4 ms·
I doubt this is a main reason. Main reason is that they don't have valuable natural resources that can be exploited, they have not so important strategic locati
by anticodon 10y ago
I doubt this is a main reason. Main reason is that they don't have valuable natural resources that can be exploited, they have not so important strategic location. Investment in "liberation" of NK will hardly be as beneficial for US (main "liberators" in the contemporary world) as "liberation" of other more lucrative countries (that has oil or somehow threat stability of US dollar).
- Inconel 10y agoThat certainly may play a part in the reasoning but I doubt it's a more pressing concern than the death toll and economic destruction that South Korea would face if full on war broke out. Not to mention that even if N. Korea were to be "liberated", I'm not entirely sure the South would want to bear the cost of reunification. Korean reunification would make German reunification look cheap in comparison.
- redwood 10y agoBy this logic you're wrong. The value of a unified Korea particularly to South Korean firms would be astronomical in terms of a highly capable populace that could help Korea regain dominance in manufacturing
- anticodon 10y agoWhy would they want to start a war in their own country? US start wars very far from its own borders. It's highly profitable and only small number of lives of US citizens are in danger. But for US situation with NK and SK is already good enough: no profit from invading NK, and US already profit from having military base in SK because SK pays them huge money for it. USA gains nothing from invading NK. When any variable change and invasion will become profitable, NK will be inevitably "liberated".