is a preemptive attack on north korea (nonnuclear) in the best interest of the world?

[alxian]

afghanistan, iraq... north korea?


when will the fear of "nuclear" attack from an openly hostile nation spur the US to action?

could the US in partnership with japan, south korea and china invade and route out one of the most dangerous nations in the world today?


i think after they said that NK was nuclear that that should have the green light.

once nuclear entered the equation coupled with many human rights attrocities (guessed at) its time something was done.


what would it say if the world not only turned a blind eye, but encouraged it?

no country should have nuclear capacity. thus a possible US preemptive attack would be uncalled for to the world.

second, how to attack them without sparking a war?

would china SK and JA cooperate?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by alxian

afghanistan, iraq... north korea?


when will the fear of "nuclear" attack from an openly hostile nation spur the US to action?

Impossible to answer that question, it depends on the mood of the nation and the ones running the show.

Originally Posted by alxian

could the US in partnership with japan, south korea and china invade and route out one of the most dangerous nations in the world today?

Absolutely, but the real question is, should we?

Originally Posted by alxian

i think after they said that NK was nuclear that that should have the green light.

once nuclear entered the equation coupled with many human rights attrocities (guessed at) its time something was done.

Agreed, but just what that something might be is the question.

Originally Posted by alxian

what would it say if the world not only turned a blind eye, but encouraged it?

no country should have nuclear capacity. thus a possible US preemptive attack would be uncalled for to the world.

second, how to attack them without sparking a war?

would china SK and JA cooperate?

I believe it would take more than an agreement between the U.S., China, South Korea, and Japan. It would be proper to have the UN involved but not necessarily limited by it. That would depend upon the concensous of a larger majority of nations with a common interest in ridding the planet of this threat.

Your question isn't simple. I suppose ultimately there is no right answer - it depends on whether we want to or not. Do we want yet another war?

I don't see the US militarily engaging North Korea. The agenda is set on Terrorism and Iraq (which they try to convey to the world as one).

The US doesn't have global support for Iraq - though it has shown to have support on Terrorism. The US military is overstreched currently; the US public won't so readily aprove another war. Besides, the whole China aspect is very intimidating. Argueably, China is the most powerful nation on the planet currently. In a way, whether to go for NK or not rests on China. Americans are somewhat traumatized and intimidated by Asia by the failure in Vietnam and lukewarm success in South Korea.

North Korea? I don't see it coming soon.

The world won't allow the US another preemptive strike after the Iraq mess. The US must be very careful from now on - it doesn't have many trustworthy allies.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by alxian

would china SK and JA cooperate?

No. China would bear the brunt of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that would result. I think the whole NK thing will go away once they believe that no one is interested in attacking them. It would also help if a genuine end to the Korean war was reached and they made peace with SK. OTOH, if we simply told China that all US purchase orders are cancelled until the NK problem goes away, China would put an end to the stand off in an afternoon

Originally Posted by C1ay

No. China would bear the brunt of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that would result. I think the whole NK thing will go away once they believe that no one is interested in attacking them. It would also help if a genuine end to the Korean war was reached and they made peace with SK. OTOH, if we simply told China that all US purchase orders are cancelled until the NK problem goes away, China would put an end to the stand off in an afternoon

I don't know. Much of that makes sense - except: I believe it's the US that is dependent on China and not them on US. True, they haven't developed such a strong internal market, but a cease of exports would probably force it. China has about everything, food, oil, mineral sources, technology, nuclear weapons, an economy spread over all levels - natural sources, manufacturing and a developing service sector.

The United States are the ultimate losers in the trade with China. China just laughs its but off thinking of Americans rushing into Wal-Mart buying near worthless items. We think, american corporations are making a fortune off of China's cheap labor, but we forget that China also makes a profit. As it is, US's trade deficit with China is only growing - the opposite as with most other countries.

[alxian]

i'd argue the food bit isn't so hot for them. while they may be self suffient now soon enough they'll be starving.

[Fishteacher73]

It will probably settle down once Kim Jong Il dies...

[alxian]

as long as he doesn't have any help in passing

and that no one steps on his toes.. say by air dropping troups on the country to free any pows still held in concetration camps.

[rockytriton]

Attacking North Korea is about the stupidest thing that Bush could do, next to attacking Iraq. Oh wait, he already did that.

[Qfwfq]

A preemptive attack on North Korea is absolutely not in the best interest of the world.