3 ms·
... as opposed to the millions who have probably died under North Korean misrule, and the thousands or millions more who will likely also die in the future due
by mkramlich 16y ago
... as opposed to the millions who have probably died under North Korean misrule, and the thousands or millions more who will likely also die in the future due to it?
I disagree it's a simplistic analysis, and I even disagree that a "simple" analysis is inherently bad. But I think we both agree that people dying is a bad thing.
- zavulon 16y agoI would agree with you... unfortunately, there's only one thing that complicates the matters: nuclear weapons. If attacked, NK would of course be overwhelmed - but not before doing some massive and catastrophic damage to their near and not so near neighbors.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoNuclear weapons hardly change the balance of the equation even. So much of South Korea's population lives in the Seoul metropolitan area and within range of hardened, well-hidden North Korean artillery that it makes it a near certainty that any hot-war on the peninsula would come at the price of hundreds of thousands to millions of South Korean deaths. Add in nuclear weapons, unconventional warfare (who knows how many sleeper terrorist agents the DPRK has in the South), and conventional battlefield losses and you get a horrific butcher's bill on both sides for any likely engagement. Stacked against that the ongoing horror visited on North Korea's citizens by its own regime is not enough to warrant such sacrifices, sad as that is.