"We May Not Be Able to Stop a North Korean Missile"

This debate is edging closer to being shut down.

Please feel free to disagree with one another but refrain from any name calling.

Attack the argument, not the individual.
 
1337BeachedWhale1337

The reality is that human lives have different values. A life boat with just one more space, can you make a choice between a 90 year old and a 16 year old using your rational?
You're correct, I neglected to consider that. Yes, a person with greater life expectancy does have a life that is more valuable because they have more of it left to live. Beyond that and the actions that a person elects to take (ie a rapists life is worth less than a normal persons), I believe everyone's life is equal.

Most of the people that would die in a war with NK would be young people in their 20s, so that obviously supports your side of the argument. However, I don't think that this fact even close to compensates for the total number of people that die as a result of us not fighting North Korea. You are risking anywhere from tens of millions of people to billions of people's lives... Even if we assume the best and the only people that die as a result of our inaction is tens of millions of North Koreans, more total years of life are being lost than if we had fought NK in a war. Also, many of the people dying in NK are babies and children, much younger than the 20 year olds that would be dying in a war. Overall, I don't think a case can be made that fewer total years of life are lost by not taking action.

I believe what also needs to be considered is quality of life. I have been on this earth for close to 20 years and I have lived a solid life. I have never gone hungry, I have had a cushy lifestyle with 2 days off a week and I have never been without shelter; if I've ever needed medical attention it has been given to me in a timely manner and I have never been tortured. If I died tomorrow there would not be much to be sad about, I lived a solid life full of happy moments. The same cannot be said for a person from North Korea. They have never had basic human rights. They have always had to worry where their next meal was coming from. They have never had the opportunity to live a life worth living. I have had that opportunity, so have 99.99% of Americans. Not all of us can live, now it is their turn.

What if the new guy wanted to peacefully unify with South Korea or start a war? If so more than likely, ruling elites would have lost power or even be prosecuted for war crimes. So the evil they know, which includes status quo, is better. The same scenario for the latest Kim.
I have studied North Korea, and from what I read, this is simply not true. What North Korea wants is for the two Koreas to become one and for South Korea to fall under the regime.

Why did North Korean elites supported the next Kim?
I believe the answer to that is fear. In North Korea, if you say anything bad about the dear leader, you will be sent along with your entire family for three generations, to a political prison camp for the rest of your life. I read one article where a man was sent to life in prison for mopping up a spilled drink with a newspaper featuring a picture of Kim Jong Un. That is the level of support you must have for the regime to survive. It would have been too risky for anyone to go against who the new designated leader was. There are people who may be willing to risk their own life, the life of their entirely family, much less likely. So much to lose, not really that much to gain given they already have one of the top positions in North Korea if they are in any position to possibly overthrow the leader.

Hoefully, we don't make national security decisions based on what if or he or she could.
I don't understand this statement. If that is the case, why are we building missile defense system? After all, missiles being launched at us is a precaution based on "what if they launch missiles at us" or "he or she could launch missiles at us". Should we not build missile defense systems?
 
Last edited:
So a few million killed is not an acceptable cost when it saves tens of millions, or potentially even billions of people from being killed( fighting prevents future advanced nuclear attack)? That makes me delusional?

It doesn't necessarily make you delusional, but that one of several possibilities. It could also be that you:
  • are a troll.
  • have reached heights of self-unawareness and posters have no experience in responding to, so they let it go or actually try to argue with you.
  • just discovered the first instance, in your lifetime, of man's inhumanity to man and you want to make sense of it, do something about it and you are too young to put the tragedy in a historical context other than comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust.
 
It doesn't necessarily make you delusional, but that one of several possibilities. It could also be that you:
  • are a troll.
  • have reached heights of self-unawareness that posters have no experience in responding to, so they let it go or actually try to argue with you.
  • just discovered the first instance, in your lifetime, of man's inhumanity to man and you want to make sense of it, do something about it and you are too young to put the tragedy in a historical context other than comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust.
Very confused. Are you telling me that it is best to not allow a few million to be killed even if allowing those people to be killed would save tens of millions of lives?

