Diamondeye wrote:
Ok, let me help you answer your own question.
Your stated parameters were "exterminate every living creature" and "small contingent of troops"
For the sake of argument I'll assume by "creature" you meant "person" and are not actually interested in slaughtering any bunny rabbits that happen to be out in the NK countryside.
By every living creature, I mean literally. If it has a pulse, exoskeleton, pushes itself through the air ground or walks along it: Gone, eradicated. The next occupants would need to bring in their own livestock, because it is entirely devoid of life.
Diamondeye wrote:
First off, China, Russia, or us, could, pretty quickly, exterminate a very large proportion of the NK population and render survival for any length of time a monumental task for what remains of a populace that is already flirting with starvation at any given time. The problem is, of course, no one actually wants to do that. In addition to the very unpleasant side effects of the weapons themselves, neither us, China, or Russia has the desire to play the part of "world's crazed bloodthirsty lunatic". Exterminating the NK population is not only an appalling suggestion, it's an impractical one - doing so doesn't advance the interests of the country doing it in any meaningful way.
okay, thank you
Diamondeye wrote:
Now that we have the obvious moral objection out of the way, let's look at the second parameter - "small contingent of troops"
If "small contingents of troops" could accomplish this sort of thing, we wouldn't bother with nukes - or a whole lot of other stuff, for that matter. This is much like the idea that it's be "trivially easy to bomb NK flat without using nukes". If conventional weapons could trivially do that, nukes would be pointless.
NK forces may be outdated, poorly fed, and limited in capabilities of every kind, but there are still a lot of them. Their air force may be crap, but it's still got a lot of planes. Their artillery may be from 195 through 1980 but there is a truly astounding amount of it and a 155mm shell from 1955 is just as destructive as one from 2015 (or close enough that the difference is academic).
Okay, thank you
Diamondeye wrote:
I don't know quite what you define as small, but you asked why this could not be done; you seem to think that a small number of troops could in fact defeat North Korea (leaving aside the idea of exterminating everyone) with relatively little fuss. If so, indeed, why hasn't it been done? Why hasn't it been done every time a small country annoys a big, powerful one? I would love to know what sources of information lead you to formulate this concept in the first place.
It is not a source of information, it is a lack of it that makes me ask a question instead of a declaration. I figured that trying to get information was the point of asking a question. I just assumed we did not want to piss off both Russia and China, at the same time; which is why we did not finish and end any situations with N Korea.
As far as my opinion of why/how something should be done or why are things so bad... We have become a nation that has no desire to win anymore. And here is why:
in WW2: We fought and won against Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Mussolini's Italy. We let Japan know in no uncertain circumstances that victory or resistance was not an option for them. So are we really to think that somehow those three Axis factions were weaker or less well equipped/trained than Afghans hidden in caves?
WW2 ended in 1945, America did not get involved until after Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941.
We beat the Axis in 4 years, but a bunch of dudes in caves are still not gone 16 years after we started and if we cannot get the hidden Afghans: what makes us think we could do any better against North Korea of the Regime in Syria?