Should President Trump put an end to the North Korean menace once and for all?

Posted by: DavidMGold

  • Yes. North Korea is a totalitarian Communist Dictatorship enslaving the estimated 28 million people within its borders. It has threatened the world with nuclear warheads and exported this weaponry to other rogue regimes. They're antiquated military and mass numbers would fold quickly in modern warfare.

  • No. North Korea might manage more of a fight than Saddam's Army and they could unleash a warhead even if this danger multiplies through inaction.

74% 14 votes
26% 5 votes
  • The reason we consider military action or none at all is because North Korea just can't be bargained with. We can't really do nothing or North Korea just gets tougher to deal with in the future, and judging by their recent celebratory video of a fake scene of missiles hitting San Fran and a US graveyard burning with an American flag, I can assume they're pretty aggressive.

  • Yes right now is the perfect opportunity they army is terrible and using 1960s tech and the reliability of their "nukes" is very low and they dont have enough of them or the advancement for their "nukes" to be a real threat but they will get nukes eventually and they will use them to strike the US they second they get them North Korea is a rapid dog that needs to be put DOWN! its been proven time and time again that the UN and sanctions are powerless against north Korea only military action will stop them

  • Destruction of North Korea looks great on paper. Since North Korea has Nazi style death camps, a totalitarianism that so immense that it makes regimes like Syria look like good in comparison, and is starving it's people to fund it's nuclear program so unlike Iraq there is no doubt they have weapons of mass destruction. Issue is the fact that the invasion could result in the deaths of thousands to millions of people when North Korea lets loose it's full arsenal off before being destroyed, will cost trillions to rebuild to the level of South Korea, would be a nightmare health wise with millions of starving and dying people to help, and a then the rebuilding of the government that will be nightmare to build But the fact is every day North Korea becomes stronger and more capable of causing greater loss of life and their nuclear program is advancing to the point where they can use ICBMs on the western coast of the US and given how aggressive they are we may be forced one day to destroy them. So believe better now while their nukes can't reach the united states, and while they have not been left to further they arsenal. Pitt the amount of death that will come from it. But that just the reality of the situation it being ignored for decades for us to wake up to them still being around and with only more advance arsenal.

  • Don't care for North Korea. Just threaten them with the UN and be done with it. (I know this solution is VERY incomplete but this is about how much thought I'm willing to put into this issue when the implications of this poll seem to want to resort to immediate solutions when long term solutions are obviously the better solution. So yes if a good solution is available then put it into action, but with my limited knowledge, I'll have to say postpone the execution of a solution for now until America (I'm from US obviously)) and other nations are able to come up with a better solution. Also I know I put a lot of thought into coming up with this paragraph when I could have just put the same amount of thought into a solution.

