Very astute. the U.N. should nuke the North. Oh, wait, the U.N. doesn’t have any nukes. So, the U.N. should invade the NK. Oh, the U.N. has not troops? Maybe they should send John Deering instead. Yeah, that’s the way to do it.
With artillery capable of hitting Seoul, if Kim really wanted a war, it would be easy, but given US fear/reliance on the nuclear choice/response it would be short. Folks forget that the rationale for MAD was that nobody wanted to end all life on Earth. That seems to fly over the heads of conservative chickenhawks who want us to intervene in Syria, ignoring the plight of refugees from Aleppo with the “Not in my back yard they don’t come!”.
It isn’t so much that the UN is asleep, as much as the forgone conclusion that a veto from one of the “fab five” Security Council will prevent action.
That ship sailed back at the turn of the century, when Shrub had the chance & choice to address a real threat- N.K.- or go kick over tin plated despots in the mideast & central asia & give a big boost to his military-industrial complex cronies.Can’t say as I blame him though; who wouldn’t rather make a fast buck than be known for restarting a bloody, ugly war & having to go toe-to-toe (publicity\ideologically\political will wise) with China & Russia?
Comicsfan222 over 7 years ago
Very astute. the U.N. should nuke the North. Oh, wait, the U.N. doesn’t have any nukes. So, the U.N. should invade the NK. Oh, the U.N. has not troops? Maybe they should send John Deering instead. Yeah, that’s the way to do it.
Diat60 over 7 years ago
So, do we let sleeping dogs lie or shall we give them a poke?
Dave Ferro over 7 years ago
Considering that no radiation has ever been detected from any of North Korea’s “Nuclear” tests, I find it hard to believe they actually have one.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17823706
Dtroutma over 7 years ago
With artillery capable of hitting Seoul, if Kim really wanted a war, it would be easy, but given US fear/reliance on the nuclear choice/response it would be short. Folks forget that the rationale for MAD was that nobody wanted to end all life on Earth. That seems to fly over the heads of conservative chickenhawks who want us to intervene in Syria, ignoring the plight of refugees from Aleppo with the “Not in my back yard they don’t come!”.
It isn’t so much that the UN is asleep, as much as the forgone conclusion that a veto from one of the “fab five” Security Council will prevent action.
Moxie over 7 years ago
That ship sailed back at the turn of the century, when Shrub had the chance & choice to address a real threat- N.K.- or go kick over tin plated despots in the mideast & central asia & give a big boost to his military-industrial complex cronies.Can’t say as I blame him though; who wouldn’t rather make a fast buck than be known for restarting a bloody, ugly war & having to go toe-to-toe (publicity\ideologically\political will wise) with China & Russia?