Why Do Western Nations Nerf Their Military Responses?

[Wezil]

Sanctions are the cowards way out. Nobody targeted by sanctions gives a good **** about them. That should probably tell you something.

I disagree and think sanctions can be effective. I don't delude myself into thinking the average person won't suffer however. For sanctions to work they have to truly bite.

DF - For the record, I'm somewhat in line with your thinking on NK. Quite frankly before the last round of sanctions NK claimed they would consider it an act of war. Their sinking of a SK ship would seem to confirm this. We should take them at their word.

[Ecofarm]

How about fertilizer Eco? Let it in?

Generally, yes; however, the types of fertilizer must be considered as some can be weaponized (potassium nitrate?) and those require substitutes.

For example, we gave Saddam enough agricultural anthrax to vaccinate Iraq's cattle... but Saddam weaponized it and let the cows die while the people starved. To make it worse, intellectually dishonest political hacks use that event to claim that the US provided Saddam with biological weapons.

We must be careful about what and how we provide aid and allow dangerous trade.


If we restrict fertilizer and other agricultural inputs, I would be against that; however, it could have weapon implications that need to be examined and (where possible) substitutes provided/traded.

[David Floyd]

I disagree and think sanctions can be effective. I don't delude myself into thinking the average person won't suffer however. For sanctions to work they have to truly bite.

The first modern example of international sanctions I can think of were the sanctions against Italy in 1936, regarding their Abyssinian invasion. Unfortunately, these sanctions neither targeted oil, nor Italian transit rights for the Suez Canal, the only two sanctions that would have been remotely effective. Sanctions have gone down since then. In fact, the only "sanctions" that have had teeth have been those involving a military response - for example, the Anglo-French ultimatum to Germany to get out of Poland or face war. Or, the American threat to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Or, the American threat to the Soviets to get out of Northern Iran "or else" (implied atomic threat).

The point is, give me an example of non-military sanctions being effective.

DF - For the record, I'm somewhat in line with your thinking on NK. Quite frankly before the last round of sanctions NK claimed they would consider it an act of war. Their sinking of a SK ship would seem to confirm this. We should take them at their word.

Agreed.

[David Floyd]

We must be careful about what and how we provide aid and allow dangerous trade.

How about we just forgo sanctions and operate on the principle of "if it's not a threat we shouldn't be there, if it is a threat it shouldn't be there"?

[Wezil]

The point is, give me an example of non-military sanctions being effective.

South Africa.

[Wezil]

I agree it's a tough approach to gain success from. The reasons seem obvious - The sanctions have to wide ranging (enough to "bite") and the international agreement has to be solid.

The problem with NK is that we have a) but not b).

[Ecofarm]

How about we just forgo sanctions and operate on the principle of "if it's not a threat we shouldn't be there, if it is a threat it shouldn't be there"?

How do you plan to remove the threat of Lil Kim? Nuke 'em and hope the next god-king is better?

[David Floyd]

South Africa.

Good point. Still, I think my overall point holds true - sanctions are RARELY effective.

How do you plan to remove the threat of Lil Kim? Nuke 'em and hope the next god-king is better?

I don't give a **** about removing Kim Jong Il. I give a **** about removing his ability to threaten the United States and allies of the United States.

[David Floyd]

I agree it's a tough approach to gain success from. The reasons seem obvious - The sanctions have to wide ranging (enough to "bite") and the international agreement has to be solid.

Then perhaps we put too much emphasis on "international agreement". Did Russia seek international agreement when going after Chechnya or Georgia? No. Did the rest of the world do anything, including the US, which has ties to Georgia. No. The point is, we can and should act unilaterally when necessary. We have to. Otherwise, we get pulled into the diplomatic quagmire of "sanctions". And that's how we get regimes like Iran and North Korea - and, dare I say, Venezuela. It's certainly how we created the Iraq problem.

[Dinner]

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

I doubt it since they'd be out numbered two or perhaps three to one and the North has about 1 million artillery pieces with in firing range of Seoul as we speak. They could pretty much level Seoul before anyone could stop them even if these are rather old 1950's era artillery pieces.

[David Floyd]

I doubt it since they'd be out numbered two or perhaps three to one and the North has about 1 million artillery pieces with in firing range of Seoul as we speak. They could pretty much level Seoul before anyone could stop them even if these are rather old 1950's era artillery pieces.

Yes, North Korea could shell the **** out of Seoul. But really, if SK let's NK get away with blatantly sinking a SK destroyer, what's next? Annexing the DMZ? You have to draw the line somewhere, and for South Korea, this should be it.

[Dinner]

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.

Last time I was in South Korea up by the DMZ the estimate was that the camps and fortifications on the South Korean side would only last about 30 minutes before getting over run by North Korea's WW1 style human wave attacks. They'd literally just hand guns to peasants and tell them to charge in mass for their man-god Great Leader.

The key to ending the regime in North Korea is China because China provides them the food and fuel to keep North Korea from collapsing and we've finally gotten the Chinese to threaten to cut that lifeline off if the North Keeps up its nuclear weapons program and now you want to start a fight? Nothing would push the Chinese back to North Korea faster then an invasion.

[Dinner]

Yes, North Korea could shell the **** out of Seoul. But really, if SK let's NK get away with blatantly sinking a SK destroyer, what's next? Annexing the DMZ? You have to draw the line somewhere, and for South Korea, this should be it.

The Destroyer was in disputed waters and it is hardly the first incident. Do you remember the 1980's incident when North Koreans axed an American soldier to death?

[David Floyd]

No one is saying invade North Korea. I'm saying that South Korea should DISPROPORTIONATELY respond by sinking every NK warship they can locate, while digging into defensive positions south of the DMZ. I'm pretty damn sure the estimates about the North overrunning the South applies to a surprise attack, not an expected attack running into heavily defending positions supported by modern aircraft and artillery.

Also, South Korea has around double the military reserves of North Korea. The North can't win a long war, but their antiquated technology can't force a short-term solution, either. And if they exercise the nuclear option, they lose harder.

[David Floyd]

The Destroyer was in disputed waters and it is hardly the first incident. Do you remember the 1980's incident when North Koreans axed an American soldier to death?

Disputed my ass. Of course the North says that. And yes, I understand North Korean provocations prior to today - each and every one should have been met with overwhelming force. Unfortunately, they were not, because of the BULL**** concept of proportionate response. It's the stupidest concept in US foreign policy history.