Should we declare War on North Korea?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16863558-north-korea-propaganda-video-shows-an-american-city-in-flames?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

So, here is essentially the situation: We've been at a stalemate with this country ever since the end of the Korean Wars in the 50's. For years, they had used bluffs, and "tests" in an insane proposal to get aid(They could just simply join the International Community like a rational State but, they're clearly not rational)

Its a shamockery in fact that they bolster militarily against our State considering that their children are malnourished and their economy flustered. However, upon the information that they do have a missile capable of reaching our continent, I say we can no longer tolerate this mockery of a 'truce'.

No, they aren't a threat to the continent but should we wait for them to be? Some might say military action would threaten the inhabitants, but sanctions do much the same. At least with a decisive victory, we could make it clear to the North Korean citizens that America no longer tolerates these kinds of actions.

There's also geopolitical reasons for supporting a Strike: Our Japanese allies, who've stuck with us through all adversity, even after a hard fought world war(Which they could've easily held against us.) have diplomatic difficulties with the North(to say the very least), holding Japanese citizens in captive in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, this would worsen relations with China who actually does bolster shall we say on and off relations with the North(China has sometimes backed them, sometimes its backed the INTL. Community). However, I believe we can tame the Chinese response if we can promote the idea of a new North Korean Government as improving ties with the South, and opening up its borders to innovation and technology.


I do not take lightly to anyone threatening our homeland, if this were say Al Qaeda posting some propaganda video, we would probably be on some alert status of some kind. We should take the same response here, the same old tired act with North Korea has gotten us absolutely nowhere and in spite of hopes, the 'new' regime isn't any different than the old.

If we could get the INTL Community to unite as it regards petty African dictators, we can surely bring peace to Eurasia and bring down one of the more repressive regimes against its own people and putting an end to its false bluffs against our own.

Putting this situation in even further context, Israel had been pressuring us for years to bomb Iran and there are many Americans in actual favor of that. Despite the fact that Iran has been a relatively neutral country for decades and has never bolstered any such propaganda or attempts to our homeland.

What do you think? Should we put an end to this meaningless war and free the North Koreans from their leadership's bondage? Or should we continue to stare and watch?

I vote that we put an end to it, by putting an end to it, we will strengthen a future Asian Union.

I saw that video and for one, I don't even believe that it is real. It appeared on youtube. OF ALL PLACES YOUTUBE!. What half baked retard thought that north korea would even have access to youtube. We're on a hentai site where more of us watch anime and possibly other foreign videos. Hundreds of movies that involve america burning. There are a lot of anime's out there where american gets attacked but you aren't set out right now to invade japan.

But lets talk politics then. During the korean war, the reason that it was "peace" was done in such a way was to prevent america and china going to war. north korea was backed by the USSR and the chinese communist party. That may or may not be the case now, but it still remains a known fact that north korea get a large amount of capital from russia through the lumber industry. north korea sends a lot of workers to cut down the trees. Look to vice news on that.

So should america attack them? Probably not. The political situation is too unstable for that to happen. Look at the situation between japan and china right now over the fishing rights of some islands that almost pushed them into war. This would be an exact reason of china to blow up half the planet. Least to mention one keystone, america is still engaged in problems in the middle east.

Image the might of the chinese army, the nuclear wealth of russia, the oil money of the middle east. You really think america should just foolishly attack another country unprovoked. This would be a complete violation of the geneva convention, which america already violated when invading iraq.



Edit: there is also one glaring difference between terrorists producing videos in the middle east and north korean media. The terrorists attacked america first. North korea has not.

Yeah, I can certainly see some of the points you raise. But how tolerant of the provocation of the North Koreans are the Chinese? I think, if we could ensure a "Democratic-transition" in North Korea, essentially freeing up their economy to the Chinese(as well as the rest of the world), it would be seen as a mutual benefit for all parties involved(including the North Korean citizens)

The way I see it, INTL Law has already been violated(Iraq, and even other situations such as Afghanistan and M.E operation in Yemen, etc) of course, under the guise of terrorism.

And Russia has been very lenient lately, I didn't expect Russia to consent on Syrian Capitulation, but that's exactly what they've done. And from what I've read(I'll gladly do more research) Russia doesn't have the same ties to NK as they (did) to Syria and Iran.

If we got Chinese political support, I think we have the capital to end this war, free North Korea from despotic dictatorship and strengthen our alliances in Asia.

