DreadNaught wrote:Buc2 wrote:Why does that have to be OUR problem?
I don't know that the 'leave them alone and they'll leave us alone' approach is wise or even safe. I think most people agree that NK without nuclear capability makes the world safer. So how do we along w/ the international community get to that point without the use of military force?
Mountaineer Buc wrote:That is the exact same reasoning that gave us the Iraq war.
It's similar, but certainly not exact. The difference being NK has nuclear weapons already. I agree w/ Moon's description.
Zarniwoop wrote:I think we can continue sanctions on them....I think we can continue to put pressure on China to put sanctions on them and quit propping their economy up (something Trump seems to be doing well....I can't recall any other time in the last 20 years when China made as many negative statements about North Korea, or announced their intention to help us find a solution....maybe its just posturing on their part, but we haven't seen it before)...i think we can rally the international community to do the same.
I agree with this approach. But let's not kid ourselves that this would be 'leaving them alone'. NK has a history of willfully disobeying UN sanctions. So assuming we go with this approach what are we prepared to do if NK continues to ignore diplomatic measures?
Zarniwoop wrote:I don't think we can preemptively attack a nation because they are developing weapons we don't like.
Imo that is very casual/reckless description of NK aggressive pursuing nuclear ICBM capability in violation of UN sanctions. I don't know that it would be preemptive to use military force against a country in repeated violation international law.
The fact is that NK is aggressively working towards the capability of deploying a nuclear ICBM. Diplomacy and International pressure has been used for over decade to the slow the process, but it clearly has not deterred them. I don't want war with NK when they haven't attacked us or our allies. But there has to be consequences for violating international sanctions. Perhaps harsher sanctions is the correct next step here. But how many times does NK have to cross the line created by the UN before we act militarily?
I just don't think it's as easy as 'stop being world police' or 'leave them alone since they haven't attacked us' b/c the international community has already sanctioned their weapons program.
The last part kind of got me thinking:
So if,
NK says, "once we finish this missile, we'll shoot it at you"
and they openly admit that that's their goal
then, if we are to invade NK and absolutely demolish them, without "proper" casus belli - who, among other countries, or among history, will judge us?
The UK? France? are we worried about their judgement? Hell they're right up there on NK's **** list too
China? Since NK is a Chinese pawn, I'm sure they wouldn't be too pleased; although, NK seems to be getting too big for their Chinese britches, so maybe the Chinese won't really care that much.
Anyways, end of the day, my thought is -
If we
did do the "warmongering" thing, and just preemptively strike NK, who would care?
I'm pretty sure there's a concensus world view that NK has been run by a family of phsycopaths, and they're openly threatening anyone from the outside world with nuclear weapons... And I'm pretty sure history won't lose sight of this and will show NK as the dangerous little **** aggressor that they are.... a) why would anyone care if we did? and b) why should we care if any one cares if we did?
I mean... isn't there some common sense approach here that might be welcome?