What's stopping the US from occupying North Korea?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter surajt88
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the question of why the United States has not pursued military occupation of North Korea, exploring various geopolitical, military, and economic factors. Participants examine the implications of such an action in the context of historical precedents and current international relations, particularly with China and the potential consequences for South Korea.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the presence of China and its historical support for North Korea is a significant deterrent against US military action.
  • Others argue that North Korea's known nuclear capabilities create a complex situation that discourages invasion, contrasting it with the US actions in Iraq.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential human and financial costs of an occupation, with some questioning the willingness of US taxpayers to support such a venture.
  • Several participants highlight North Korea's large and disciplined military, as well as its proximity to Seoul, as factors that complicate any military intervention.
  • Some express skepticism about the feasibility of a successful occupation, drawing parallels to the prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • A few participants mention the loyalty of the North Korean populace to their government as a challenge to any potential occupation.
  • Historical references are made to past US military engagements in Korea and the implications of those actions on current policy considerations.
  • There are discussions about the motivations behind government actions, with some questioning whether public sentiment plays a role in decisions regarding military intervention.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the reasons for the lack of US occupation of North Korea. While some agree on the influence of China and military challenges, others emphasize different factors such as public opinion and economic considerations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various limitations in their arguments, including the complexity of military logistics, the historical context of US interventions, and the potential consequences of an occupation. There is also uncertainty regarding the motivations of US taxpayers and the government.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying international relations, military strategy, or the geopolitical dynamics of East Asia, particularly in relation to US foreign policy.

surajt88
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
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."
 
surajt88 said:
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.
 
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.
 
leroyjenkens said:
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.
 
phinds said:
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.
 
jtbell said:
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
  • #10
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:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
lisab said:
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.

Pythagorean said:
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.

Office_Shredder said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
surajt88 said:
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.
 
  • #14
lisab, I think he's talking about gvt motive, not taxpayer wishes.
 
  • #15
This thread is ludicrous.
 
  • #16
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.
 
  • #17
Pythagorean said:
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.
 
  • #18
Yeah, occupation has already socially exhausted us, along with economic woes. We have class drug and terror wars already.
 
  • #19
Why should US occupy North Korea even if it were possible?
Reading this thread feels like WWIII is looming around.
 
  • #20
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.. :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Just the liberation of the brainwashed and imprisoned populace there. Some neither you nor Dr. Paul consider a priority.
 
  • #22
Antiphon said:
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.
 
  • #23
Antiphon said:
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.
 
  • #24
Locked pending moderation
 

Similar threads

News North Korea - another nuclear weapon test
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
News North Korea - Suspicious Seismic Activity
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
News What is North Korea's stance on US food aid and NGOs?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News North Korea Nuclear Test Draws Global Criticism
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Will North Korea and the US both get what they want?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
News Let's try lying, that oughtta work
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Should the World Intervene in North Korea?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K