Kim Jong Un launched a missile

[My Wife Hates CIV]

So you have no solution so lets just let the clock keep running. At least no one is killed today. I guess you're correct in that thinking.

Now all of sudden kim wong dumb has weapons that can reach 5 times the people of today. What would you say than, maybe 5 years from now?

and of course of 5 years how many people(kids) die in labor camps? those numbers add up too - just not in one day.

you fix this now - you dont bury your head and sand and say look how many lives i saved.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

of course - i believe the US would blow NK out of the game in 12 minutes. No attack on SK.

Look how many surrendered in the opening of desert storm. That's one thing the US learned - seems the fighters on the ground know when to say - we give! Yes, a lot of NK fighter - the US will just bring lots of box lunches and bottled water. We've already done it before.

Of course lets wait - it might fix itself. but probably not. Right now NK leader has nothing to fear - that's not good.

[Proteus_MST]

of course - i believe the US would blow NK out of the game in 12 minutes. No attack on SK.

Look how many surrendered in the opening of desert storm. That's one thing the US learned - seems the fighters on the ground know when to say - we give! Yes, a lot of NK fighter - the US will just bring lots of box lunches and bottled water. We've already done it before.

Of course lets wait - it might fix itself. but probably not. Right now NK leader has nothing to fear - that's not good.

That's not Desert Storm with its lots of open desrt terrain ... I have to agree with Aeson that it won't be as easy.
(just think of the Yugoslavian war, where the NATO fighters had difficulties finding targets , because of the rugged terrain, as well as camouflaging the real military equipment and placing mockup tanks as false targets)

And because of the short distance of Seoul to the border (just 35 miles) the fear that NK artllery will (also) target Seoul and caus lots of civilian casualties is justified.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

in today's modern world of weapons... 35 = 350 = makes no difference.

we should not let NK have years and years to catch up.

and again - how many people in camps have to die in NK? or does that not matter??

[My Wife Hates CIV]

and make no mistake - very few would be loyal to kim wong fong as soon as it goes down.

in fact - someone in NK leadership would take him out and make a deal with the US. wouldnt be compeltely surprised if the US already has a good idea of who those people already are.

[Proteus_MST]

and make no mistake - very few would be loyal to kim wong fong as soon as it goes down.

in fact - someone in NK leadership would take him out and make a deal with the US. wouldnt be compeltely surprised if the US already has a good idea of who those people already are.

I am not sure about the leadership ... you may be right here, that the people who are placed in higher leadership positions are able to think more independently (after all they have more freedoms and may also have the ability to access websites from outside NK and may be able to get foreign TV and radio programs)
But the "ordinary" NK citizen and soldier, I think that they have thoroughly been brainwashed into the Juche Cult (which veneres the Kim-Dynasty as godlikes)

[Aeson]

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria ... Imagine how well things would have gone in those places if only they had had some nukes and tons of artillery pointed at some friendly population centers.

The idea that the US can militarily enforce its will on other nations has been one of the huge mistakes we have made, and then failed at, over and over again.

The idea that China will just roll over and let the US set up shop on its doorstep is very dangerous.

[Kidlicious]

Appeasement doesn't work out well either.

[Broken_Erika]

Nothing works with North Korea.

[Aeson]

Appeasement doesn't work out well either.

Not pre-emptively invading is NOT appeasement.

[Kidlicious]

Not pre-emptively invading is NOT appeasement.

As Proteus already mentioned, it's only a cease fire.

[Aeson]

Not breaking a cease-fire is not appeasement either.

[Kidlicious]

Not breaking a cease-fire is not appeasement either.

If you're technically at war and you don't attack, letting the enemy develop better weapons, I call that appeasement. You're just hoping that he doesn't use them because you were nice to him.

[Aeson]

No, I'm hoping we can help North Koreans with agricultural programs, avoid getting our troops and South Koreans killed, avoid nuclear attacks, avoid getting into a war with China, and that over time a friendly environment can fix the relationship.

Given that the ceasefire has held for several decades now, anyone who breaks it is obviously the aggressor.

[Kidlicious]

No, I'm hoping we can help North Koreans with agricultural programs, avoid getting our troops and South Koreans killed, avoid nuclear attacks, avoid getting into a war with China, and that over time a friendly environment can fix the relationship.

Given that the ceasefire has held for several decades now, anyone who breaks it is obviously the aggressor.

North Korea is "obviously the aggressor." This is the kind of pinko thinking that caused the dems to lose the election. We aren't responsible for supporting nations that are hell bent on our destruction.