• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Serious Syria

North Korea most certainly isn't worth bombing, it's called mutually assured destruction for a reason. They have enough hidden missiles that would make a preemptive strike from the US unable to take them all out. One of the biggest cities in the world, Seoul, is RIGHT there, a strike on NK is condemning hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocents to die. And that's not even taking into account the innocent North Koreans that would be killed, the US has a lovely record of killing more civilians than actual targets.

And even if the US struck, what can be gained? Attempted regime change never fucking works, that's been proven. You have a country that has what, seven internet pages? You want to introduce a parlamentary system to a population that's brainwashed to the point that they worship what they believe is a demigod?

The situation sucks, but leave them alone. The only effective change has to come from within. Keep sanctions on them until they've had enough and change themselves.
 
Last edited:
Beyond the fact that bombing North Korea would put both Seoul and a bunch of NK/SK/Jp citizens in the crosshairs, directly attacking North Korea would also effectively be picking a fight with China. Even if China seems to be growing tired of Kim's antics as of late, the last thing they want is a huge influx of NK refugees (they won't go south, especially if their own government wants to turn it into a war zone) and having US allies at their doorstep. So even if their nukes may or may not pose a serious threat to us, striking NK would still have huge repercussions for the US, and even more so for our Asian allies.

I want to see North Korea's government fall just as much as the other guy, but the only way that will properly happen with minimal loss of life is by the hands of the NK people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top