• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

POLL: Regime change in North Korea through force?

no, because they have the ability to wipe tokyo off the map if invaded
 

Bite

Member
Apr 14, 2001
130
0
0
Seoul would be leveled in 30 minutes from artillery trained on it.

North Korea has an estimated 500 long-range artillery tubes capable of raining 5,000 or more rounds per hour on downtown Seoul. This conventional force alone could devastate the city, home to 10 million people and a hub of the nation's economy, defense experts and US officials say.

"In effect, North Korea can hold Seoul hostage," says Peter Brookes, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and until recently the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for Asia. Indeed, during a 1994 standoff over its nuclear program, Pyongyang threatened to turn Seoul into a "sea of flames."

Text
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: her209
And why or why not?
It would be asking for trouble and who cares about them anyways. Let them starve to death. If worst comes to worst, we can lob missiles at their nuclear reactors if they want to threaten us.
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
They have a nuclear deterrent. If we were to strike them, it would have to be with enough firepower to destroy their entire nuclear arsenal. I don't doubt we have that kind of firepower, but it might require the use of our nuclear weapons, which would make the international relations disaster over Iraq look like a debate over which brand of soup is better. The way to solve the NK problem is to embargo their nation and let them starve. Keep weapons trained on them, and if something is launched, take care of it and the rest of the country. Yes, it is a terrible way to conduct policy. However, it isn't our responsibilty to feed a starving communist nation that hates the United States. Also, you can't be too cautious when dealing with nukes. Look at the cuban missle crisis, for instance.

Ryan
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
i could care less about what weapons they have, i just don't like the idea of regime change through external force getting any more polular than it already is. if everyone folowed this lead it could get really ugly.
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
That's funny, I hear no one talking about freeing the people of NK from their tyrannical regime. That's why we invaded Iraq, right? But since NK isn't a pushover (and they don't have any oil either), we should say hell with the people and "let them starve to death"? I think I'm understanding now. We Americans are great humanitarians but only when it's convenient and serves a useful purpose for us.
 

cheapgoose

Diamond Member
May 13, 2002
3,877
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
That's funny, I hear no one talking about freeing the people of NK from their tyrannical regime. That's why we invaded Iraq, right? But since NK isn't a pushover (and they don't have any oil either), we should say hell with the people and "let them starve to death"? I think I'm understanding now. We Americans are great humanitarians but only when it's convenient and serves a useful purpose for us.
it's great to fight ppl who can't possibily fight back.
 

FrontlineWarrior

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2000
4,905
1
0
Originally posted by: Morph
That's funny, I hear no one talking about freeing the people of NK from their tyrannical regime. That's why we invaded Iraq, right? But since NK isn't a pushover (and they don't have any oil either), we should say hell with the people and "let them starve to death"? I think I'm understanding now. We Americans are great humanitarians but only when it's convenient and serves a useful purpose for us.
Do you understand anything about international politics? All decisions are made based on cost/benefit analysis. The cost of taking Iraq was deemed to be outweighed by the benefit, both for the US and for the Iraqi people. The cost of attempting to take North Korea is not so clear, and possibly disastrous. You talk as if you don't understand this simple point.

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
That would be a bad idea. What could we gain by attacking N. Korea? They have absolutely nothing to offer us.


If we wanted to defeat them, we wouldn't need to fight their military head on, we'd cut off their power and supplies in the winter and let Mother Nature do the dirty work.

But fighting with them is not worth it anyway.
 

SinfulWeeper

Diamond Member
Sep 2, 2000
4,563
7
81
No.

The North Koreans have done nothing wrong, just gave a scare of the possability of being able to sell nukes to 'poorer' countries.
Plus if we were to go after them, the South Koreans would get angry because of killing their people up north.
 

Richdog

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2003
1,658
0
0
If America try that you can effectively say goodbye to them as a respected superpower, and with their international relations effectivey ended, it would mark a steep decline for the USA.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,020
14
81
Originally posted by: Morph
That's funny, I hear no one talking about freeing the people of NK from their tyrannical regime. That's why we invaded Iraq, right? But since NK isn't a pushover (and they don't have any oil either), we should say hell with the people and "let them starve to death"? I think I'm understanding now. We Americans are great humanitarians but only when it's convenient and serves a useful purpose for us.
"That's why we invaded Iraq, right?"

Wrong!NK's people may get to starve for a few years too, as Iraq's people did. Maybe our screwballs on the left will get the picture a little quicker this time around. Maybe the UN will be a little more decisive.
 

SinfulWeeper

Diamond Member
Sep 2, 2000
4,563
7
81
The people starving in NK is not from their 'tyrincal regeime'.

Us Americans/UN are starving them with stupid sanctions.
They are a threat because of a large military?
Absolutely not. The military feeds its troops, would you serve just so you dont starve? I would think so.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
1
0
Originally posted by: Morph
That's funny, I hear no one talking about freeing the people of NK from their tyrannical regime. That's why we invaded Iraq, right? But since NK isn't a pushover (and they don't have any oil either), we should say hell with the people and "let them starve to death"? I think I'm understanding now. We Americans are great humanitarians but only when it's convenient and serves a useful purpose for us.
I think most people would like to see the people of NK free of the tyrannical regime in Pyongyang. It's entirely different though when you ask if they should be freed by military force. NK is not Iraq and the dynamics in that part of the world are too different to apply the same reasoning.

 

jose

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,076
0
0
I say leave everyone alone.....

But if they mess with us , then blow them the hell away........

We've got too many bombs anyway.

 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,773
11
81
My grandfather fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. He says, without a doubt, the Koreans were the hardest to fight. Invading N. Korea would require a draft!
 

Trezza

Senior member
Sep 18, 2002
522
0
0
Iraq is much different than NK. NK has admited they have nukes and stated they can possibly reach the US with them. If you value human life you will agree that there is no benefit from starting a war that has a high possibility of using nukes against cities. The NK problem must be solved diplomatically or waited out like Cuba.
 

wanders

Junior Member
Apr 5, 2003
8
0
0
Iraqi Regime has welcomed al Qaeda fighters.
No credible indications of any such thing have been shown. NK, on the other hand can possibly sell nuclear weapons to terrorists. This is in stark contrast to Iraq, which doesn't have any significantly effective terrorist weapons to sell. So the terrorism angle is right out.

Dropped scuds on Israel...
So? Israel can take care of itself, or perhaps we should say that you are already taking care of Israel with the gigantic economic support they receive.

Hussein was out of UN Compliance for over 10 years!
The US doesn't care about "UN Compliance", remember?

Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors, he has invaded his neighbors, he has killed thousands of his own people...
All with US approval and support.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY