Is a preemptive attack on north korea (nonnuclear) in the best interest of the world?

[Guest loarevalo]

Preemtive war on NK would be a utter disaster! (pun on utter: "other" disaster)

 

Thousands of people are being murdered in Sudan (I think) by the genocide. There is no "nuclear" or "China" threat there - it would be an utter shame to go to NK before helping Africa.

[alxian]

*cough*helping africa*cough*not a chance in heck*cough*

[pgrmdave]

I have never found a war that was in the interest of the world that was not a defensive war. War means that people are murdered by the thousands. War means that families are broken up, that children grow up without parents, and grow up too quickly. War means that people who are loved die, because their leaders hate. The only wars which have helped are those which have stopped war from going furthur, and even then I would not say that they were good, only that they were less bad. Imagine what the world would be like if we stopped fighting wars...Imagine what the world would be like if we only kept an army that could defend us, and stopped maintaining an army that would be used aggressively...Imagine what good that money could do for us...I cannot bring myself to claim that war is just, or good, it is not a thing to be intellectualized, and thought of as a pure numbers game. People being murdered is bad. People being murdered by the thousands is worse.

[alxian]

lets not get ahead of ourselves here

 

war is not a human invention

 

its a fact of life when resources or in our case poolitics converge and ensueing conflicts cannot be resolved.

 

we can and should use it as a conflict resolution method when diplomacy fails.

 

unless you are willing to get rid of all nations on earth and create a world government war will not just go away. it is horrible, "war is hell" but like many things its not going to go away or become anyless bloody.

[pgrmdave]

I think that there is simply a fundamental difference between you and I, I am an idealist, while you are more of a realist. Idealists think that the world will only become better by people doing their best to reach the ideal, even if it seems unrealistic, and that it only seems unrealistic because not enough people are trying for it. Realists, however, look at the world around them and work within it. Seeing that wars have always happened, you assume, probably correctly, that they always will, so you work within that framework.

[Eclogite]

Realist: Wars will always happen, so lets just try to minimise them and the harm they cause. Result: Wars will always happen.

Idealist: Wars are an unnecessary evil. We can work to eliminate them. Result: Perhaps, despite the best efforts, wars will always happen, but perhaps they can be eliminated.

Therefore which approach offers the best shot at eliminating war? [No prizes are on offer.]

 

As to the original question, a pre-emptive strike against North Korea is inappropriate:

 

1)An invasion would fail.

2)A tactical strike against facilities would lack the necessary precision.

3) Either action would generate massive hostility from every other country (except perhaps Japan.)

4) China would oppose it, possibly with force - now try to keep it non-nuclear.

5) It would erode the little that is left of the US's moral high ground.

6) It's dumb (see 1-5 above)

[alxian]

war, btw statistically not the biggest preventable cause of death in the world, requires nations to fight amoungst themselves.

 

unite all nations under a single banner and voila, no more war.

 

sure you can have civil conflicts but at least for now civilians don't fight with nuke ricin or mustard gas.

 

i was an idealist, the world laughs at idealism, i'd rather not call myself a realist either because frankly and literally i don't "live" in or understand the real world.

 

 

whoa wait a minute... *sputters*, what US moral high ground?! they are the instigators here in several of these conflicts (if not all).

[damocles]

Eclogite

Thinking

 

Re: is a preemptive attack on north korea (nonnuclear) in the best interest of the world?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Realist: Wars will always happen, so lets just try to minimise them and the harm they cause. Result: Wars will always happen.

Idealist: Wars are an unnecessary evil. We can work to eliminate them. Result: Perhaps, despite the best efforts, wars will always happen, but perhaps they can be eliminated.

Therefore which approach offers the best shot at eliminating war? [No prizes are on offer.]

 

As to the original question, a pre-emptive strike against North Korea is inappropriate:

 

1)An invasion would fail.

2)A tactical strike against facilities would lack the necessary precision.

3) Either action would generate massive hostility from every other country (except perhaps Japan.)

4) China would oppose it, possibly with force - now try to keep it non-nuclear.

5) It would erode the little that is left of the US's moral high ground.

6) It's dumb (see 1-5 above)

 

Some thoughts.

 

On North Korea:

 

1. Humans are social scavenger animals. They group. They range. They compete in their ranges for resources. North Korea has notoriously failed in this aspect.

