North Korea Mega Thread

[SWE]

Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  

Unfortunately, Trump, through his signing off of sanctions against Iran, has also conveyed to North Korea that they also potentially face real consequences if they didn't make nuclear threats to the United States and came to the negotiating table.

[Devout Centrist]

The world finds itself in this precarious situation thanks to eight years of inactivity and wimping out by Obama.  

This statement makes no sense

[NHI]

Can we all agree that it is not one party's fault for North Korea's growing nuclear program? Better action should have been taken for years now.

[JA]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue. 

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

[Senator Spark]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue. 

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Are you willing to risk allowing major U.S. cities to becoming susceptible to a nuclear attack? Be sitting ducks and wait for North Korea to act? Doubtful in my mind, and the President knows this.

[Virginiá]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it is currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

[AtorBoltox]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue. 

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

For what? A chance to look tough on tv

[HisGrace]

Depending on the result of the war with North Korea, we will need to negotiate with China regarding government to take the place of the former North Korean regime if they are wiped out. Due to their objection to a reunified Korea by the U.S., China will likely want to install a provisional government while the U.S. would seize the remaining weapons and protect South Korea's sovereignty.  

I know this is morbid to think about, but if we actually did launch enough nukes to "wipe out" NK, it would just be an unlivable wasteland, right? So there wouldn't really need to be a "government" there. It would probably clear up eventually (although nukes have never been uses in that kind of concentration before so you can't say that would happen) and something would have to happen with that land. I'd be fine with letting China have it if they were insistent on it.

If you just mean overthrowing the government, letting the Chinese keep NK as a separate state and having them set up their own government would be a good way to avoid the endgame so to speak. SK wouldn't be happy about that at all, though.  

[Senator Spark]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat. It parallels to Kennedy's administration with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In the coming months, it will need to be addressed in some manner.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Can we all agree that it is not one party's fault for North Korea's growing nuclear program? Better action should have been taken for years now.

It's certainly way past time where pointing fingers for past mistakes is useful.

At the same time I'm also unconvinced by the incredible jump in North Korea's supposed threat from "tiny crazy country with pathetic but potentially dangerous WMD/missile programs" to "OMG War Nau or We All Die!"

[Senator Spark]

Depending on the result of the war with North Korea, we will need to negotiate with China regarding government to take the place of the former North Korean regime if they are wiped out. Due to their objection to a reunified Korea by the U.S., China will likely want to install a provisional government while the U.S. would seize the remaining weapons and protect South Korea's sovereignty.  

I know this is morbid to think about, but if we actually did launch enough nukes to "wipe out" NK, it would just be an unlivable wasteland, right? So there wouldn't really need to be a "government" there. It would probably clear up eventually (although nukes have never been uses in that kind of concentration before so you can't say that would happen) and something would have to happen with that land. I'd be fine with letting China have it if they were insistent on it.

If you just mean overthrowing the government, letting the Chinese keep NK as a separate state and having them set up their own government would be a good way to avoid the endgame so to speak. SK wouldn't be happy about that at all, though.  

Probably wouldn't use nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula unless the situation spiraled out of control.

[Virginiá]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat.

And the most clueless person we could possibly pick to handle it.

How can we expect a man who is notorious for having such a short-attention span that he can't even read a full presidential briefing, to actually make the right calls? He has no experience in government at all, and he refuses to actually do his homework on all these issues. He is legitimately clueless.

[Senator Spark]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat.

And the most clueless person we could possibly pick to handle it.

He isn't clueless if he's competent enough to become President of the United States. I'd rather call him clever.

[Virginiá]

He isn't clueless if he's competent enough to become President of the United States. I'd rather call him clever.

You think winning an election, which was mostly him just getting on stage and rambling for hours, makes him qualified to execute the duties of POTUS? Come on Spark. Elections alone don't make people qualified for anything like that, particularly when the person has a habit of ignoring advice.

[JA]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue.  

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Are you willing to risk allowing major U.S. cities to becoming susceptible to a nuclear attack? Be sitting ducks and wait for North Korea to act? Doubtful in my mind, and the President knows this.

