Original Post
Should we liberate North Korea?
Every year that goes by, NK edges closer and closer to achieving meaningful nuclear capabilities. Once they reach this point, it will no longer be realistic to attack them, as they'll have that ol' mutually assured destruction card in their back pocket.
To me, it's clear that doing nothing and letting this happen would be unethical. The North Korea problem is a hostage crisis in disguise. You have upwards of 25 million people lacking in basic human rights, being denied freedom of thought/expression, suffering under a brutal, iron-handed regime that doesn't permit anyone to leave/defect.
When a country commits crimes of humanity against its own people, the international community is supposed to step in and intervene. They were late in their response to the Rwandan genocide and because of that failure and others like it, every member of the UN endorsed a commitment to an idea called the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P). It means the world, as a whole, has a responsibility to step in and handle crimes against humanity as they happen, even if it's being committed by a country's rulers.
The UNHRC has known since 2014 of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the North Korean regime (google Kirby Commission), and people have been talking about potential forceful R2P action since then. If this proposal were to reach the UN Security Council, I reckon it's 50/50 whether China or Russia would block it. They're under a heck of a lot of international pressure to condemn and distance themselves from North Korea and they've been slowly succumbing to that recently - At the same time though, I imagine the prospect of a united, pro-Western Korea on China's doorstep doesn't sound too great to the Chinese.
tldr; North Koreans are being held hostage, why shouldn't we go in and liberate them? It's the correct ethical choice and we all agreed that we have a duty to free them.
Should we or shouldn't we? Why?
To me, it's clear that doing nothing and letting this happen would be unethical. The North Korea problem is a hostage crisis in disguise. You have upwards of 25 million people lacking in basic human rights, being denied freedom of thought/expression, suffering under a brutal, iron-handed regime that doesn't permit anyone to leave/defect.
When a country commits crimes of humanity against its own people, the international community is supposed to step in and intervene. They were late in their response to the Rwandan genocide and because of that failure and others like it, every member of the UN endorsed a commitment to an idea called the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P). It means the world, as a whole, has a responsibility to step in and handle crimes against humanity as they happen, even if it's being committed by a country's rulers.
The UNHRC has known since 2014 of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the North Korean regime (google Kirby Commission), and people have been talking about potential forceful R2P action since then. If this proposal were to reach the UN Security Council, I reckon it's 50/50 whether China or Russia would block it. They're under a heck of a lot of international pressure to condemn and distance themselves from North Korea and they've been slowly succumbing to that recently - At the same time though, I imagine the prospect of a united, pro-Western Korea on China's doorstep doesn't sound too great to the Chinese.
tldr; North Koreans are being held hostage, why shouldn't we go in and liberate them? It's the correct ethical choice and we all agreed that we have a duty to free them.
Should we or shouldn't we? Why?
Last edited by Ele; Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49 AM.
As a dictatorship, North Korea literally cannot survive without oppression. Dictatorships thrive on big wallets and big guns at the top, and no wallet or brain at the bottom, with nothing in between.
That being said, a militant dictator fully willing to turn rockets on other countries at the drop of a hat is completely unacceptable, and that is the real issue. I think that North Korea's population's treatment is disgusting, sure, but as a human that can die, I find huge problems with someone rushing for nuclear technology for the clear purpose of war. I do not want to sit idly by as a civilization of unknowing people are forced into submission to a tyrant like that.
With those opinions on the table, I think the NK men and women deserve a better life, away from a soul-crushing leader. They deserve a chance to avoid the bloodshed that is likely coming for North Korea.
That being said, a militant dictator fully willing to turn rockets on other countries at the drop of a hat is completely unacceptable, and that is the real issue. I think that North Korea's population's treatment is disgusting, sure, but as a human that can die, I find huge problems with someone rushing for nuclear technology for the clear purpose of war. I do not want to sit idly by as a civilization of unknowing people are forced into submission to a tyrant like that.
With those opinions on the table, I think the NK men and women deserve a better life, away from a soul-crushing leader. They deserve a chance to avoid the bloodshed that is likely coming for North Korea.
