Assuming Chinese intervention and subsequent World War III does not occur, that would be an apt comparison. But it is a necessary evil unless we are willing to declare all of North Korea a no-man's land and glass all human presence from the area with nuclear ordnance and write it off as acceptable losses to humanity.
There's a lot of interfamily connections still alive between the two Koreas. I could see reunification going fairly quickly, given the culture.
There's also the matter of cost. Our military is stretched thin and over budget right now, so if we do this, we'd have to do it fast - say, in less than a month. Unless Obama uses this as cover to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which I can't say I would disagree with.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.That's because they haven't got me done with training and ready for the front lines.
^^
It would take a few months for the actual operation to be completely closed. But we actually do have enough people, most of the folks fighting would be the folks at Kunsan and Osan Airbases, as well as the Army and Navy stationed there. With most of our troops out of Iraq, we could pull it off.
Most of the collateral damage you mentioned happened because we weren't fighting a military, we were fighting insurgents who were hiding in civilian buildings. There's a big god damn difference, it wasn't some sort of disregard by USCENTCOM for civilian casualties.
edited 24th Nov '10 6:30:14 PM by Barkey
An alternative history scenario would be interesting to talk about - the people of the North might have had a better time over the last sixty years, anyway.
Really, when you step back a bit, that whole land mass has had one bad thing after another for a century. Some stuff done differently with regards to the USSR in the closing time of WWII might have spared us the time of talking about it now.
But that's not our current reality - this is, and we got to deal with it. If it means bombs and guns and shells, so be it. I'd love it if it could be fixed without having to resort to that.
I wouldn't mind being unemployed (defense contractor currently) if the whole world suddenly became pacifistic all of a sudden, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Am I the only one thinking...
The USN Iowa, mothballed Battleship sitting in California...sailing out to sea, for ONE. LAST. MISSION.
?
Dr. McNinja is rubbing off on me and I like Battleships too much.
edited 24th Nov '10 11:58:10 PM by CommandoDude
"And by the UN we mostly mean the US because we were pretty much the only one with an unexploded military back then."
Hey, that's not entirely fair. For a start, there was at least 100,000 British Commonwealth troops there too.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.I don't see how a Chinese intervention would automatically lead to WW III. It's much more likely that the UN (and NATO and South Korea) would just back off if China decided to take part in this - unless China takes part in a Northern offence instead of just helping them defend. That said, there's pretty much no way China's gonna help the North take the South over; if it takes any part at all (in terms of actual military action), it's going to either help defend the North, never crossing the border itself, or more likely help NATO destroy the North for political points and favours. (If China helps the North cross the border, then we're in WW III - unless we abandon South Korea (like the West abandoned Finland, the Czech Republic and to an extent Poland in WW II).)
(Before anyone tells me that there was a good reason for abandoning East and Central Europe back then, it's true - and it's true now, too - you have to make a decision that's based on how far we value our... ummm... values.)
There are more options than
- Operation Nuking the North and
- Operation Slow and Painful Integration with Good Korea.
- (Operation Joint Asskicking by Conventional Means is one way towards OSPIGK)
EDIT: Made brackets somewhat more confusing.
edited 25th Nov '10 4:39:39 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Compare that to the status quo. It's bad, but it's better than what people have been holding off. And things can get better peacefully, Vietnam, China and Cuba are examples of that in action today, it's slow and still a ghastly violation of justice, but it's arguably the least horrible way forward. Life is like that sometimes.
edit: durr, typo.
edited 25th Nov '10 8:14:30 AM by EricDVH
"And things can get better peacefully, Vietnam, China and Cuba are examples of that in action today, it's slow and still a ghastly violation of justice, but it's arguably the least horrible way forward. Life is like that sometimes."
Leaving the citizens of NK to starve to death peacefully while the citizens of SK live in peaceful fear of being blown up for the latest propaganda showpiece for a few more generations does not, to me, seem particularly better or worse than causing some deaths to end it all. Peace should be valued in the beneficial results it has on the lives of those living in it, not for its own sake.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.This is a simple question of maths, if you want to be coldly clinical.
Question 1: How many deaths will a direct confrontation with NK actually cost?
Question 2: What is the likely death toll per year from malnourishment and poverty, not to mention the occasional skirmirsh, in NK, and in terms of said skirmirshes, SK?
Question 3: What are the likely types of governmental collapse in NK? How severe will the casualties of each type of collapse be?
Question 4: Therefore, with the answers to the last three questions in mind, what will result in the best possible outcome to this situation?
edited 25th Nov '10 9:57:05 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.I prefer these
questions:
- Is a vital national security interest threatened?
- Do we have a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
- Is the action supported by the American people?
- Do we have genuine broad international support?
edited 25th Nov '10 9:59:26 AM by EnglishIvy
^You have a point... dangers of one dimensional thinking.
edited 25th Nov '10 10:04:01 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.BBC- SK defense minister resigned.
Can't say how this will affect anything, no word on his replacement.
Question 2: What is the likely death toll per year from malnourishment and poverty, not to mention the occasional skirmish, in NK, and in terms of said skirmishes, SK?
Well if you wanna see it like that, I'm pretty sure that unless the North decides to use nukes (I'd bet a relatively good chunk of my cash that they won't if it were possible to place bets on this) a war would probably cost less lives than the North is losing every year as things are.
The figure I've heard is a quarter of a million deaths from starvation every year.
That's so fucking much that the country has its back so hard against the wall that the wall's wearing thin from the friction that the country's fear-induced shaking is causing; in fact, the dust that flies off the wall burns instantly because of the heat, making the shaking and the wear worse. Soon North Korea will simply rub through the wall and fall on its back, but despite the way tasteless people usually laugh at people falling on their ass, no-one's laughing at this old dude.
That said, if there were to be someone in the room going all Nelson and pointing at it with an exclamation of "Haa! haa!", it'd probably be the US - sorry, but that's the way you sometimes look from here. (I don't intend to derail this, just giving a small Take That! to the "bully of the world".) (North Korea is even worse of a bully, the kind that brings a gun to school.)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

The hardest part here isn't a prospective war, but the aftermath.
If SK manages to curbstomp NK (not improbable), it would have to deal with rehabilitating the North. Imagine the pains of German reunification, and multiply it.
INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.