And so I refer you back to the first sentence in my post. We should try talking to them. Not via China as our intermediary, but call the North Koreans and arrange a meeting between our leadership teams (including South Korea's). Sit down and hammer this out. North Korean leadership does not want to lose its grip on power, nor will it surrender its nuclear capabilities; the United States has ensured that due to our regime change in non-nuclear enemy states. But we both want to avoid a nuclear war, so the smartest plan is to treat North Korea with a modicum of respect; don't give them everything they want, but give them enough to ensure that they back away from the cliff. As in all relationships (whether interpersonal or geopolitical), dialogue must be maintained. And for heaven's sake, stop goading them.

[AtorBoltox]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat.

And the most clueless person we could possibly pick to handle it.

He isn't clueless if he's competent enough to become President of the United States. I'd rather call him clever.

Did you fall into a coma 9 months ago
And just wake up?

[Wells]

Something tells me an ambassador to South Korea would be useful. Sadly, it's another position Trump has left empty. But some people still trust Trump to handle the rest of this right for some reason.

[Senator Spark]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue.  

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Are you willing to risk allowing major U.S. cities to becoming susceptible to a nuclear attack? Be sitting ducks and wait for North Korea to act? Doubtful in my mind, and the President knows this.

And so I refer you back to the first sentence in my post. We should try talking to them. Not via China as our intermediary, but call the North Koreans and arrange a meeting between our leadership teams (including South Korea's). Sit down and hammer this out. North Korean leadership does not want to lose its grip on power, nor will it surrender its nuclear capabilities; the United States has ensured that due to our regime change in non-nuclear enemy states. But we both want to avoid a nuclear war, so the smartest plan is to treat North Korea with a modicum of respect; don't give them everything they want, but give them enough to ensure that they back away from the cliff. As in all relationships (whether interpersonal or geopolitical), dialogue must be maintained.

That is a credible argument, however, the time for dialogue has passed. North Korea does not have a stable leader who is willing to negotiate. President Moon Jae-in has explicitly expressed interest in talking with Kim Jong Un regarding this situation and even mentioned peaceful reunification, which I believe is the right move but it has proven unsuccessful.

The only other solution would be to accept them as a nuclear power, but even then how can we be sure that they won't attack us? I think it is a very risky proposition IMO.

I willingly accept to hear any opposing solutions and opinions.

[JA]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue.  

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Are you willing to risk allowing major U.S. cities to becoming susceptible to a nuclear attack? Be sitting ducks and wait for North Korea to act? Doubtful in my mind, and the President knows this.

And so I refer you back to the first sentence in my post. We should try talking to them. Not via China as our intermediary, but call the North Koreans and arrange a meeting between our leadership teams (including South Korea's). Sit down and hammer this out. North Korean leadership does not want to lose its grip on power, nor will it surrender its nuclear capabilities; the United States has ensured that due to our regime change in non-nuclear enemy states. But we both want to avoid a nuclear war, so the smartest plan is to treat North Korea with a modicum of respect; don't give them everything they want, but give them enough to ensure that they back away from the cliff. As in all relationships (whether interpersonal or geopolitical), dialogue must be maintained.

That is a credible argument, however, the time for dialogue has passed. North Korea does not have a stable leader who is willing to negotiate. President Moon Jae-in has explicitly expressed interest in talking with Kim Jong Un regarding this situation and even mentioned peaceful reunification, which I believe is the right move but it has proven unsuccessful.

The only other solution would be to accept them as a nuclear power, but even then how can we be sure that they won't attack us? I think it is a very risky proposition IMO.

Dialogue is never too late. The North Korean leadership has reiterated countless times their desire to speak with the United States. Hell, even on the campaign trail Trump said he'd be willing to meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss these issues. Now, suddenly, that's unimaginable? North Korea will not strike first unless they have credible reason to believe a strike upon them is imminent. That's not even debatable; it simply requires looking at North Korea's track record. They're not ISIS; their ultimate desire is to perpetuate their government. That won't happen if American bombs are raining down upon them, and they know it. So, bring them to the negotiating table; that's what they want. That's what all their rhetoric is about. They want to speak with us and we've constantly refused them.

[Virginiá]

The only other solution would be to accept them as a nuclear power, but even then how can we be sure that they won't attack us? I think it is a very risky proposition IMO.

