A Sea Of Red

With North Korea's weapons testing, here are some logical arguments as to why the U.S. should respond with "bored contempt"

Pyongyang retains a quantitative military edge, but its equipment is antiquated; North Korean troops are malnourished and get little training. The North is effectively bankrupt and without allies. With about 40 times the GDP and twice the population of the North, Seoul could outmatch the Kim regime in any way it chose. With large military reserves, a strong industrial base, abundant allies, and generous access to international credit markets, South Korea is well-positioned to triumph in any conflict.

What of proliferation, the fear of Pyongyang's possible sale of nuclear technologies to other regimes or even non-state actors? It is a legitimate concern, but hardly unprecedented. The U.S. already has dealt with a bigger proliferation problem -- Pakistan. Washington could make clear to Kim Jong-il and those who staff his regime that the sale of nuclear materials to non-state actors would result in their own death.

That would make selling nukes to raise money a poor investment, risking certain destruction for uncertain financial gain. This message could be reinforced by the U.S. offering to open alternative revenue sources, most notably trade, if the North adopted a more cooperative policy.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=100

yes, but at this rate, Obama will be selling north korea our OWN nukes.

and about S Korea having more resources... N. Korea has the bomb... all they have to do is launch it, and S. Korea is instantly crippled.

matshark wrote:yes, but at this rate, Obama will be selling north korea our OWN nukes.

and about S Korea having more resources... N. Korea has the bomb... all they have to do is launch it, and S. Korea is instantly crippled.

Then S Korea should acquire the bomb to deter an attack from North Korea. At any rate, lets let S Korea worry about that and mind our own business. Placing more sanctions on a country where famine is common, and committing future generations to wars seems immoral to me.

im not gonna disagree with letting S Korea worry about S Korea, i just disagree with your analysis that N Korea is no threat.

matshark wrote:im not gonna disagree with letting S Korea worry about S Korea, i just disagree with your analysis that N Korea is no threat.

That wasn't my analysis, there not as big a threat as the Media and Gov't are portraying. They do not have the long range missiles to deliver the bomb to the U.S. And even if they did, we have deterred more radical regimes (Stalin's Soviet Union, and Mao's China) using the most potent nuclear arms arsenal on the planet. In fact, the only threat to the U.S. they can muster is to the U.S. troops stationed in S Korea.

im not talking threat to the US... they can threaten S Korea and Japan (both US allies)

give it time and they'll have their long range missile tech down and then they'll DEFINITELY pose a threat to the US. let's not forget their Iranian friends present at their latest long range missile test... bad juju

We lose S. Korea and Japan due to nukes, our economy goes from really bad to extremely, possibly irrepably (sp?) bad.

matshark wrote:im not talking threat to the US... they can threaten S Korea and Japan (both US allies)

give it time and they'll have their long range missile tech down and then they'll DEFINITELY pose a threat to the US. let's not forget their Iranian friends present at their latest long range missile test... bad juju

Even if they eventually posses long range missiles down the road, we can still deter an attack from them by using our nuclear weapons capabilities.

Japan is more than capable of defending themselves having the second most powerful economy in the world. They have technological sophistication, and could buy anything needed to defend themselves from N Korea.

As already noted, S Korea is more economically powerful and is well positioned to defend themselves from N. Korea.

It should come as no surprise that N Korea, a country we have helped to impoverish by imposing sanctions, reaches out to another country that we are in the process of sanctioning simply because we don't like their government. These sanctions haven't seemed to have the slightest effect in removing the unfriendly regimes from power, and yet we continue to strengthen them. So, it seems like there is a serious flaw in our strategy here.

Covert Hawk wrote:With North Korea's weapons testing, here are some logical arguments as to why the U.S. should respond with "bored contempt"

North Korean troops are malnourished and get little training.

Are you kidding me?? Have you seen those guys march? That's got to take hours upon months to learn. It looks CGI it's so perfect.

All I think of when I think of Kim Jong Il or North Korea is "Im so ronery"

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The south has been able to produce nukes for some time. They have chosen not to because they do not want to raise the stakes and because the US has nuke capability within reach of the north (subs, etc.). If you get a chance in your lives to visit the DMZ separating the North and South, it is a surreal experience. The United States has made too much of an investment in North Asia to leave. Staying in S. Korea also give us close access to China in case they do something stupid. I think we are there as a balance of power force. Although the south has a large and capable military, Japan is only allow to have a defence force because of WW2 treaties. I will be glad when we out of there too, but it doesn't make sense now.