How the hell do you figure that? We send food aid = we feed the military = North Koreans are free to build weapons = those not needed to build weapons starve anyway.
We don't send food aid? Either North Koreans starve to death and (since dead men build no nukes) cannot build as many weapons OR North Korea is forced to shift more people from building weapons to producing food and therefore cannot build as many weapons OR North Korea is forced to shift more people from building weapons to producing goods that can be exchanged for food and therefore cannot build as many weapons. Any way you cut it, the outside world feeding North Korea means North Korea has more weapons. You may put off North Korea attacking South Korea out of desperation and stupidity, but you are at best only extending the time that option is open to then, while materially increasing the amount of damage they can do if they do attack.
This policy of South Korea, then the USA, then the UN feeding North Korea has allowed them to shift the threat from a million starving men largely equipped with sixties weaponry to a million sufficiently fed men largely equipped with sixties weaponry backed by a dozen or so nukes. As if this doesn't sufficiently reveal this as a stupid policy, we're doubling down as they build up their capacity to produce fissile material. Obama and Lee, like Bush and Roh before them, are merely trying to bribe the Gargoyle sufficiently to pass the problem along to their successor, but the result is that the problem grows bigger as time goes by. At some point North Korea will judge itself sufficiently protected by nuclear weapons that the USA will be afraid to escalate, at which time they will be able to invade the South in a one-on-one fight. I'm still betting on South Korea, but the conflict will likely be orders of magnitude worse.
Facebook
Twitter