I ask, what would you do in the problem presented in this video?


just discovered the first instance, in your lifetime, of man's inhumanity to man and you want to make sense of it, do something about it and you are too young to put the tragedy in a historical context other than comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust.
If you think my comparison is so ridiculous, why don't you go talk to some people that have actually been in these camps? Don't want to bother doing that? Fine, I'll do it myself:

"In perhaps the most celebrated of these stories, Night, by Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, the thirteen-year-old narrator explains his torment with an account of the normal life that existed before he and his family were packed aboard trains bound for Nazi death camps…But after the boy’s entire family perished in the camps, Wiesel was left ‘alone, terribly alone in a world without God, without man. Without love or mercy.’ Shin’s story of survival is different. His mother beat him, and he viewed her as a competitor for food…Children in the camp were untrustworthy and abusive. Before he learned anything else, Shin learned to survive by snitching on all of them. Love and mercy and family were words without meaning. God did not disappear or die. Shin never heard of him…Unlike those who have survived a concentration camp, Shin had not been torn away from a civilized existence and forced to descend into hell. He was born and raised there. He accepted its values. He called it home."

"Both share a common goal of exterminating their prisoners’ desire to live. Prisoners are forced to work from dusk till dawn until there is not much distinction between life and death. I’ve read that in Auschwitz and Nazi prison camps, the prisoners would be renamed by numbers to be deprived of personal identities. In North Korean prison camps, the prison guards constantly remind prisoners that their lives are less valuable than that of animals. At Yodok, prisoners are executed in public to instill fear and obedience. Children, out of hunger and desperation, resort to scavenging for roots and rats. There is one distinction, though, that I would draw between the North Korean prison camps and Auschwitz, While Auschwitz’s goal was rapid, industrial-style extermination, Yodok prolongs the suffering over three generations"

"At the end of the Second World War so many people said, 'If only we had known, if only we had known the wrongs that were done in the countries of the hostile forces,'" Kirby said at a press conference on Monday. The North Korean human rights violations are "strikingly similar" to the atrocities committed by the Nazis, he added. "There will be no excusing the failure of action because we didn't know — we do know."

To illustrate the comparison, Kirby told reporters about a former prisoner who testified that one of his duties at the North Korean camp was burning the bodies of prisoners who died of starvation, then hauling the ashes and unburned body parts to fields, where they were used as crop fertilizer.

This is one case where the usual comparisons to Nazi Germany isn't hyperbole — Godwin's Law, about the first person mentioning Adolf Hitler automatically forfeiting the argument, doesn't apply to Kim Jong-un."

http://theweek.com/articles/450792/north-korea-isnt-nazi-germany--some-ways-worse

Tell me what makes this better than the holocaust? Are the conditions better? Well? If you told me I could go to Auschwitz or Yodok, I'd choose Auschwitz in a heartbeat. This is not a hyperbole. In Yodok you aren't even allowed to kill yourself, if you kill yourself your entire family will be mercilessly tortured and executed. Death there is a blessing. North Korea is really that bad, and you are simply refusing to believe it. Once again, if you aren't going to make an actual argument, please leave.
 
Beachedwhale is still young:) I remember when I was young, I wanted to change the world. As you get older, you get tired, you get cautious, a little more selfish perhaps, realizing that saving others come at a big human cost? It's not right but it's not wrong. Sometimes, there is little we can do because our hands are tied. Good night.
 
I don't understand why this has to be the case. If you went on the streets of any city of the United States and asked people, "If the holocaust were taking place again at this very moment, would you support the United States giving every effort to stop it?", I think you would find very few people that would answer "no". Why is it then that we allow something that is arguably worse to take place?

No one gets to choose where they are born, kind of like no one gets to choose what race they are born as. A black person should not be treated differently than a white person, because neither of them got to choose what race they are, it is not their "fault" that they are whatever race they are. Similarly, a person born in North Korea should not have their rights valued less than a person born in the United States, neither of them got to choose where they were born, and it is not their "fault" that they were born wherever they were. Why are people appalled by racism, but they are not appalled by the fact that we grossly discriminate against people based purely off of where they were born? If these actions that are taking place in North Korean prison camps were happening to people who were born in the US, we would do everything in our power to stop this from taking place. So why is it, that when this happens to people who weren't born in the US, we do nothing to stop it from happening? Why is discriminating based off race wrong, but discriminating based off of where someone is born is considered perfectly okay?

The United States Military Academy has taught me to choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Is the harder right not to do something about this gross injustice?

I realize that debating this isn't going to change the outcome of anything, but at the end of the day, debating any topic on this forum doesn't change anything. I have read about the situation in North Korea for years, and a lot of anger and frustration has built up inside of me over this issue. Debating this topic allows me to express some of that frustration, and gives me a chance to see other people's perspectives on the issue. I have been extremely disappointed in a lot of the responses on this thread that I've seen, but it is still valuable to me to see these perspectives and know what other people think about the issue.

