What Prevents the USA from invading North Korea?

posted by worldtraveler434

North Korean Technology, an oxymoron . . They have no industry in North Korea. They use what they can extort or buy from their neighboring countries. They do get a great deal of tech from China and Russia as well, but that does not make them advanced as far as technology goes.
[Edited by Don W]

A few months ago I heard on CSpan2, a person who had been in North Korea say that it is not true that NK is bleak and hopeless in terms of modernity. He said NK was capable of producing many goods and had a fair level of services. He said Americans have blinded themselves to NK and its progress over the past half century. My point is to say, maybe yes, maybe no. On oxymoron.

Their missile testing was a joke, although I admit, if you give a blind man a gun, eventually he will shoot somebody. It is my hope that the international community will not wait long enough for that to occur.

Leaders are so very important. Hereditary dictatorships seem to be about the worst form of governance. NK and Syria come to mind. Regardless, Kim Jong Il has chosen a way to gain the attention of the powers that can help NK. It is not the way I would have recommended had he asked me, but so far, it has been pure saber rattling. Which in itself hurts no one.

My issue is why does the US hype this sham by NK into a precursor of WW3? And yet South Korea remains calm. And Japan is apparently just playing according to our script.

China and Russia are walking on egg shells . . The real reason we won't be invading North Korea is rather simple. Reason #1- We've been there, and done that. It was less than a rousing success the first time and in many way's be worse than what we are dealing with in the Middle East, which brings me to . .
Reason #2- Our forces are stretched thin . . between Iraq, Afghan and Iran, we don't have the resources to fight on four fronts at the same time . . our foreign policy has insured that we will only receive so much aid from organizations like the U.N. Last but not least I give you . .
Reason #3- At the end of the Korean War there was a half hearted treaty [no treaty, an armistice still in place] put in place . . unless Kim Jong ILL actually walks across the DMZ it won't happen . . firing a long range missile in our direction would be the same thing but please see reason's # 1 and # 2 for why it was not treated with the same response we might think would be warranted. [Edited By Don W]

R1 overlooks the 500,000 Chinese “Volunteers” that crossed the Yalu after asking us to stay 20 miles south but which we choose to ignore. The Chinese stopped their advance when they had ejected the UN - mainly the US - out of the north part of Korea. Which ought to tell us something about the Chinese.

R2 is right on. We don’t have enough National Guardsmen to fill the holes. What with the hurricane season being back. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We need about 750,000 soldiers on a temporary basis - 2 years - but have not the spunk or political chutzpah to go to Congress and ask for a draft. How can such brazen leaders have so little backbone?

R3 missed it, there is no treaty, but I don’t think it matters one whit. I’m just being technical, Worldtraveler434, and mean you no ill will. As to the firing of a ICBM - which I doubt they have in workable versions - let’s wait and see. NK is given to so much hyperbole and we say they are so backward, it would be like somebody in Darfur threatening to shoot off a Minuteman II. Laughable in both cases.

The perfect simile for North Korea. A stye. I'm humbled.

posted by Truthwillsetyoufree

North Korea is like having a stye in your eye. This is how Korea is to the US. They are persistent, rubbing us the wrong way to provoke a reaction. Why? What good does it really do them in the scheme of things? Maybe they want us rebuild their country like Japan? Like Iraq? Or is it deeper? Do they just want to rise out of obscurity and be noticed above the rabble of other countries? I think we don't invade them for three reasons:

1. They are trying to provoke us
2. China has far too many interests in NK
3. It may ignite WW3
[Edited by Don W]

I agree, Truth. Comparing NK to Cuba, both countries can get by without the United States. Although we rank both high in our domestic politics, no one else in the world seems to notice either as being unusual or dangerous. I understand the Israel lobby and the Cuba lobby, but I don’t know what or how or why there should be a North Korea lobby. Can anyone help me?

Originally posted by donwhite
The Chinese stopped their advance when they had ejected the UN - mainly the US - out of the north part of Korea. Which ought to tell us something about the Chinese.

Although the vast majority of your point stands, there is some question as to why the Chinese let up long enough for Ridgeway's 8th Army to regain its feet (resulting in the retaking of Seoul only a few months after the Chinese captured it). Given the inferior armament and mobility of Chinese forces, it was likely a matter of military necessity rather than a show of good faith. Had the Chinese strayed too far from their homeland and the possibility of reinforcements, they were wide open to being taken from the rear as the North Koreans had been after the Inchon landing.

