15 ms·

Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake. 1. North Korean artillery could have done far more damage than 100,000 deaths in Seou

Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake. 1. North Korean artillery could have done far more damage than 100,000 deaths in Seoul. It's said that one out of three rounds holds a chemical charge. 2. South Korea under the progressive Roh Moo-hyun gov't was firmly opposed. Socially, South Korea would be torn apart by pro and anti-US (war) sides. 3. What about China? At that time the PRC had just joined the WTO. Instead of coming close to the advanced world, Chinese nationalists would likely have gained the upper hand domestically, and a war with the US in North Korea would even be possible. 4. Who would control North Korea afterwards? This assumes that the US would be able to occupy North Korea long enough to create order. It would have then joined South Korea, though they would have been against the war from the start? The surviving voters, that's to say the original South Koreans, and the new North Korean citizens of the republic, might well elect a strongly anti-US gov't. Esp after the US unilaterally decided to launch a bloody war. Be careful what you wish for... If we're playing coulda shoulda woulda, it would have been better to keep and strengthen the Clinton nuclear agreement. The Bush Administration let it break down, and North Korea got nukes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

rl3 10y ago
>Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake. Probably. It's just infuriating that the Western world has allowed the entire situation to persist for so long. It's 2017 and there's people who are born, live and die in labor camps with conditions straight out of the Holocaust. >This assumes that the US would be able to occupy North Korea long enough to create order. I often wonder what occupation of North Korea would be like. Are there actually a sizable number of brainwashed individuals that would fight to the death? Or would their populace be largely sympathetic in face of new information, considering their past treatment? My gut feeling is the latter, considering what happens when western media is smuggled into NK. These people literally risk a fate worse than death to see a glimpse of the outside world. Either way, an occupation would be deeply weird in so many ways. I'd love to see whatever post-invasion psyops playbook the U.S. has prepared, and any associated assessments. Probably classified though. >Be careful what you wish for... Not wishing per se, just operating under the assumption that if we had to have a war to satisfy various monied interests and their war profiteering ambitions, North Korea would have likely been a superior choice over Iraq from a humanitarian and global security perspective.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ythn 10y ago
  > It's just infuriating that the Western world has allowed the entire situation to persist for so long. It's usually lose/lose for whomever decides takes action. Does anyone ever get mad at Switzerland for always staying neutral, even if their neighbors are being herded away by the trainful and gassed? As soon as you get involved, you'll draw opponents even if you are doing it for The Right Reasons (which will be highly contested and you'll no doubt be accused of having ulterior motives)

rl3 10y ago

>Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake. Probably. It's just infuriating that the Western world has allowed the entire situation to persist for so long. It's 2017 and there's people who are born, live and die in labor camps with conditions straight out of the Holocaust. >This assumes that the US would be able to occupy North Korea long enough to create order. I often wonder what occupation of North Korea would be like. Are there actually a sizable number of brainwashed individuals that would fight to the death? Or would their populace be largely sympathetic in face of new information, considering their past treatment? My gut feeling is the latter, considering what happens when western media is smuggled into NK. These people literally risk a fate worse than death to see a glimpse of the outside world. Either way, an occupation would be deeply weird in so many ways. I'd love to see whatever post-invasion psyops playbook the U.S. has prepared, and any associated assessments. Probably classified though. >Be careful what you wish for... Not wishing per se, just operating under the assumption that if we had to have a war to satisfy various monied interests and their war profiteering ambitions, North Korea would have likely been a superior choice over Iraq from a humanitarian and global security perspective.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ythn 10y ago
> It's just infuriating that the Western world has allowed the entire situation to persist for so long. It's usually lose/lose for whomever decides takes action. Does anyone ever get mad at Switzerland for always staying neutral, even if their neighbors are being herded away by the trainful and gassed? As soon as you get involved, you'll draw opponents even if you are doing it for The Right Reasons (which will be highly contested and you'll no doubt be accused of having ulterior motives)