What's stopping the US from occupying North Korea?

surajt88

Is it the presence of China? Or unconfirmed reports of nuclear weapons (The likes of which can't reach US AFAIK)? Or the potential loss of South Korea as a strategic base near China?

Why isn't North Korea next in the list after Iraq and Afghanistan?

leroyjenkens

Probably has something to do with oil. If we even think Iraq has nuclear weapons, we invade them and occupy their land for over a decade, long after we find out they don't have them.
We know North Korea has them, and we just say "Please don't kill people. Come on... I'll be your best friend."

lisab

Who will pay for it? US taxpayers aren't interested in footing that bill.

jtbell

North Korea has a large military force and spends a lot of money on it. Also, they probably have a lot of artillery and missiles aimed at Seoul which is only about 50 km from the border.

phinds

By your rationale, we should have invaded Iran long ago. You don't make sense.

leroyjenkens

Well, just because we'll invade one country for oil, doesn't mean we'll invade them all.
That's like saying someone can't visit a foreign country with the purpose of seeing a foreign culture. Because if they don't visit all foreign countries to see all foreign cultures, that means their reason for visiting that first country wasn't for the purpose of seeing a foreign culture.

I like long, drawn out analogies.

Pythagorean

This, and not just large, but also highly disciplined; they use the goose step! Tread carefully around any military that uses the goose step!

Office_Shredder

Explain how the invasion of iraq has dropped the price of oil or solidified our existing oil supply lines. It really hasn't.

North Korea would be far harder to invade than iraq fire many reasons. First, their military is much larger and their people appear to be fiercely loyal to their government. Second, China would throw a huge fit if we invaded north korea... The same reasons they had for saving North Korea in the 50s hold today. Third, our allies are much more vulnerable to counter-attack from North Korea than from Iraq. Iraq could only launch a smattering of missiles against Israel, whereas North Korea could probably destroy Seoul in the process of the war. Fifth, North Korea isn't really that much of a threat to America. One could make the same argument about Iraq, but just because we made one mistake doesn't mean we should make another. Sixth, the American military is already overstreched and I don't think it's even clear that our available manpower can win that war

Ryan_m_b

Er...why would it? Where's the argument for invading North Korea?

On top of that I'm not convinced that the US would be able to successfully do it. I don't mean that it would fail in defeating the NK military (though that would be a hard slog and many lives and material would be lost attempting it) but what happens after? It will be just another, worse, Iraq/Afganistan. After a decade of occupying a foreign nation that doesn't want them there at a cost of trillions who is going to continue supporting this war?

Along similar lines I have similar doubts regarding any US war with Iran. Few seem to acknowledge Iran is 50% larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, 30% larger population than both combined, has a more substantial military and a population far less receptive to US interference thanks to the history of US (amongst others) interference in Iranian internal affairs.

Pythagorean

because it's hundreds of thousands of people being made into weapons by being cut off by anything but philosophy of war that depicts the west as evil, has a dominant military, an interest in nuclear weapons, etc.

Vice Guide to North Korea is an excellent series:

surajt88

US taxpayers in part paid for the Afghanistan invasion and I'm still in the dark about what was gained apart from partially neutralizing threats from the taliban and maybe killing OBL.

Ofcourse US taxpayers were unhappy by the results of the afganisthan invasion, but I am skeptical about US taxpayers' sentiments to be a factor that's stopping the US from invading NK.

In my own view though it is the presence of China that is keeping the US out and I am willing to change my views in light of compelling counter arguments.

I bet the NK populace would be the happiest of the lot if the present regime is overthrown.

How is the US military power less capable of doing now what it has done before?

TheMadMonk

Forgive me if you have answered this and I'm just going blind in my old age but why should the US invade North Korea in the first place?

lisab

We're *still* paying for it and will be for years.
Really, you think US taxpayers want to pay for yet another war? Wow, that's news to me -- I'm a US taxpayer, btw. Are you? Somehow I don't think so.
Then they should get busy overthrowing it. We can't be everyone's solution.

Pythagorean

lisab, I think he's talking about gvt motive, not taxpayer wishes.

Dickfore

This thread is ludicrous.

Antiphon

The US already did this once. The Chinese army stepped in and pushed the US back. The US had nuclear weapons and the Chinese did not. MacArthur in his wisdom saw the need to use the nuclear weapon in that instance but his prescient vision was overruled by the short-sighted politics of President Truman.

It's a shame really. The lesson is when you have an overwhelming advantage, use it because eventually you will lose it.

All of mainland China along with North Korea would have been free like Taiwan for the last sixty years if MacArthur's wisdom had been heeded.

lisab

I suppose so, but the government can't do something as audacious as occupy North Korea without support from its citizens. My feeling is, if this idea were polled, it would get support in the single-digits.