Origionally at least from my understanding of the korean war, one of the primary reasons that russia and china backed north korea was the prevent democracy from infecting asia. It was to keep communism as the dominant polical system. Look at the war in vietnam. The "vietcong" as they were called were backed by chinese and russian supply lines and given weapons by them.

I think the lenience of russia recently is because of the fall of communism in 1989 so they do not hold the solidified presence that they once had. Times have changed but with that said, this isn't about money as the middle east was. There is no oil in north korea, there are no natural resources that people are fighting over so this situation is completely different.

America would have to gain chinese support for this, but the point is, the dictatorship will not give up without going to war and they have nuclear capability. It is not a transitional thing but a war. And you can not invade a country without a justifiable reason anymore. I think the population of america had it's eyes open after Bush illegally invaded Iraq and found no weapons.

You can scare a lot of people with terrorism, but there is a 0% chance that a terrorist is going to fly a plane into the oakland mall. But north korea on the other hand. They can wipe out the western seaboard in a matter of minutes. That is not something that you can just "fix".

Agreed, it's not something that you can just "fix", as I've become interested in politics and war, I've taken to a very real realization: The "hearts and minds" rubbish is just that, in war there's two ways it ends: Through realization of common interests and peace(Ideally), or secondly through capitulation.

Propaganda has its impact, but I think its also overstated, no war was singlehandedly won or lost by the better lie teller.

But I'd rather find a solution to the North Korean problem, and sanctions dont seem to be working and I don't want to just sit here and pretend that its not a problem. Pretending that it wasn't a problem, led the way for 9/11 to occur to begin with.

Not that we lacked security, not that we lacked the power to prevent deaths from happening. We simply didn't think it possible and didn't give it a second thought.
Its the same reasoning for not needing to have billions poured into our military.

Our military is well equipped, as is our national government. Use the stuff you already have.

Absolutely not. Entering a full scale war with NK is out of the question. First of all, NK supposedly have nuclear weapons and the technology to launch it from their soil to pretty much anywhere they want.
Secondly, the entire world lacks information about NK and their military strength, number and tactics. It would be the US entering Vietnam again where they had no fucking idea what they were to be in for.
Thirdly, there is nothing stopping China from backing NK up in said situation, and if they would enter the conflict on the NK side then we would most like have WWIII on our doorstep.

Nope, the US shouldn't point their guns at NK, diplomacy is the way to go in this situation.

Also, I am under the impression that Kim Yong Un is pretty.. well, in lack for a better term: liberal, compared to his father. I mean, since he entered into leadership NK has been more open to the world than it has been in decades. Baby steps, dude.

A conventional war with North Korea would result in a very short, and a very high death toll on both dies.

North Korea has chemical weapons and a combined military of 1 million while South Korea has an army totally half that with 28,000 people while Japans SDF has a size of about 50,000.

Regardless who starts the war, North Korea would likely send ballistic missiles into South Korea armed with chemical warheads. Considering the capital of Seoul is less than 20 miles from the demilitarize zone we could see upwards to the entire city population being wiped out.

The North Korean artillery is also buried in the hillsides along the DMZ so they can open the doors, fire a few rounds then retreat back inside the bunkers for protection.

So a land invasion is out the question, which leaves the option of a seaborne one. Which North Korea employs about 50 submarines of various sizes from the Yono class to the Sang-O and the Type 33 Romeo class

While we may beat North Korea quickly, it'll be far bloodier than both Iraq wars and Afghanistan in terms of the loss of life. The worst case scenario with this is, we cause China to reverse it's recent policy of distancing itself from North Korea and cause China to enter the fray either by giving logistical support or being active in combat.



Actually, South Korea has very good intelligence on North Korea's military including the number of ships, the varying classes of said ships, common armaments, where their artillery bunkers are located. Rough estimates of their chemical weapon stockpiles, etc.

Huh. The more you know~. I was not aware of this, then on the other hand I'm not that knowledgeable about the North Korean situation past what is common knowledge.

I don't think a land invasion is completely out of the question, given the fact that we already have a brigade or so in South Korea in position for defense. The information that you laid out, really just confirms how I wanted to go about this: Airborne, we had successfully installed a no-fly zone in Libya and no doubt we could do the same in the condensed Korean areas.

I had no intentions of a prolonged war, or one that threatens to endanger the lives of the citizens(That would be counterproductive to the whole reason for the operation to begin with). By giving long-range cover and support to our allied American-South Korean forces, we would advance to the Capital to overthrow the tyrannical government.

I also question, given North Korea's malnourishment just how loyal the North Koreans are to the government. If a legitimate opportunity arose to actually choose their own destiny, you might just see a revolution occur.

