6 ms·

This article infuriated me. No amount of aid, negotiations, or activism is going to help the people of North Korea. Literally their only hope is a large invadin

by jpcx01 16y ago

This article infuriated me. No amount of aid, negotiations, or activism is going to help the people of North Korea. Literally their only hope is a large invading army. The world had its chance to end this epic tragedy for 50 years and it did nothing. Now the madman has some nukes and all options are out of the question. Good job world peace. Way ta go.

someperson 16y ago
In places of malnutrition, organizations that distribute food aid directly help starving people. The UN have sanctions against North Korea because of its nuclear testing. Negotiations for nuclear disarmament (if successful) allow reductions of the economic sanctions. Improving its economy will directly help the people to some degree. Activists help pressure governments into bringing up issues at summits (or at the very least they raise awareness in the general community) which can lead to better communication and trade ties. So its clear that some amount of aid, negotiation and activism can help the people of a struggling country. Invading a country in that situation will lead to loss of life. It is also expensive and will probably cause deep seated hatred for many years, which in history has led to more conflicts down the line. The parent comment doesn't deserve 9 points, it doesn't even deserve 2 points. It just appeals to our propensities for aggression.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jpcx01 16y ago
  Your arguments are perfectly sound. However it has been tried, and has allowed unthinkable suffering. Why is a civilian casualty the worst possible scenario? The choice is between dying and a lifetime of living hell (north korea present day). I think its time to recognize that war is sometimes the answer, whether or not you think it appeals to our human aggression.
lionhearted 16y ago
I was in Eastern China when the news about the South Korean ship getting sunk came out and there were talks of a Korea/Korea war. I was ready to go volunteer as a civilian in South Korea to help a war effort if it came to that - I think the vast majority of the United States' wars in recent history have been poorly chosen, poorly executed, and morally questionable. But the United States Government not taking out Communist China and Kim Sung-il's North Korea during the Korean War has to be one of the largest war mistakes in history. So much misery could have been avoided if they'd done it the way Chiang Kai-shek wanted and pushed through Korea into China. The Communists got a huge boost from seizing the Imperial Japanese weapons after WWII, but they were still far underequipped compared to the U.N. forces in South Korea. Then the Soviets got nuclear weapons and the stand-still happened, and lots of people suffered for it. North Korea has to be one of the most vicious places in the world. I'd sign up pretty quickly if an international coalition went to tear down its government.
alextp 16y ago
And how exactly would the many inevitable civillian deaths and the gruelling guerrilla that are certainly going to happen if the US invades north korea help anything? It's partly because of war-mongering articles like this from the NYT that americans are so intent on war as a universal tool to "help" other countries. If it makes you any happier, as soon as some very precious natural resource is found in North Korea you can be sure there will be US troops.
- viggity 16y ago
  When the entire population is living in such complete misery, I don't really think that a guerrilla war would happen. The North Koreans aren't religious fanatics with some "higher cause" that would motivate them into a protracted insurgency. A war-mongering NYT article? That is a contradiction in terms. The only reason we haven't invaded is because China is protecting North Korea, and they're only really doing that because they don't want a massive flood of refugees into their country.
  - weavejester 16y ago
    "The North Koreans aren't religious fanatics with some "higher cause" that would motivate them into a protracted insurgency." No, but the North Korea regime is based upon fanatic nationalism, which isn't really that different.
    - jpcx01 16y ago
      Korean nationalism. South Korea's army would be the "occupying country" so I really doubt this would cause an insurgency as severe as the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    I think this is a naive reading. The population may rejoice, but that doesn't mean there won't be "dead-enders" from the regime who would engage in a guerrilla war. There is a cadre of numerous North Korean special and irregular forces who are dedicated to the regime (through brain-washing or for their own reasons) who have been trained with guerrilla fighting and terrorism skills. Read about Korean Air Flight 858 and Kim Hyon Hui, and imagine how many more agents of that sort North Korea has in reserve, and how much damage they could do before they were stopped. But all of this is a side show. The real reason North Korea has not been invaded is because the Seoul metro-area holds 24 million South Korean citizens, and most of it is extremely vulnerable to potential artillery bombardment from North Korea. Realistically the North Koreans could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of South Koreans in no more than a day of shelling if war broke out on the peninsula. The only way for the south to effectively wage war would be to completely evacuate Seoul as a prelude, and that action alone would probably trigger a war before the evacuation was complete. This, of course, doesn't even begin to factor in nuclear weapons. The Korean peninsula is a long, ongoing hostage situation. North Korea holds its own population hostage as well as much of South Korea. This is why so little progress has been made on getting rid of the North Korean regime, there are only bad options and even worse options at this point.
FlorinAndrei 16y ago
Having grown in Eastern Europe (I was a freshman in college when the wave of revolutions swept over that part of the world), I'm not quite comfortable with that approach. Sure, you can topple the regime, Iraq-style. But there will be many civilian casualties. Make no mistake, there will be casualties no matter what, but a brute force intervention can potentially be much more disastrous than a change coming from inside (revolution). I'm not sure just how deeply indoctrinated those people are. Is an uprising still possible? (my guess is yes) If so, a surgical-precision hit targeting "Dear Leader" might be enough to provide the initial spark. I'm sure this option is being considered somewhere, somehow. Whether it's deemed worth giving it a try, and whether it's successful remains to be seen.