Why are you not as outraged by the atrocities occurring elsewhere around the world? There are other cases of mass human rights violations occurring as we speak (cough Syria cough) but you don't seem to be interested in invading on behalf of other suffering peoples elsewhere. What makes you believe that NK deserves special treatment?

The United States is not God. This has already been brought up several times by other members. We do not have the resources or the ability to correct every wrong and punish all evildoers in the world. I told you that the US has in fact done the opposite, by supporting despots when it suited our security concerns. What makes you think we will change our policy of doing what is best for our national security? You may be willing to lay down your own life for suffering North Koreans. But do other Americans share your sentiment? And you need to learn your history. The holocaust was not the primary reason we went to war in Europe - are you aware that many Americans, including some public figures, were supporters and admirers of Hitler and Nazi Germany pre-1941? We entered the war because our country was attacked and Germany declared war on us. And again, read your history - during the war, we most definitely did not make every effort to stop it. Your reasons for wanting to attack North Korea are purely altruistic. Yes, I understand the possibility that this Kim or any other Kim may strike us first later on. But what if you're wrong? Are you willing to sacrifice millions of Korean and American lives to stop an attack that may never even materialize? What about China and Russia? Do you also claim to know how they would react to our preemptive attack? Are you willing to risk bringing us into a third world war? And what of the reunification process following the conclusion of such a destructive and horrible war? How much money should the American taxpayer cough up to subsidize the rebuilding of the Korean economy and reintegration process of tens of millions of North Koreans? Who are you to say that the United States and its people must foot the bill for such an undertaking, in both lives and dollars, or any other similar undertaking for that matter? Have you ever asked these questions to yourself before throwing around your argument?

Kim knows he will never win a war against South Korea, especially with American support. He is essentially committing suicide if he were to attack the US or any of our allies. Do you think he is unaware of that fact? Tell me - for what purpose would he attack the US if he knew it would guarantee his downfall?

I think you've expressed your frustration enough - save your energy for Model UN or SCUSA or something like that. Not to sound disparaging but you're only a cadet - get the butterbar, make something of yourself for the next 3 decades and then one day maybe you'll be in a position to influence policy. I want to make a bet that when that day comes, your way of thinking will have changed profoundly. And remember, you are not chatting with your peers here...tread carefully, those posting here are not your fellow cadets.
 
No - foolishly charging at perceived windmills is wrong especially when you callously write off millions of people as incidental casualties! As you get older and more experienced you realize that the branches and sequels of a decision frequently have huge unintended and hugely costly consequences- and that unless you are God you have neither the right nor the wisdom to compel others to pay. Deliberately killing millions in the guise of preventing a possible future catastrophe is just such a decision and it is not a rational one. This is a foolish argument fomented by what is most likely a troll- it is certainly not an intelligent nor an intellectual argument . I'm done with this foolishness- there are real world American Military personnel dying who deserve our recognition- like 3 SF troopers in Afghanistan yesterday. A real WestPointer would care far more about that then this nonsense. So adios
 
Why are you not as outraged by the atrocities occurring elsewhere around the world? There are other cases of mass human rights violations occurring as we speak (cough Syria cough) but you don't seem to be interested in invading on behalf of other suffering peoples elsewhere. What makes you believe that NK deserves special treatment?
That is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is North Korea. Maybe one day there will be a thread about Syria, and I will talk about my opinion of the issues going on there in that thread. It's not that I'm not concerned about other issues, I'm simply talking about this one right now.

The United States is not God. This has already been brought up several times by other members. We do not have the resources or the ability to correct every wrong and punish all evildoers in the world. I told you that the US has in fact done the opposite, by supporting despots when it suited our security concerns. What makes you think we will change our policy of doing what is best. for our national security?
I have stated multiple times that I believe this action is best for national security, and I believe I have given at the very least a somewhat reasonable explanation for why I believe that...
You may be willing to lay down your own life for suffering North Koreans. But do other Americans share your sentiment?
I don't know the answer to that question. I think the answer would be "yes" if everyone was aware of the atrocities taking place inside of North Korea, but barely anyone knows.
And you need to learn your history. The holocaust was not the primary reason we went to war in Europe - are you aware that many Americans, including some public figures, were supporters and admirers of Hitler and Nazi Germany pre-1941? We entered the war because our country was attacked and Germany declared war on us. And again, read your history - during the war, we most definitely did not make every effort to stop it.
I was aware of this, and never denied this. All I have said regarding Nazi Germany is that I believe most Americans would want the US to stop the US if another holocaust took place today, and that the situation in NK is comparable to the conditions of the holocaust.
Your reasons for wanting to attack North Korea are purely altruistic.
Quite the opposite is true, the topic of this thread has become morality, but that is not the backbone of my argument for attacking NK.