And yes, the Chinese on and off position is a problem, but I take it that they see North Korea as more of an economic partner than a military one, in which case a more open North Korean government would appeal to them. The idea of security in Asia would better the economy of the entire region.

Of course, it goes without saying that a decision of this magnitude, given the lives involved and the geopolitical stakes ideally shouldn't have to be made. But unlike Iran, where I think Israel is truly scared of a ghost rather than actual militaristic threats to their security. The NK Government has now bolstered a threat against our continent.

Unlike Iraq, where it turned out intelligence was wrong(or deceitful, take your pick) this is a clear and direct threat that if we continue to underlook it, we put our South Korean allies at risk as well.

But the key is definitely understanding China's position, if I were made aware that China would respond in the affirmative, I wouldn't pursue the matter. A war against the other world powers(Russia and China) must be avoided at all costs.

No. Its easy to enter into a war, but as we've learned in Iraq and Afganistan, it is much harder to get out of. And there is the collateral damage that could easily ensure from such a endeavor.

I don't believe all diplomatic options have been exhausted, and until they are i don't believe we should start a war when our economy is struggling and are just getting out of two wars.

Also,i find it ironic someone who argued tooth and nail against women in the military is now talking about starting a pre-emptive war.

This is not the first time North Korea has done this so I don't understand why people are surprised. Why waste more taxes to fund a petty war and further weaken the relations with China and Russia? It's foolish to go into another war, but it's also foolish to send aid to a country that wants see you burn and die. It's easy to say let's go to war, but war has consequences and do you really want to start a conflict involving Russia and China and involving allies, which have nothing to do with our silly quarrels?

No, you are completely wrong on this. Having a no fly zone over libya is completely different. Libya doesn't have many missiles, it doesn't have very good anti-air, it doesn't have good jets.

North Korea on the other hand is fully capable of taking out jets and launching nuclear missiles. Installing a no-fly zone sounds good on paper but you're treating this country like a bunch of uneducated neanderthals. These aren't the rock weilding arabs of the middle east, these are professional soldiers with training from the russian spetzna and chinese special forces. They have information on the capabilities of america and the first world nations.

Fair enough, but I think we can at the very least increase our diplomatic pressure. We had given NK Leeway in the belief that this is a new regime, but if old problems aren't solved, we can't just simply allow a state to bolster nuclear capabilities and say they'll attack not only a state of our union, but very literally the financial capital of the union.

If anything, it's at least a declaration of further hostilities. And I think the major mistake would be turning a blind eye to North Korean, if not aggression, agitation in this area.

What has to be understood here is the standard in which freedoms are set. If another nations threatens war but does not do anything such as they have displayed in the past. Is that not a freedom of speech? How can a nation like america that claims to champion freedom of speech deny another country to say whatever it wants.

America wont go to war unless a number of Americans lives are lost somehow or there is a real threat to the safety of their people(right now there aren't any real threats). Iraq is still fresh in people's minds and for the most part American war efforts are led by their people, the popularity of the idea rather than the need or practicality. So should you? Perhaps, will you? Not likely.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17513218-north-korea-puts-rockets-on-standby-as-us-official-warns-regime-is-no-paper-tiger

Time to bring this back up: Jong-Un(Or perhaps, the military rulers stringing him as a puppet) have continued their "revolutionary" talks against our so called "imperialism" and positioned rockets in stage for an attack. Recently bolstering propaganda to their own people.

The president and clearly our military people no longer take this as a mere bluff, but North Korean hostility. As we've deployed both to South Korea and Guam.

There's nothing glorious about war, but there's nothing glorious about being threatened by an enemy state and just taking it lying down. And I don't know about you but it's actually infuriating when they refer to us as "Imperialists", as if we've sought to seize North Korean territory.

The armistice was their idea, not ours. They were the ones who isolated themselves, threatened their neighbors(and us) and prevented any outreach. Now they wish to turn the tables and say we're the cause?

Even if you don't support an invasion, we should go ahead with pre emptive strike on their nuclear weapons program, a program that shouldn't even be theirs to begin with(The Bush Administration took a big risk by taking NK off the terror list)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/world/asia/13terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Then senator, the president proclaimed this a "step forward". Well, is it a step forward now?

Diplomacy can only be had with actual, diplomatic nations. You can't simply just be "diplomatic" with everyone, as much as we wish it to be. If another person(or state in this case) wants you dead, no matter of convincing can sway the mass murderer otherwise.

