Posted on Sep 10, 2016
WW3. Is it time for the World to liberate North Korea from this crazy Regime and get back to having just one Korea?
23.6K
334
142
18
18
0
I believe there's only one way out of this situation. No one in North Korea wants to be there under this rule. We should all go in, take him out, remove the border and the South Korean President becomes the new Korean president. And now North Korea turns into a modern, contributing, safe, and prosperous nation. Families will finally be reunited and free. Pretty soon we'll be forced into this.
South Korea
North Korea
Korea
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 47
4
4
0
While I might agree with the idea of liberating an oppressed people. We did that with Iraq. Is Iraq a better place now because of what we did? Is the world a better place? Also, how do you know how the populace feels about living there? On average, a portion of the population doesn't agree with the policies that take place within the US. Should some foreign power have the right to come in and liberate us from what they perceive to be our oppressors?
(4)
(0)
SSgt Brad Becker
You can't liberate some one who does not want to be liberated. We need to stop this nation building crap and concentrate on defending this country winning battles and wars.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Well, the Iraqis were pretty happy with us taking down Saddam, at least that's how I remember it being there in '03....the problem was they wanted us to fix everything else for them as well. We weren't willing to do that, and that is where things went sour.
The difference with NK is that the country will be unified under the ROK, and the ROK has a vested interest on fixing things as quickly as possible (whereas in Iraq we did not).
The difference with NK is that the country will be unified under the ROK, and the ROK has a vested interest on fixing things as quickly as possible (whereas in Iraq we did not).
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
The best way to defend this country is not by winning battles and wars, SSgt Brad Becker, it's by preempting them.
As a very wise officer once commented, our primary mission is not to go to war or even be ready to go to war -- it's to make the other guy look across the fence and say, "Nope. Not today."
As a very wise officer once commented, our primary mission is not to go to war or even be ready to go to war -- it's to make the other guy look across the fence and say, "Nope. Not today."
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The biggest issue that I see with finally taking out NK is not necessarily China (I don't see them falling on their sword for little Kim). It's that any large scale military action would devastate SK and destroy the 60+years of economic and social progress they have achieved since the end of the Korean War. The ROKs would definitely would not be down for that, and without their complete cooperation, any war against the north is simply not feasible.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Brad Becker
I see why they made you a Lt. Col. don't waste the men. Destroy their Navy , Carpet Bomb them, Nuke them, never try to invade. I agree what is the advantage for the South. Their are eve demented South Koreans who want some kind of weird shared society with the North.
(0)
(0)
SGT Eliyahu Rooff
It's nice to see someone who understands the big picture here and the implications of an attack on NK. I served in Korea in the 60s, and I know what the terrain is like. It's a horrible place to fight a war with ground troops. The most effective way to take them out would be a good sized nuke on Pyongyang and a couple smaller nukes on Kim's palaces in the north. At that point, NK would pretty much cease to exist as a nation. This, of course, would make us worldwide pariahs and would cause our allies to distance themselves from us, and no one would want to be downwind from the fallout. The more likely scenario for the end of NK will involve internal collapse, an internally-caused revolution, or China finally getting fed up with having a tumor on their southeastern border.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SGT Eliyahu Rooff - Were it not for the serious threat of having their infrastructure destroyed, the ROKs would have likely taken out NK years ago. They aren't scared of the commies, particularly now that they have a serious qualitative advantage in just about all military aspects, but they would be literally fighting in their own backyards. It's easy to say "take them out" when about the only negative we would see is we wouldn't get the latest Samsung phone next year.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
The phone wouldn't be the only negative, LTC Paul Labrador. My television is due for replacement, too...
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
SSG Burns: Are you willing to send your child to intervene in overthrowing N. Korea? Last time we pushed them back to their side we had direct combat with China. Yes, people in N. Korea are living in abject poverty and their leader is a nut. We need to pressure regional powers to press for change. The USA can not continue to serve as the World's police force. Additionally, we need to make sure any of their Nuc Tech doesn't leave their country.
(3)
(0)
CPT Tom Monahan
SSgt Brad Becker - I hear he has a habit of killing his generals, especially if they are family.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Brad Becker
We always think the next guy in charge will be better, well that's not always the case. Look at the mess in Libya, Iraq, Syria. Saddam was terrible but look how many have died because he is gone, We over threw Libya, what a mess. Supporting the rebels in Syria now we have millions of people fleeing that country invading Europe.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I read over the options for your poll a few times and did not see "Send Jason Bourne to kill the crazy short dude in the North." Not sure if you forgot it or what.
I clicked other.
I clicked other.
(3)
(0)
MSG Jeff Clark
I know some real people who could do it and would do it if asked knowing it's a one way trip,, UN needs to die soon
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I think that South Korea is more than capable of resolving the issue on its own. They could move into North Korea - without US military support - and remove KJU from power. Not having US forces in North Korea would lessen the possibility that China would get involved. The problem really isn't in "defeating" North Korea's military - the larger problems are:
1. Stopping the nuclear weapons from being used and securing them from being distributed to other hostile actors.
2. Stopping the chemical weapons from being used and securing them from being distributed to other hostile actors.
3. Resourcing (food, water, medical) the millions of refugees and starving people in North Korea.
It would initially be a significant drain on South Korean resources, but I think over the course of the 50 years following the reunification of Korea, the North would be a global contributor rather than a drain. The problem is that no one is currently willing to support it for 50 years.
1. Stopping the nuclear weapons from being used and securing them from being distributed to other hostile actors.
2. Stopping the chemical weapons from being used and securing them from being distributed to other hostile actors.
3. Resourcing (food, water, medical) the millions of refugees and starving people in North Korea.
It would initially be a significant drain on South Korean resources, but I think over the course of the 50 years following the reunification of Korea, the North would be a global contributor rather than a drain. The problem is that no one is currently willing to support it for 50 years.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
There is little to no real infrastructure so invading North Korea after casualties will still cost hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize the people and bring them close to the level of prosperity in South Korea
(2)
(0)
SSgt Brad Becker
Yes at the end of WW2 Japan moved many of its arms factories to North Korea to be out side the range of our Bombers. When the war ended Russia left all of the Equipment they took their when they Invaded at the end of the war. So the North gained all the Japanese weapons factories and all the Russian WW2 surplus. They can't feed themselves but they have their own tank factories. That's what happen in the Korean war. On a further note the Chinese Volunteers that over ran the border many where equipped with the weapons we had given Chiang Kai-shek to fight the Japanese. M-1's garands, M-1 carbines, 30 cal's, 50 cal's, Thompsons, etc.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
We blew our chance in March 1951, to liberate the North would cost drastically too much treasure not to mention a drain South Korea's economy.
(2)
(0)
CAPT Hiram Patterson
We might have been able to take out the leadership in '50 with a tactical nuke at Pyongyang. If only it were that simple.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Brad Becker
That's right now its bomb them or nuke them, we can't keep wasting our young men on these SOB's
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm conflicted. I don't want to see my brothers and sisters put in harms way for something that could be avoided but at the same time I want to see North Korea fall.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Ii must be hard to find justification for killing hundreds of thousands, or millions of our allies because you are panicked. And that is what you are advocating.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
That sounds all well and good....but you know it will not be that each. There will be bloodshed and violence.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google