Yes, I understand the possibility that this Kim or any other Kim may strike us first later on. But what if you're wrong? Are you willing to sacrifice millions of Korean and American lives to stop an attack that may never even materialize? What about China and Russia? Do you also claim to know how they would react to our preemptive attack? Are you willing to risk bringing us into a third world war? And what of the reunification process following the conclusion of such a destructive and horrible war? How much money should the American taxpayer cough up to subsidize the rebuilding of the Korean economy and reintegration process of tens of millions of North Koreans? Who are you to say that the United States and its people must foot the bill for such an undertaking, in both lives and dollars, or any other similar undertaking for that matter? Have you ever asked these questions to yourself before throwing around your argument?
This is a lot of questions, and I will address them later when I get a chance.
 
No - foolishly charging at perceived windmills is wrong especially when you callously write off millions of people as incidental casualties!
Says the person writing off the tens of millions that will die horrible deaths should we do nothing....
Deliberately killing millions in the guise of preventing a possible future catastrophe is just such a decision and it is not a rational one.
It's not possible future catastrophe, tens of millions of North Koreans will die even if NK doesn't start nuclear war.... This isn't "possible", this is certainty.

I'm done with this foolishness- there are real world American Military personnel dying who deserve our recognition- like 3 SF troopers in Afghanistan yesterday. A real WestPointer would care far more about that then this nonsense. So adios
So a real West Pointer would care more about something that has already happened and that is impossible to change, than something that will happen in the future and that can change? And he would care more about 3 people dying than tens of millions? I fail to understand your logic. There are real world North Koreans dying out there that deserve our recognition as well, children, babies....

On another note, my condolences to those brave men who died yesterday as well as their families. They died in perhaps the most honorable of ways and they will not be forgotten. May they be at peace.

This is a foolish argument fomented by what is most likely a troll- it is certainly not an intelligent nor an intellectual argument .
Ad hominem comments contribute nothing to the discussion, so it would be appreciated if you either left them out, or sent them to me in private message.
 
That is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is North Korea. Maybe one day there will be a thread about Syria, and I will talk about my opinion of the issues going on there in that thread. It's not that I'm not concerned about other issues, I'm simply talking about this one right now.

I have stated multiple times that I believe this action is best for national security, and I believe I have given at the very least a somewhat reasonable explanation for why I believe that...

I don't know the answer to that question. I think the answer would be "yes" if everyone was aware of the atrocities taking place inside of North Korea, but barely anyone knows.

I was aware of this, and never denied this. All I have said regarding Nazi Germany is that I believe most Americans would want the US to stop the US if another holocaust took place today, and that the situation in NK is comparable to the conditions of the holocaust.

Quite the opposite is true, the topic of this thread has become morality, but that is not the backbone of my argument for attacking NK.

This is a lot of questions, and I will address them later when I get a chance.

So, are you as concerned about "other issues" as you are NK? If so, are you willing to send Americans into harm's way for those problems as well? What is your basis for taking action or not?

As many people have already pointed out, your "reasonable explanation" for attacking NK is deeply flawed. You want to attack North Korea because you think doing so will prevent a greater catastrophe later, a catastrophe that no one will ever predict. That is your entire argument - you think it will be less costly attacking now rather than later. Are you trolling or simply refusing to read into what other members have said? And given all the anecdotes and statistics you've given and the numerous comparisons to the holocaust, altruism seems to be your primary decision-making factor.
 
So, are you as concerned about "other issues" as you are NK? If so, are you willing to send Americans into harm's way for those problems as well? What is your basis for taking action or not?
That would depend on whether or not dealing with those other issues with violence benefits the United States. I am not a supporter of the US being the moral police of the world, but I am a supporter of us taking moral actions if they line up with what benefits the United States. If we can spend a dollar and save a million lives in Africas am I a supporter of that? Yes. Do I think we should dedicate all of our resources to humanitarian efforts? No.

As many people have already pointed out, your "reasonable explanation" for attacking NK is deeply flawed. You want to attack North Korea because you think doing so will prevent a greater catastrophe later, a catastrophe that no one will ever predict.
A catastrophe that no one will ever predict? If that's the case, why are we even building missile defense systems to protect our civilians? NK wouldn't attack, that is never gonna happen... So why dedicate billions of dollars to these missile defense systems to protect our civilians?

Secretary Mattis called NK a "clear and present danger". If he didn't predict that there is a possibility that NK launches their nukes, why would he say this? Clearly we are not at any danger if NK won't use their nukes.