I would be slow to assume than China is completely benign, even though I am as much a champion as anyone of the idea that we should foster a sense of limited conflict and respect for the status quo with them (in other words, that we shouldn't consider them all out enemies either, although I do not advocate seeing them in too positive a light.)

posted by The Vagabond

posted by donwhite
The Chinese stopped their advance . . tell us something about the Chinese. [Edited by Don W]

“. . there is some question as to why the Chinese let up long enough for Ridgeway's 8th Army to regain its feet resulting in the retaking of Seoul only a few months after the Chinese captured it. Given the inferior armament and mobility of Chinese forces, it was likely a matter of military necessity rather than a show of good faith . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I had forgotten that very germane fact of the “middle” part of the Korean War. And I admit I do not recall any public claim by China that it was acting in a conciliatory mood. So I'm giving up my first idea and replacing it with your scenario, which leaves me where?

Had the Chinese strayed too far from their homeland and the possibility of reinforcements, they were wide open to being taken from the rear as the North Koreans had been after the Inchon landing.

Exactly. All Chinese railroads and highways as well as ports in Manchuria were vulnerable to air interdiction - bombing. OTOH, I’m not at all sure how our allies would have seen any America only enlargement of the UN mandate. I guess you might say the Korean War was a war no one wanted but Kim Il Sung and Douglas MacArthur.

I would be slow to assume than China is completely benign, even though I am as much a champion as anyone of the idea that we should foster a sense of limited conflict and respect for the status quo with them (in other words, that we shouldn't consider them all out enemies either, although I do not advocate seeing them in too positive a light.)

Sort of Reagan-esque, Trust but Verify? I believe the Chinese have only a defensive armed forces. I thins we are pushing them into the submarine business. I regret that. This is the old economic whip-saw we cannot sustain forever. The Chines buy 4-6 subs made in Europe for a half billion each and we counter with super carrier battle group at $15 billion. They have 800-1500 sailors manning their quiet diesel subs and we have 15,000 men and 120 aircraft costing us $10 billion a year.

This is a continuation of a bankrupt foreign policy and a cowboy response to the Nine Eleven Event. OBL spent perhaps $2 million on the 19 hijackers and we have spent $40 billion in NYC and over $100 billion on Homeland Security. During the 2004 campaign, we were snookered by the DVD which was offered in July or August, and we spent $70 million on police overtime in NYC and W-DC before some private citizen pointed out the DVD was more than 3 years old. OBL spent nothing and etc.

Q. Was the CIA fooled or was the GOP fooling us as in an election ploy?

I’m suggesting the extent and duration of America’s conflict with China hinges on the underlying and unspoken issue of whether the United States considers itself as an Asian power or a Pacific power. We violated the West Point maxim not to fight a land war in Asia 2 times. Korea and Vietnam. While the first turned out well, the second was a national disaster. It is beyond argument that the Vietnam War played a decisive role in the 2004 election.

This requires America to do two things:
1) It’s time to withdraw our 36,000 men from South Korea. This would be done in consultation with the South Koreans and will facilitate the resumption of cross-DMZ relations pointing towards a unified Korea.
2) Its time for us to walk away from Taiwan. In 1949, there was legitimate doubt Mao Zedong could unify China and his communist revolution survive. That is no longer in issue in 2006.

We have no legitimate national interest in maintaining a separate Taiwan. It will not be easy to “wiggle” out of this trap of our own design. Pres. Nixon waged the Vietnam War for 6 years to “save face.” Something we always accused the Orientals of but never ourselves. That, by the by, is the only reason we are still in Iraq. To save our “face.” Well, that’s my POV.

I will give up my idea of a voluntary Chinese push only to the DMZ.


[edit on 7/14/2006 by donwhite]

We fairly close to the same page Don W. If you'll recall I proposed trading Taiwan for Chinese pressure on North Korea. Of course there is a certain dichotomy to my points here: pulling out of Asia in return for some say in Asia. This brings us to the question I've avoided answering so far. I've avoided answering it because the answer I arrive at is frustrating for me in that it sounds somewhat PNAC.

Is the US content to be a Pacific power? The answer can only be no. Any nation which limits its sphere of influence in geographic terms as the world continues to shrink is in big trouble.

That being said, is the US going to insist on being an Asian power? Depends on what you mean by Asian power.

