Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Because the civilized world would bring down the Kim regime, as we certainly should, if we could. Because they have nukes, we can't.

This is getting to be a real problem as 21st-century history continues to unfold.




This sounds like a catch-22/ circular logic.

We would invade and topple the government if they didn't have those pesky nukes.

The government needs to be toppled because they are developing nukes and we don't want them to.


The "civilized" world had plenty of time to do that before NK got nukes, and it didn't. War in Korea would be far worse than peace.


War in Korea would be far worse than peace.

The Korean War saw about 1.5 million civlian deaths, according to [1]. It's impossible to say how many died in the 1994-1998 famine alone, but [2] puts it at "240,000 to 3.5 million" and [3] cites figures of "up to 3 million."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine

[3]: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/how-kim...

So, no. There are worse things than war. For allowing this situation to fester for multiple generations, history will judge us the way we talk about the "good Germans" who didn't lay a hand on anyone but who also did nothing to stop Hitler.

You're correct, though, in that the North Korean nuclear program is now an ideal excuse for continuing to do what we did before, which was nothing.


We might instead be asking why we let South Korea's TFR drop to 1.0 while NK is maintaining 2.0. We don't know by what criteria history will judge us. (I think my fellow Californians will be judged just fine -- Korea's not our problem.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: