korean people don't like it, they quite frankly should have ousted the Stalinist regime decades ago.

[Ecofarm]

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

What? The a-bomb was merciful to BOTH sides.

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?

You've got me confused with someone else. Really... Carter??

I'm a hawk, but I'm also rational and fighting nK does not help us or the people of nK in any way. It confirms Kim's paranoid narrative within his closed press-corp and would change nothing.

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

Iraq does alot towards paying its own way in the rebuilding. nK could not. Also, Iraq was not as backwards as nK, as hard as that might be to believe, so there would be a much longer way to go.

Are you opposed to sanctions on NK?

As long as the sanctions involve military stuff and do not prevent food or medicine from being imported, then I do not see a moral quandry in them.

[David Floyd]

I'm a hawk, but I'm also rational and fighting nK does not help us or the people of nK in any way. It confirms Kim's paranoid narrative within his closed press-corp and would change nothing.

Fighting NK isn't about helping North Korea. It's about South Korea acting in self defense to end an ongoing hostile threat. Who cares how Kim Jong Il spins it? South Korea wins the war, bleeds North Korea dry, and then, guess what? North Korea is drastically reduced as a threat. China isn't going to intervene, because then the US would intervene, and China doesn't want that. As long as the South doesn't go after forcible reunification, China won't really do much. If the South's objective is a)winning the conventional war and b)regime change, they can make that work.

[Ecofarm]

If the South's objective is a)winning the conventional war and b)regime change, they can make that work.

I disagree.

a) There is no reason to believe Kim would keep it conventional in his death throes.

b) Nation building in a country with no democratic infrastructure at all and no natural resources would be a nightmare.

[David Floyd]

Fine, then they kill a ****load of NK soldiers and make North Korea look stupid. I'm also fine with that. The main point is, you don't get to launch a ****ing unprovoked attack on another nation's warship and expect to get away with it. What you should expect, if the other nation has the ability, is a DISproportionate response.

[Ecofarm]

Look dude, I totally get where you are coming from but we have got to look at context and consider the possible good and bad resulting from such an action. In this case, I can see no good. Thumping Kim is not going to change anything, it's just going to cost millions of innocent North Koreans their lives - without changing anything.

If anything, it would serve to solidify Kim's hold on the country via the propaganda he would produce off the event.


What's the upside? Being able to say we kicked the hell out of a backwards craphole of a country and caused their leader to suicide millions of them? We're supposed to be happy about that?

[David Floyd]

The response is a good unto itself. The result of not responding is more terrorist-type attacks. The US should have solved the problem during the USS Pueblo incident. That resolution, as far as I'm concerned, should have involved nuclear weapons, provided we got a commitment from the Soviets not to go to war over it. Absent that, we should have used all conventional means at our disposal to end the North Korean threat.

We didn't, and oh look. Now we still face the same problem. Funny how that works.

[Ecofarm]

It's not the same problem, it got worse.

nK has nukes now.

[Riesstiu IV]

The response is a good unto itself. The result of not responding is more terrorist-type attacks. The US should have solved the problem during the USS Pueblo incident. That resolution, as far as I'm concerned, should have involved nuclear weapons, provided we got a commitment from the Soviets not to go to war over it. Absent that, we should have used all conventional means at our disposal to end the North Korean threat.

We didn't, and oh look. Now we still face the same problem. Funny how that works.

So what would you have done after the attack on the USS Liberty?

[David Floyd]

And if uses them, he gets nuked into the Stone Age. What's your point?

Kim Jong Il is not launching a nuclear attack on South Korea, based on a SK response to the North Koreans sinking a destroyer. If he does, then the US responds with nuclear weapons in North Korea, or BETTER YET, we respond preemptively to disarm North Korea.

Look, my position is that we've been on this downward spiral of appeasement in our foreign policy since the end of WW2. If we took a tough, atomic backed stance against the Soviets over Eastern Europe/Berlin when we had a clear advantage, or at any point up through the early 1960s, we wouldn't have our current problems. Our policy should have been "strike first, strike hard, and strike last".

[David Floyd]

So what would you have done after the attack on the USS Liberty?

A SERIOUS and IMMEDIATE investigation into the incident, followed up with military strikes against Israel, with a corresponding threat that we would not allow Syria/Egypt to take advantage of the situation, either.

[Ecofarm]

That's a nice and dandy, but we must consider things as they exist now and weigh the pros and cons of action in the reality of today.

Beating up on nK is not going to help or change anything, unless we are willing to nation build and I really do not see that as possible with nK right now.

I hate that totaltarian regime as much as the next freedom-loving person; however, circumstance puts it pretty far down on my list of invasions. Without the promise of a brighter day for North Koreans, I'm not willing.

[David Floyd]

Yes, and the cons of not acting against North Korea are obvious - more attacks like the recent one against South Korea, coupled with an increasing amount of military aid to Iran and similar nations. Possible cons of acting could include North Korea using a nuclear weapon on South Korea or Japan, but that must be weighed against our ability to completely wipe North Korea off the map, and, in the case of an NK first strike, the fact that China and Russia would NOT seriously oppose such a move.

[Ecofarm]

I see where you are coming from and I agree with your philosophy, but circumstance in this instance dictate otherwise.


If you are worried about nK's involvement with Iran (especially long range missiles), then let's go there instead - at least we could make a lasting change and still have a dollar left in our pocket (and Iran doesn't have nukes... yet).