I believe that rather than defining our sphere of influence by geography (which implies a basis in military force) that we should define it by the issues upon which we insist we must maintain influence. This obviously implies that military access and force-predicated influence of virtually any kind would not be included in that definition, because if they were there would be no reason not to define our sphere geographically.

The bounds of US influence as a global power must extend at least as far as trade, diplomacy, security (distinct from military force in its non-dependence on armies and purely defensive nature). We can't "butt out" of any region economically, diplomatically, or with regard to countering nuclear proliferation, among other things.

If China wants to make a "pacific power" out of us in those regards (in other words making itself able to impede our access to Asian markets or resources by virtue of its military standing in the region) then the best case scenario is a series of proxy wars which they are unlikely to get the better end of and the worst case scenario is a major direct war that doesn't have a better end to be gotten.

Geographically defined military power is not yet obsolete, and may never be completely since a man with a gun can of course challenge power in every other dimension, but when a given region becomes untennable in that regard the only alternative to a war is for both powers to cease defining themselves geographically in the regions where they compete and instead set minimum standards of power in specific non-intrusive areas of policy which they must be allowed to prevent a war.

This will gradually come to be the case throughout much of the world of course as India, China, the EU, and USA come to near economic and military parity, and when that starts to happen the system in all likelihood breaks down, because at the end of the day the whole reason we have nations, armies, etc etc is because there isn't enough to go around and somebody somewhere is gonna have to get screwed. So then you get into the building of rival coalitions and arms races and a million other things that are less fun than the world we currently enjoy, and sooner or later one party or another gains geographic dominance again, most likely through a war or other catastrophe.


So in my own obtuse way, what I'm saying is that an 800 pound gorilla only fits into one sized cage, and thats global. Now that there's more than one 800 pound gorilla in the cage, neither one had better try to force the other onto just one side of it. They're gonna have to share. The minute somebody refuses to share, there's gonna be a fight and if there's still a cage left after that, it'll be one gorillas cage again.
Or if they get along for long enough, then there will eventually be too many 800 pound gorillas and 2 or 3 of them are gonna have to gang up and kill one of the others to make more space.

I just cannot give NK that much weight (equal to Taiwan). I am convinced we are publicly underrating NK economics at the same time I’m convinced we are publicly overrating their nuclear and missile potential. Both misstatements of fact fit the desultory policies I attribute to the Administration and its not-so-high-profile agenda. Its hidden agenda. You put it very succinctly Mr Vagabond. As a premise I must agree and accept that.

Based on your excellent post, here is my question. What do people like me do when the current Administration places a greater emphasis or more importance on an issue then I believe it merits? I’m thinking specifically of NK as compared to Taiwan. I have little regard for NK. It is a non-player.

I want the US to abandon - yes, use the dirty word, abandon - the Taiwanese (as we finally abandoned the South Vietnamese to their great joy) without the tragedy that occurred in Vietnam. I do not place so much value on “face” as we have in the past. We’ve made an ass of ourselves in Iraq but other nations still deal with us. We’ll survive. Because the country is greater than its leaders. You made a strong point for our continued involvement, but you have also offered what I regard as another view.

Sovereignty. I think you have made the best case possible for a One World Government. Sovereign nation-states are passe. Analogous to departments in France or English counties, or provinces used around the world, but not like the the Canadian provinces or the 50 American states which seem to constantly bicker over perceived “rights” and so on.

Historical national boundaries could continue to serve useful administrative purposes. But as in the EU, a person must be able to “fly” - travel - across state borders as we do today on the interstate highways in America.

Vagabond posted

So in my own obtuse way, I'm saying an 800 pound gorilla only fits into one sized cage, and that’s global. Or if they get along for long enough, then there will eventually be too many 800 pound gorillas and 2 or 3 of them are gonna have to gang up and kill one of the others to make more space. [Edited by Don W]

Now that is one scary scenario.



[edit on 7/14/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Sovereignty. I think you have made the best case possible for a One World Government. Sovereign nation-states are passe. Analogous to departments in France or English counties, or provinces used around the world, but not like the the Canadian provinces or the 50 American states which seem to constantly bicker over perceived “rights” and so on.

donwhite, I do not think a One World Government is possible even with our "human dreams." By Divine Law, God said in Genesis 11:1-9 that languages must be confused to reduce pride, presumptuousness, and arrogance. Would the leader of the One World Government be considered God? Clearly no. Upheaval after upheaval would occur.

North Korea must be handled on a action-by-action basis. Hopefully they are open to the Christian-Enlightenment of peace.