StayDead wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote:StayDead wrote:Alvin Flummux wrote:It would surely be worth it just to remove the threat.
Of course it wouldn't. Innocent lives would be lost for a war that could possibly take decades and thousands more would die in conflict that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Seriously, sooner or later. The people of North Korea will liberate themselves, or cause some kind of revolt. Either that or their military will find out the truth about their great leader and either defect, escape the country through china or free out all of the Gulag's.
Something will happen in that country on it's own sooner or later, the rest of the world getting involved would change nothing, if anything it'd make to the north koreans that they've been right all along and their Glourious Leader wasn't just spouting lies about the west.
Innocent lives are always lost in war, it wouldn't take decades and you have too much faith in the ability of the people to overthrow the government; been to Myanmar lately? They tried out the whole democratic revolution deal, it didn't work out.
Innocent lives shouldn't have to be lost in war, especially in a case where it could of been avoided completely. That's just horrible. Think of the real long lasting effects of the people who were indirectly affected would feel? I for one, wouldn't be happy knowing our governments caused people who were in other words in no danger what so ever, get nuked because we entered a pointless war.
Luckily for civilians the world over, precision-guided munitions will soon be so good that the separation of war and civilian life that we had for centuries before WW1 will be at last restored, and if the US is at war with NK it will be watching every moment of every day for the telltale signs of ICBM/IRBM launches. It should be able to intercept them before they can hit their targets.