This is poorly phrased or intentionally misleading at worst. It might be hard for you to comprehend but, it's not "taking it lying down' when we ignore a crackpot dictator. It would be "taking it lying down" if North Korea attacked us and we did not retaliated. It's easy for you to clamor for war because other people will required to go in your place.



Imperialism : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

The U.S is VERY, VERY imperialistic so much so that we're essentially the successor to the British Empire. We have a large influence over the economic and political spheres in other countries. We have almost de facto control over other countries such as South Korea, Japan among others. So if a country doesn't want to go along with our plans then we can lean on them and if that doesn't work, we've got troops stationed around the world that are capable of making them go along with our plans.

If you're angry about the truth, that's your problem.

Take a moment and put the U.S in North Korea's place. Would you like such a large country stationing troops in a neighboring nation? Would you feel comfortable with such a large nation having war games right off the coast of your country? Would you also feel safe when that country is also in talks with all of your neighbors as what they can do to "contain" us? How about when they start adding crippling economic sanctions? Would you feel safe then?

Of course not.



Such an action WOULD cause another war. So there isn't any choice in your question. We either support the invasion or we support the actions that would still result in an invasion. Unless North Korea attacks the U.S in any threatening capacity I say we leave them alone. Though, I did come across an interesting post on another forum. The user proposed the idea of using B-2 spirits to drop fake bombs with parachutes around North Korea with pamphlets that said "If this had been real, everything within a 10km radius of this bomb would have been instantly vaporized"

Then the bloodiest war in world history occurred. Should we wait for a nation with nuclear arsenals to attack our country? Are we not being openly threatened? How long do we respond to these hostilities through ineffective sanctions and pretending a problem doesn't exist?



We don't have "de facto" control over South Korea, Japan. They have their own parliaments, their own constitution. By golly, through negotiations Japan kept its empire under the notion of a Monarchy.

It's a Security Pact, but do know that I disagree with that: Neither North Korea nor China would be able to press and expand their territory if the Japanese nation had the militaristic might and aggression it had in the 19th century.

A little bit of revisionist history: What if we sided with the Axis, rather than the Allies?

If you can imagine, we wouldn't have waited four or so decades for the end of Communism. Germany expressed very openly for either alliance or neutrality with the West. This meant that our western sphere of influence would've been protected.

A continued alliance with the Japanese Empire meant a powerful ally in Asia, and above all: No radical Islam movement, no 9/11.(Since we radicalized the Muslims to engage with the Soviets)

Sadly, it's hindsight but in aligning with the "Allies" we aligned ourselves with Stalin. So it's not like we were on some righteous side. We were on a side that in the end, proved to be our downfall decades later.










This isn't Iraq, where we reacted to Bush under false pretexts. This is a nation openly declaring hostilities against our nation. If they limited their declarations to our men at the front, then so be it. But they declared in so far as our citizens in their propaganda.

I can tolerate nations addressing their geopolitical grievances with people of relevance. But targeting civilians has been and always will be a war crime.

I'm sorry, I do not wish to negotiate with a country that's been secretive, dishonest and aggressive in its tactics. No matter how "imperialist" they think we may be.

I know this is serious discussion and I do not want to sound rough, but is this topic really serious? Initiate a war just because some blatant is saying he could launch missiles anywhere? God, Hell and Jesus Christ, no, and I mean NO.

It is true that starting a war, in a very specific scenarios, can be a good choice, nevertheless it should never be the first option after something like this kind of publicity NK is doing, which seems more like a "stupid advertisement of power to other nations".

I am not American, but for god's sake, I believe starting a war from just "words" it is a complete nonsense and pretty much putting oneself on the other one's level or even below and demonstrating no sense at all, it seems more like he baited you and you bited it.

I strongly agree with what other have already said like:
- Entering a war is easy, getting out is not.
- The war will be too bloody for both sides.
- NK has lots of trained soldiers, they are not just random people.

Also, starting a war will put the rest of the world in a very bad position, since every other nation will have to choose one side or another and this fact could very well lead the Human being to the 3rd World War. Do we really want that? Me, at least, no, I do not want to see a World War.

North Korea's relations with China have become fleeting at best. The entire U.N, most Western nations, etc any political power doesn't even have the slightest positive relation with North Korea.

In short, there will be no WWIII scenario from heightened tensions towards North Korea. Whereas Russia and China saw economic strategic importance in Africa(Libya, Syria and Iran) Only China is economically vested in North Korea.

And I'd argue that putting down this dictatorship and allowing for true democratic progress in North Korea is only to China's best interests.