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]

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?

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]

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."

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

 

[leroyjenkens]

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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

the American military is already overstreched and I don't think it's even clear that our available manpower can win that war

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]

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.

We're *still* paying for it and will be for years.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah, occupation has already socially exhausted us, along with economic woes. We have class drug and terror wars already.

 

[I_am_learning]

Why should US occupy North Korea even if it were possible?
Reading this thread feels like WWIII is looming around.

 

[genericusrnme]

Is this another USA = world police thread?

Why should the USA just decide to overthrow governments because they don't like what they do? (I'm assuming you think the US should invade North Korea because of the 'opression' the media have been spouting about as of late)
If you think the US should invade over nuclear weapons, why is it that the US get to be the only country that has nuclear weapons? If I was a smaller country I'd sure as hell want some way of at least intimidating bigger countries from invading. Again, the US is not the world police.

Imo y'all americans should listen to Ron Paul


Or is there some other reason you think the US should invade NK because I can't think of anything else someone could think of..

 

[Antiphon]

Just the liberation of the brainwashed and imprisoned populace there. Some neither you nor Dr. Paul consider a priority.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Just the liberation of the brainwashed and imprisoned populace there. Some neither you nor Dr. Paul consider a priority.

Liberation with bullets and bombs is unlikely to win any hearts and minds for people who for the majority are oblivious to their situation.

If freeing the North Korean people was the real goal then dropping books, TVs and laptops (with internet via satellite phone-like connection) would be the way to go. Show the people what the world is really like and let them decide what they want. There's not exactly a great track record for forced revolutions from external sources.

 

[genericusrnme]

Just the liberation of the brainwashed and imprisoned populace there. Some neither you nor Dr. Paul consider a priority.

So what, your ideals should be everyone's ideals?
What gives the US the right to dictate to every other country how things should be?

The USA is not the world police.
US law is not world law.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Locked pending moderation