3 ms·

If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea, I would expect China to stand back, close their border, and do nothing but make loud protest nois

by retrac 4y ago

If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea, I would expect China to stand back, close their border, and do nothing but make loud protest noises. They're not keen on sharing a border with a US client state. They're also not keen on a rogue North Korea with nukes. The main issue is that, even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has enough conventional arms, including chemical weapons, to cause horrific damage to South Korea. Seoul's entire urban area is within artillery range of the DMZ. I've seen estimates of varying credibility but most experts speak of hundreds of thousands of deaths on the first day of shelling, if a full-scale war broke out on the Korean peninsula.

FpUser 4y ago
>"If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea" NK is no longer part of NPT. Would not this war be illegal? How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? >"I would expect China to stand back" And what if it does not?
- retrac 4y ago
  I know quite well, as you probably do, that international law has zero bearing on the military decisions made by the USA in terms of its interests. Yes, it'd be illegal, unless the UN Security Council gave its blessing. Just like the second Gulf War was illegal. That has never stopped the US before. > How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? It does not. The United States government rejects the idea it is restricted by international law on these matters. As for South Korea, it can argue it's an internal domestic matter.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"That has never stopped the US before" I know this much. My question was largely rhetorical.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  “Illegal war” is just a phrase to make political noise about military action you don’t like. There are treaties, not laws, and no body to actually enforce laws, it’s just diplomacy. General practices are agreed upon but they’re basically just loose agreements.
- lucb1e 4y ago
  NPT = Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/) --your friendly neighborhood unusual acronym lookup robot

by retrac 4y ago

FpUser 4y ago

>"If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea" NK is no longer part of NPT. Would not this war be illegal? How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? >"I would expect China to stand back" And what if it does not?

retrac 4y ago
I know quite well, as you probably do, that international law has zero bearing on the military decisions made by the USA in terms of its interests. Yes, it'd be illegal, unless the UN Security Council gave its blessing. Just like the second Gulf War was illegal. That has never stopped the US before. > How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? It does not. The United States government rejects the idea it is restricted by international law on these matters. As for South Korea, it can argue it's an internal domestic matter.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"That has never stopped the US before" I know this much. My question was largely rhetorical.
colechristensen 4y ago
“Illegal war” is just a phrase to make political noise about military action you don’t like. There are treaties, not laws, and no body to actually enforce laws, it’s just diplomacy. General practices are agreed upon but they’re basically just loose agreements.
lucb1e 4y ago
NPT = Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/) --your friendly neighborhood unusual acronym lookup robot