I think I might be retired.
Do you want a war with china? Because thats how you get a war with china.
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV(effectively the new world war 1) will be fought with sticks and stones! ~ Albert Einstein"
Russia would stay neutral, China would not.
Russia would be forced into the war (reserve) for China, or would break ties with china which would lead to an economic crash, worldwide, if you think wallstreet was big, you have no idea.
Europe would remain neutral until the first signs of war, i assume the euros would preach peace, and come to the aid of the Russia or Northern United states which would effectivly defect from the united states - from washington, to idk california possibly vegas combine with some country say mexico and form a peoples republic.
Cuba would reveal that they do indeed have nucular missiles, then russia, and then China because we all do.
lets just not. the world is so close to the edge, but when we arnt on it we can dance, so lets dance instead of fighting
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV(effectively the new world war 1) will be fought with sticks and stones! ~ Albert Einstein"
Russia would stay neutral, China would not.
Russia would be forced into the war (reserve) for China, or would break ties with china which would lead to an economic crash, worldwide, if you think wallstreet was big, you have no idea.
Europe would remain neutral until the first signs of war, i assume the euros would preach peace, and come to the aid of the Russia or Northern United states which would effectivly defect from the united states - from washington, to idk california possibly vegas combine with some country say mexico and form a peoples republic.
Cuba would reveal that they do indeed have nucular missiles, then russia, and then China because we all do.
lets just not. the world is so close to the edge, but when we arnt on it we can dance, so lets dance instead of fighting
Originally Posted by Cassh
Do you want a war with china? Because thats how you get a war with china.
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV(effectively the new world war 1) will be fought with sticks and stones! ~ Albert Einstein"
Russia would stay neutral, China would not.
Russia would be forced into the war (reserve) for China, or would break ties with china which would lead to an economic crash, worldwide, if you think wallstreet was big, you have no idea.
Europe would remain neutral until the first signs of war, i assume the euros would preach peace, and come to the aid of the Russia or Northern United states which would effectivly defect from the united states - from washington, to idk california possibly vegas combine with some country say mexico and form a peoples republic.
Cuba would reveal that they do indeed have nucular missiles, then russia, and then China because we all do.
lets just not. the world is so close to the edge, but when we arnt on it we can dance, so lets dance instead of fighting
What are you basing your speculation on? China wouldn't do shit. As I've said they're already started backing away from North Korea (i.e. imposing trade restrictions) - One example.
The international pressure to back off in the support of NK has really gotten to them. Think about it from China's perspective. Do you think they're willing to risk nuclear Armageddon for the sake of Kim Jong Un? They absolutely wouldn't, they're not crazy, they're realists.
I mean, your horror story sounds fun, but it's just a story.
The real issue is getting any sort of forceful humanitarian action through the UNSC. That's where China might conceivably veto it. With proper assurances (like a promise to help with the resulting refugees) and negotiation however, I think it's plausible R2P action could be passed in motion.
Lol liberate north Korea? Yeah no. Where do you think 25 million uneducated and 50 years behind in technology people will go after their "liberation". That's 25 million refugees you've just created that will burden South Korea immensely, and throw that whole area into dissaray. Please look at the Arab springs and Syria. Sure those dudes were "liberated" but are they any better off than 10 years ago when they had a dictator? I'll give you a hint the answer is no. They have new dictators now and ISIS. What makes you think that getting rid of Kim jong un and his dictatorship would lead to a fair and good country instead of another dictatorship? China and Russia wouldn't do shit, Americans are enormous trade partners of both those countries. Nobody likes what North Korea is doing to its people but military action will not solve the problems of that country. Furthermore NK knows that as soon as it even considers using military force on anyone other than its own citizens, they will be completely obliterated. I feel bad for the north Koreans but liberation is not what they need. They need information that isn't 50 years out of date and an updating of their dictator policies to more modern solutions. China was a dictatorship under Mao. It is no longer a dictatorship and is thriving. The process that China followed is similar to the one NK needs to follow.
Last edited by sirkill1; Sep 16, 2017 at 07:42 AM.
🫷🦚🫸