by jpcx01 16y ago

someperson 16y ago

In places of malnutrition, organizations that distribute food aid directly help starving people. The UN have sanctions against North Korea because of its nuclear testing. Negotiations for nuclear disarmament (if successful) allow reductions of the economic sanctions. Improving its economy will directly help the people to some degree. Activists help pressure governments into bringing up issues at summits (or at the very least they raise awareness in the general community) which can lead to better communication and trade ties. So its clear that some amount of aid, negotiation and activism can help the people of a struggling country. Invading a country in that situation will lead to loss of life. It is also expensive and will probably cause deep seated hatred for many years, which in history has led to more conflicts down the line. The parent comment doesn't deserve 9 points, it doesn't even deserve 2 points. It just appeals to our propensities for aggression.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jpcx01 16y ago
Your arguments are perfectly sound. However it has been tried, and has allowed unthinkable suffering. Why is a civilian casualty the worst possible scenario? The choice is between dying and a lifetime of living hell (north korea present day). I think its time to recognize that war is sometimes the answer, whether or not you think it appeals to our human aggression.

lionhearted 16y ago

I was in Eastern China when the news about the South Korean ship getting sunk came out and there were talks of a Korea/Korea war. I was ready to go volunteer as a civilian in South Korea to help a war effort if it came to that - I think the vast majority of the United States' wars in recent history have been poorly chosen, poorly executed, and morally questionable. But the United States Government not taking out Communist China and Kim Sung-il's North Korea during the Korean War has to be one of the largest war mistakes in history. So much misery could have been avoided if they'd done it the way Chiang Kai-shek wanted and pushed through Korea into China. The Communists got a huge boost from seizing the Imperial Japanese weapons after WWII, but they were still far underequipped compared to the U.N. forces in South Korea. Then the Soviets got nuclear weapons and the stand-still happened, and lots of people suffered for it. North Korea has to be one of the most vicious places in the world. I'd sign up pretty quickly if an international coalition went to tear down its government.

alextp 16y ago

And how exactly would the many inevitable civillian deaths and the gruelling guerrilla that are certainly going to happen if the US invades north korea help anything? It's partly because of war-mongering articles like this from the NYT that americans are so intent on war as a universal tool to "help" other countries. If it makes you any happier, as soon as some very precious natural resource is found in North Korea you can be sure there will be US troops.

viggity 16y ago
When the entire population is living in such complete misery, I don't really think that a guerrilla war would happen. The North Koreans aren't religious fanatics with some "higher cause" that would motivate them into a protracted insurgency. A war-mongering NYT article? That is a contradiction in terms. The only reason we haven't invaded is because China is protecting North Korea, and they're only really doing that because they don't want a massive flood of refugees into their country.
- weavejester 16y ago
  "The North Koreans aren't religious fanatics with some "higher cause" that would motivate them into a protracted insurgency." No, but the North Korea regime is based upon fanatic nationalism, which isn't really that different.
  - jpcx01 16y ago
    Korean nationalism. South Korea's army would be the "occupying country" so I really doubt this would cause an insurgency as severe as the ones in Afghanistan or Iraq.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  I think this is a naive reading. The population may rejoice, but that doesn't mean there won't be "dead-enders" from the regime who would engage in a guerrilla war. There is a cadre of numerous North Korean special and irregular forces who are dedicated to the regime (through brain-washing or for their own reasons) who have been trained with guerrilla fighting and terrorism skills. Read about Korean Air Flight 858 and Kim Hyon Hui, and imagine how many more agents of that sort North Korea has in reserve, and how much damage they could do before they were stopped. But all of this is a side show. The real reason North Korea has not been invaded is because the Seoul metro-area holds 24 million South Korean citizens, and most of it is extremely vulnerable to potential artillery bombardment from North Korea. Realistically the North Koreans could kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of South Koreans in no more than a day of shelling if war broke out on the peninsula. The only way for the south to effectively wage war would be to completely evacuate Seoul as a prelude, and that action alone would probably trigger a war before the evacuation was complete. This, of course, doesn't even begin to factor in nuclear weapons. The Korean peninsula is a long, ongoing hostage situation. North Korea holds its own population hostage as well as much of South Korea. This is why so little progress has been made on getting rid of the North Korean regime, there are only bad options and even worse options at this point.

FlorinAndrei 16y ago

Having grown in Eastern Europe (I was a freshman in college when the wave of revolutions swept over that part of the world), I'm not quite comfortable with that approach. Sure, you can topple the regime, Iraq-style. But there will be many civilian casualties. Make no mistake, there will be casualties no matter what, but a brute force intervention can potentially be much more disastrous than a change coming from inside (revolution). I'm not sure just how deeply indoctrinated those people are. Is an uprising still possible? (my guess is yes) If so, a surgical-precision hit targeting "Dear Leader" might be enough to provide the initial spark. I'm sure this option is being considered somewhere, somehow. Whether it's deemed worth giving it a try, and whether it's successful remains to be seen.