4 ms·

You've summed it up nicely--it is basically a nation-size concentration camp. There are all kinds of wonderful realpolitick reasons for not invading or assassi

You've summed it up nicely--it is basically a nation-size concentration camp. There are all kinds of wonderful realpolitick reasons for not invading or assassinating or taking direct action. It suits China, it suits the US, it suits the UN, it probably even suits South Korea. And the maintenance cost is just a bunch of dead nork civilians. Those reasons will make a fine plaque at the memorial for the dead. Our children will wonder how we could let such a thing happen. EDIT: If somebody would like to explain how the combined armed forces of China and the US couldn't forcibly remove the malnourished and undertrained folks cannibalizing their own country, I'd love to hear the theory. Least of all since any proper insurgency requires food and support of the locals, which it sounds like may not exist.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Of course we could remove them. That isn't the question. The question is, at what price? Would it be less than 25 million dead? The answer to that question is not obvious. That's how bad the problem is.
Sangermaine 9y ago
I can't tell if you're just pretending to be this stupid. The ability to defeat North Korea isn't the question, the question is what the cost would be. North Korea, before being inevitably defeated, could do enormous damage to South Korea and Japan. You make smug comments about "plaques at the memorial for the dead"; what will you put on the memorials for the people of Seoul or Tokyo if they're destroyed in the war? "Sorry you had to die in a conventional/nuclear attack, but I'm sure you'll agree your deaths were worth it! Thanks for your sacrifice!"
- angersock 9y ago
  With a navy group next door and the massive amount of anti-missle and anti-artillery stuff that's doubtless setup on the peninsula, I don't think the risk of a strike on Japan or S. Korea doing any significant damage is that high.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Of course we could remove them. That isn't the question. The question is, at what price? Would it be less than 25 million dead? The answer to that question is not obvious. That's how bad the problem is.

Sangermaine 9y ago

I can't tell if you're just pretending to be this stupid. The ability to defeat North Korea isn't the question, the question is what the cost would be. North Korea, before being inevitably defeated, could do enormous damage to South Korea and Japan. You make smug comments about "plaques at the memorial for the dead"; what will you put on the memorials for the people of Seoul or Tokyo if they're destroyed in the war? "Sorry you had to die in a conventional/nuclear attack, but I'm sure you'll agree your deaths were worth it! Thanks for your sacrifice!"

angersock 9y ago
With a navy group next door and the massive amount of anti-missle and anti-artillery stuff that's doubtless setup on the peninsula, I don't think the risk of a strike on Japan or S. Korea doing any significant damage is that high.