 

2. Resources are finite in quantity in our current macro-range-the planet Earth.(See 1.)

 

3. Malthus was and is valid.(Too many mouths+too little food+failed adaptation to environment=die offs and wars among humans within a restricted range. See Africa.)

 

4. The North Koreans have exceeded the capacity to sustain themselves in their restricted range using their current resource exploitation strategy and refuse to adapt to meet this reality.

 

5. The North Korean leadership adopted a blackmail profile(claiming to either have or trying to obtain nuclear weapons) to convince the world to sustain them in their current resource exploitation strategy rather than adapt and change to the condition in which they find themselves.

 

6. China supports the North Koreans, finding the North Korean behavior profile more familiar and comfortable to theirs than their American "trading partner". The Chinese also see North Korea as a distraction to amuse their American competitors while they themselves seek resources for themselves.

 

On China,

 

1. China's leadership adapted to changing range conditions they confronted, going capitalist in a capitalist world while pretending to remain "communist".

 

2. China cannot feed itself without an energy based (OIL based) agriculture.

 

3. China lacks certain key strategic materials to sustain herself, chief of these being OIL.

 

http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/Abstract_Lisbon_Pang.pdf

 

4. China and America are currently locked in a range war over that commodity.

 

5. The solution to that range war is basicly a U.S. transition to another form of energy that allows us to restrict our dependence on oil. Otherwise we face an impending resource war that dwarfs the North Korean question.

 

As to a North korean War?

 

A;

1)An invasion would fail.

 

False. Force parity exists along the DMZ. U.S. re-inforcements and ROK callups would provide the 3-1 force advantage needed to break the North Korean Army's defensive crust within 100-150 hours of operations. After that there is no sustainable population base for a successful guerilla war. Follow up intervention by China is problematical for the Chinese logistically(lack of mobility and sustainement within the PLA) and they know it.

 

B;

2)A tactical strike against facilities would lack the necessary precision.

 

False. Sustained kinetic aerial bombardment will kill hardened buried aimpoints up to 500 meters deep inside hard rock shelters. The necessary pre-requisite is the LOCATION and the time.

 

C;

3) Either action would generate massive hostility from every other country (except perhaps Japan.)

 

True, but include Japan within the opponents set; as there is a natural hostility by nations to the breach of International Law that a pre-emptive attack, no matter how much the attacker atempts to justify it; is.

 

D;

4) China would oppose it, possibly with force - now try to keep it non-nuclear

.

 

True, but....(See the answer to A1.)

 

E;

5) It would erode the little that is left of the US's moral high ground.

 

What moral high ground? The idea that Americans have an exclusive right to some moral high ground is a peculiar American arrogance and conceit much like the French have with their "culture". It is no more valid to an enemy's point of view than to say Wisconsin cheese is superior to Pennsylvania cheese. The only valid morality in this case as it is in any case objectively is success.

 

F;

6) It's dumb (see 1-5 above)

 

Agreed. The best answer to North Korea as it is in the case of Cuba and China is to outlast the leadership and allow the natural environmental pressures to modify inefficient human economic systems into efficient ones. If the peace holds, the most likely models are socialist systems based on a capitalist economy in those nations. That would mean relative peace and stability within those societies.

 

Now as to the claim that China is the most or will be the most powerful nation on Earth?

 

False. The United States currently has four times the warmaking power from a standing start, and ten times the warmaking power at maximum mobilization.

 

The future power of the Earth will be India. Give her about fity to seventy five years to attain that ranking.

 

Both China and the United States are in DECLINE.

 

Future war will not likely be in Asia between the United States and an Asian power.

 

That future war will be a response to a terrorist attack on a northern hemisphere nation by an equatorial or southern hemisphere state sponsored terrorist group.

 

Specifically, look hard at Pakistan and some nation within the western Eurasian landmass as your best current chance for war.

[Eclogite]

whoa wait a minute... *sputters*, what US moral high ground?! they are the instigators here in several of these conflicts (if not all).

What moral high ground? The idea that Americans have an exclusive right to some moral high ground is a peculiar American arrogance and conceit

Hey guys, I was simply trying to ingratiate myself with those who are right wing, 'my country right or wrong', forum members by implying something noble that probably doesn't exist, but that they might like to think does. Now you've blown my cover. :eek_big:

 

Damocles, I agree with the first half of your post, but not all of the refutations of my earlier points on North Korea. I shall try to come back with some detailed discussion points later.