It's actually fairly straightforward - nobody wants to clean up the mess. Russia and China don't want to deal with the inevitable refugee crisis, and as an ally of South Korea the US would have a hard time ignoring their calls for help.
They will need lots of help too, as the number of mouths to feed will double but virtually none of the new citizens will be qualified to work in such a tech based economy.
We definitely can get Kim, it's just that the result would be a chaotic, expensive mess. The whole reason they are pushing so hard for nukes is self preservation, Kim knows he can't put up a fight with the US at the moment.
North Korea isn't sitting oil. They are supposedly sitting on deposits of rare earth metals needed for computer chips though, so maybe invasion will look more appealing to some down the road.
How exactly do "we" get Kim? He has nukes and Seoul is very close. Tokyo is further, but it might be in reach. They last time I checked, Seoul had about 22 M people, and Tokyo had about 34 M.
Kim can put up a fight. It is not like they are developing nukes. They already have them.
I betcha that Iraq, Libya, and Syria wishes they had them, too. It is about the only way to ensure you are not invaded.
The russian and mossad use it. But if you say it dont work ill bite. I dont think his loyal henchman want to watch us and israel shoot down nukes over their heads. Trust me when i say he cant hit us. Its postulating. Thats a 3rd world shithole. No internet. No food. Its like asian africa. Im tired of this fat sack of shit being on the news. Kill him or ignore him. Its a joke. Mosquitos are a bigger worldwide threat than kimmy jung dung.
Kim Jong Un has nukes. Do you really think the CIA will challenge anybody that can fight back? The CIA are cowards. They only go after the weak and powerless.
Risk/reward doesn't favor "getting" him for the time being. When thinking about their risk/reward calculations consider their nearly unlimited resources which allow them to create rewards and foundations for more rewards (or hedges) in every possible situation.
1) We didn't get Gaddafi, his people did. We provided air cover.
2) We didn't get Hussein "easily," we sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq, spent trillions of dollars, and we didn't catch him until like nine months into the war.
3) Iraq didn't have nukes. North Korea does, and has repeatedly threatened to destroy South Korea if we invade.
26 comments
n/a quetz4 2017-07-10
Because they realize that the aftermath would potentially be even worse than the current situation with no clear gains for the US.
n/a four_leaf_tayback 2017-07-10
You're comparing apples and oranges.
n/a jzorbino 2017-07-10
It's actually fairly straightforward - nobody wants to clean up the mess. Russia and China don't want to deal with the inevitable refugee crisis, and as an ally of South Korea the US would have a hard time ignoring their calls for help.
They will need lots of help too, as the number of mouths to feed will double but virtually none of the new citizens will be qualified to work in such a tech based economy.
We definitely can get Kim, it's just that the result would be a chaotic, expensive mess. The whole reason they are pushing so hard for nukes is self preservation, Kim knows he can't put up a fight with the US at the moment.
n/a TJG01 2017-07-10
Iraq and Libya aren't a chaotic, expensive mess?
n/a jzorbino 2017-07-10
North Korea isn't sitting oil. They are supposedly sitting on deposits of rare earth metals needed for computer chips though, so maybe invasion will look more appealing to some down the road.
n/a pby1000 2017-07-10
How exactly do "we" get Kim? He has nukes and Seoul is very close. Tokyo is further, but it might be in reach. They last time I checked, Seoul had about 22 M people, and Tokyo had about 34 M.
Kim can put up a fight. It is not like they are developing nukes. They already have them.
I betcha that Iraq, Libya, and Syria wishes they had them, too. It is about the only way to ensure you are not invaded.
n/a jzorbino 2017-07-10
All good points. I guess he could (and probably would) hold allied cities hostage.
n/a pby1000 2017-07-10
Well... Wouldn't you? I mean, if you were a dictator holding onto power.
You are right about the issues you bring up. Russia, China, and South Korea do not want to get flooded with NK refugees.
This is why having an unarmed population is a bad idea.
n/a patience-yago 2017-07-10
Polonium. Very easy.
n/a pby1000 2017-07-10
Ok. So he is poisoned with polonium, then his loyal Generals nuke Seoul. Is it worth it?
Besides, I don't think that you die quickly from polonium, so Kim might be around long enough to give the order.
Kind of like the Samson Option:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
n/a patience-yago 2017-07-10
The russian and mossad use it. But if you say it dont work ill bite. I dont think his loyal henchman want to watch us and israel shoot down nukes over their heads. Trust me when i say he cant hit us. Its postulating. Thats a 3rd world shithole. No internet. No food. Its like asian africa. Im tired of this fat sack of shit being on the news. Kill him or ignore him. Its a joke. Mosquitos are a bigger worldwide threat than kimmy jung dung.
n/a horrorshowmalchick 2017-07-10
Getting him to eat it? Not so much.
n/a falconerhk 2017-07-10
Besides, why? He's fine where he is.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-25/hillary-clinton-explains-our-north-korea-south-korea-china-policy
n/a skorponok 2017-07-10
Because they haven't handed out the redevelopment and reconstruction contracts yet
n/a pby1000 2017-07-10
Kim Jong Un has nukes. Do you really think the CIA will challenge anybody that can fight back? The CIA are cowards. They only go after the weak and powerless.
n/a HBombthrow 2017-07-10
It's less them fighting against us than the risk they'd launch those nukes at Seoul
n/a HBombthrow 2017-07-10
It's less them fighting against us than the risk they'd launch those nukes at Seoul
n/a pby1000 2017-07-10
I think he would launch. So do SK people I know. They are very cautious about it.
n/a RiggedITdotCOM 2017-07-10
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Riggedit.com
n/a four_leaf_tayback 2017-07-10
Risk/reward doesn't favor "getting" him for the time being. When thinking about their risk/reward calculations consider their nearly unlimited resources which allow them to create rewards and foundations for more rewards (or hedges) in every possible situation.
n/a HBombthrow 2017-07-10
1) We didn't get Gaddafi, his people did. We provided air cover.
2) We didn't get Hussein "easily," we sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq, spent trillions of dollars, and we didn't catch him until like nine months into the war.
3) Iraq didn't have nukes. North Korea does, and has repeatedly threatened to destroy South Korea if we invade.
n/a bluecarpets 2017-07-10
I don't think their country has oil that it'd be worth for America to get involved