  • I would totally say yes if China wasn't on N.K. side. But if they attack us, they're GONE. So, if China wasn't involved, YES.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Axonly says2017-04-25T05:28:55.6470165Z
Why do people always assume it's either military action (Blow up the enemy!) or no action at all?
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T07:05:54.0492486Z
Axonly, well...Let me try to put it into perspective. The disastrous Clinton Deal with North Korea, actually making North Korea #1 in getting US aid in Asia, in exchange for worthless promises not to pursue nuclear weapons, much like Obama's treasonous bargain with Iran, resulted in the very situation where we're being threatened with nuclear warheads. Either you take the regime down now while they have poor capability or you allow them to continue improving ballastic missiles and amass more warheads at which point they can immunize themselves while escalating proliferation and other hostilities. Why do assume there is any other option and why couldn't you share it here?
Axonly says2017-04-25T07:40:03.2580347Z
Some articles to sum it up more simply that I ever could :http://www.Economist.Com/news/leaders/21721146-donald-trump-grapples-his-trickiest-task-how-deal-worlds-most-dangerous-regime :http://www.Stuff.Co.Nz/world/americas/91892397/john-delury-instead-of-threatening-north-korea-donald-trump-should-open-dialogue Judging by your war like stance, I feel safe in assuming you're conservative? I would go into the potential causalities, but I don't think you would care about that. But regardless, I'm not really interested in arguing about this. Nothing is going to happen.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T08:34:58.2895562Z
Axonly, I'm not going to go through a point by point takedown of articles I doubt you've read. The Economist, got turned everything upside down. Why go into the suffering of 28 million people and the potential number of victims being threatened in South Korea, Japan, the United States and elsewhere because people like you don't have the foresight to see the danger of allowing this proliferation metastasize. I've been through the same debate in 2003 when everyone was certain that Iraq's massive army would hold out more than the three weeks it took to take Baghdad and with better equipment than North Korea.
Axonly says2017-04-25T08:38:54.4423562Z
I apologize, but as I said, really not interested in arguing over this. I don't mean this as an insult, but to be honest, I just don't care what you think about this, sorry.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T10:04:31.0548347Z
Axonly, likewise..You're barely out of high school, prone to apathy, and couldn't fathom the world outside the borders of the United States. This is debate.Org
Axonly says2017-04-25T10:12:22.9543562Z
I can fathom the world outside of the borderlines of the United States. Mostly because I've never set foot it inside the United States. But by all means, continue to use your age to feel smugly superior, didn't help you from making a completely wrong assertion about me.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T11:13:18.3931562Z
Axonly, by all means, here's a good opportunity to share your worldly experiences and I'll wear whatever hat you're throwing my way. Healthy skepticism..
Skeptical1 says2017-04-25T12:38:30.8256347Z
I'd be interested to know how you suggest it's even possible to put an end to it "once and for all". If you mean should he attempt to incite World War 3 with no hope of achieving his aim, then probably not.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T13:04:21.9019562Z
Skeptical1, obviously through military action similar to the Iraq War, which overran one of the world's largest armies in a matter of weeks. The United States has the capability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles, especially the quality produced by North Korea. The military equipment (aircraft, armor, submarines, and even rifles) used by North Korea would result in a swift defeat and are wholly inadequate in a war with the United States and South Korea. The US would have total air superiority and it would be multiple highways of death for their forces. The only real threats would be the 10,000 artillery pieces and unguided rocket fire into population centers, but with air superiority and modern artillery, the North couldn't sustain their attacks for long. The longer you fail to act, the more time North Korea keeps producing enough fissile material (about every six weeks) to produce a nuke and develop better capability to deliver it. Eventually, enough time wasted, will produce the very situation you describe leading to an even more outrageous and menacing North Korea that is guaranteed you'll never use any military action for fear of nuclear attack. You'll set the precedent for Iran and other regimes that'll render US military strength useless and impotent. I favor the Israeli approach, bold and decisive as seen during Operation Orchard.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T15:49:59.0056067Z
Ironically, Operation Orchard came about as a result of Mossad uncovering the covert transfer of nuclear reactor components being shipped from North Korea to Syria, along with Syrian scientists being schooled in North Korea, in a covert effort to develop nuclear weapons and fortunately Israel uncovered and destroyed the Reactor before it became active.
Skeptical1 says2017-04-26T12:06:39.7645969Z
So, are you suggesting that the US should take offensive military action against a foreign state, in spite of the fact that they have not exhibited aggressive action towards anyone? And, are you saying that since Nth Korea can't (we presume) reach the US with nuclear weapons at the moment, it is an acceptable risk that they might respond to such action by firing a nuclear weapon at Sth Korea or Japan. Less than a week ago, Nth Korea threatened a nuclear attack against Australia. It appears unlikely they could actually carry this out, but who knows for sure? Such situations call for careful, consensus deliberation, not unilaterally rushing in all guns blazing.
Some_Bloke_With_a_Hat says2017-05-03T04:59:20.1225859Z
Because no other options have worked. What are you going to do write them an angry letter? We have already chocked them off supply wise that if we further it anymore then North Korea regime could collapse and then we could have hundreds of nukes go missing and people might choose to just let loose weapons fearing it was an American plot resulting in hundreds to thousands dead. We can't kill the leader and replace him as the regime could collapse and we don't really have any one to replace him with if you notice he killing all the people who could succeed him to make this impossible and even if we do they may not follow him and we might have a revolt where a worse leader comes about. We have already try diplomacy and it's failed. We have given him so many chances to stop is nuclear program but he refuses and even if he did it might be the straw that breaks the camels back with people seeing him as weak and then revolting and then once again we could have missiles flying and nukes going missing. The best opinion assuming we have is currently invading as we can have better control of preventing the nukes from going missing and protecting the people from North Korea when it goes to chaos. If you have a better opinion please do say but I have feeling this issue would long be over if there was one.
DavidMGold says2017-05-07T18:47:56.8308587Z
Skeptical1, North Korea is in fact an extremely hostile regime and you're literally in denial about one of the harshest totalitarian dictatorships on the entire planet. You're positing a false dichotomy: careful deliberation vs. "guns blazing." In reality, far from deliberation, you're just arguing for completely worthless and pointless diplomacy in the hope we procrastinate another decade until North Korea has better capability to make deliver their nuclear threats to countries around the world and enticing them to continue to escalate their hostility assured that their nuclear blackmail all but guarantees they are shielded from the consequences. Meanwhile, 28 million people continue to live in slavery under a crackpot dictatorship. There doesn't seem to be any deliberation.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.