I guess you don't, but mutually assured destruction means even people like Kim are aware that use of a nuclear weapon would likely seal not only his fate but the fate of a large portion of his country. The United States could quite easily obliterate North Korea with just a tiny fraction of its nuclear weapons. NK leadership's inherent desire for self-preservation will take care of the rest.

Putting aside NK, something people are going to have to understand at some point or another is that as technology advances and becomes more widespread, it's going to be harder and harder to keep weapons of mass destruction in check, particularly for biological and chemical weapons. We aren't just going to be able to bomb the world into submission forever. I mean, what happens when/if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Or maybe Saudi Arabia if they feel it is necessary?

[HisGrace]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue.  

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Are you willing to risk allowing major U.S. cities to becoming susceptible to a nuclear attack? Be sitting ducks and wait for North Korea to act? Doubtful in my mind, and the President knows this.

And so I refer you back to the first sentence in my post. We should try talking to them. Not via China as our intermediary, but call the North Koreans and arrange a meeting between our leadership teams (including South Korea's). Sit down and hammer this out. North Korean leadership does not want to lose its grip on power, nor will it surrender its nuclear capabilities; the United States has ensured that due to our regime change in non-nuclear enemy states. But we both want to avoid a nuclear war, so the smartest plan is to treat North Korea with a modicum of respect; don't give them everything they want, but give them enough to ensure that they back away from the cliff. As in all relationships (whether interpersonal or geopolitical), dialogue must be maintained.

That is a credible argument, however, the time for dialogue has passed. North Korea does not have a stable leader who is willing to negotiate. President Moon Jae-in has explicitly expressed interest in talking with Kim Jong Un regarding this situation and even mentioned peaceful reunification, which I believe is the right move but it has proven unsuccessful.

The only other solution would be to accept them as a nuclear power, but even then how can we be sure that they won't attack us? I think it is a very risky proposition IMO.

I willingly accept to hear any opposing solutions and opinions.

NK knows we could completely wipe them out if they went nuclear. I think they're just trying to scare us into negotiating with them and give them concessions, which is why I'd oppose any meetings with them at this point. Giving in would just encourage them to behave similarly whenever they want something. "Accepting them as a nuclear power" is probably closest to my viewpoint although I don't think we should have relations with them until they improve as a country and after a certain period of good behavior.

[Senator Spark]

By the way, the preemptive attack on North Korea would be justifiable to the UN by preventing a nuclear attack from occurring if we have sufficient intelligence to inform us that it is imminent.

According to the Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter an act is justified as self defense if two conditions are present.

1. There must a real threat and not perceived.

2. The self defense must be proportional to the harm in which the actor is threatened.

[Yank2133]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat. It parallels to Kennedy's administration with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In the coming months, it will need to be addressed in some manner.

There is a big difference between a country trying to obtain Nukes and one having them 90 miles of your coast.

[Senator Spark]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat. It parallels to Kennedy's administration with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In the coming months, it will need to be addressed in some manner.

There is a big difference between a country trying to obtain Nukes and one having them 90 miles of your coast.

Not really, it only would take an estimated 30 minutes to reach Los Angeles.

[Yank2133]

Do conservatives actually trust Trump to lead America safely and effectively through a war with a country like North Korea? That's a serious question. We all have seen Trump behave, all the lies he tells, the erratic decision making, the knee-jerk reactions that had zero forethought. I get that I see Trump differently than a Republican does, but Trump's absurd, often-unhinged behavior should make everyone, including conservatives, nervous as hell in this situation.

And on a personal note, I'd like to state that it currently my dream that we go through at least one Republican administration that doesn't drag us into war with someone. I mean for the love of god, we are barely even done with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Iraq was entirely unnecessary. However, in this instance we actually do have an imminent and credible threat. It parallels to Kennedy's administration with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In the coming months, it will need to be addressed in some manner.

There is a big difference between a country trying to obtain Nukes and one having them 90 miles of your coast.

Not really, it only would take an estimated 30 minutes to reach Los Angeles.

We aren't even sure NK has the capabilities to even hit US mainland. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, we knew that they could hit every major city in the country besides Seattle.