Kim hates the US and doesn't seem to give a damn about anyone but himself. On his deathbed, who knows what the dude might do. Who knows what his son might do.

Let's say 3 million US people + our allies would die if we fought NK (that estimate is probably a little high, but it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument). If NK got a large nuclear arsenal, sparked nuclear war, and a total of 100 nukes were launched around the world, 5 teragrams of black soot (that's 5,000,000,000 kg) that would rise up to Earth's stratosphere and block sunlight. This would produce a sudden drop in global temperatures that could last longer than 25 years and temporarily destroy much of the Earth's protective ozone layer. This could also cause as much as an 80% increase in UV radiation on Earth's surface and destroy both land and sea-based ecosystems, potentially leading to global nuclear famine. Ever heard of the word extinction? That's what is being risked.

According to statistics, 3% of males suffer from psychopathy (only a male will ever rule NK). Kim Jong Un will have an heir. His heir will have an heir, and that heir will have an heir as well. Each time, there is a chance that this new heir turns out to be insane. Are you willing to risk the lives of 7 billion people at a rate of 3% every several decades? That is over 2000 times the number of people that would die in a war with North Korea. So in order to justify your stance, you have to tell me that there is less than a 1 in 2000 chance to North Korea ever decides to start nuclear war beyond the year 2100 (assuming NK has that big of a nuclear arsenal in 80 years, which is not unfeasible given their current rate of progress).

And given all the anecdotes and statistics you've given and the numerous comparisons to the holocaust, altruism seems to be your primary decision-making factor.
People have questioned/argued with me regarding those factors, and I have responded. If people had instead decided to question me about the strategic aspect of fighting NK, I would have talked about those aspects instead. Is the moral aspect a factor? Yes, but it is not the backbone of my argument even though it seems to be what is getting most people riled up. I didn't even bring up the atrocities of the prison camps until someone told me I was insensitive and foolish for comparing NK to Nazi Germany, the moral aspect was not meant to be the main aspect of discussion, because it is not the main argument I'm trying to make.
 
Last edited:
"In perhaps the most celebrated of these stories, Night, by Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, the thirteen-year-old narrator explains his torment with an account of the normal life that existed before he and his family were packed aboard trains bound for Nazi death camps…

The only thing more obnoxious than your assuming that you have read more, know more, and thought more about something than other people, is your insistence on displaying your erudition and insights to people who simply aren't interested.

I read Night 40 years ago. My college roommate's father was, like Elie Wiesel, a young teenage Hungarian Jew whose family was rounded up and shipped to Auschwitz. Like Elie Wiesel, he was the only one of his family to survive the initial selection and like so few others survived the death march to Buchenwald when Auschwitz was evacuated. He was a friend of Elie Wiesel. At least on this subject, this knotheaded 19 year old Tennessee Presbyterian learned to keep his mouth shut.

You're tossing around millions of lives here and there reminds me of a quote attributed to Joseph Stalin, the perpetrator of another human tragedy. "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
 
What in the hell are you talking about? I just brought up a quote from a book? Why the hell are you bringing up the fact that you've read the book Night? I've read it too, and its 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand. I gave you a freakin quote, and again you pick out one tiny detail, and SAY "ohoho, I've read that book from your quote, which obviously completely invalidates your point".

Congrats dude, you read the book Night. Can I get some more personal anecdotes about your life that I clearly didn't ask for, or can you actually start saying something relevant to the topic?

I assume I know more about what is going on in NK than you based off of the ignorant statements you've made in this thread.

TELL ME what makes the holocaust worse than what is happening in NK. You keeping dodging the damn question. You told me my comparison was ridiculous, yet people that have actually been in the camps, and professional writers agrere with me. ANSWER THE QUESTION. STOP DODGING. What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea? It's not that complicated. If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong instead of just saying, "Well, you're wrong, and my heart has been beating for more years than yours, so that makes me right".

I'm the one tossing around millions of lives, yet you don't give one flying s##t about the tens of millions of people in NK right now that will die if nothing is done.

If you like quotes, try this one, "Millions of death is a tragedy, but tens of millions of deaths is an even bigger one". You call me out for tossing around millions of lives, when you are the one tossing around TENS of millions.

What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea?
What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea?
What makes the holocaust worse than the situation in North Korea?

You need to back up and take a deep breath Cadet.
 
You need to back up and take a deep breath Cadet.
The person that needs to back up is the one throwing insults at someone over a discussion on the internet. Pegging yourself as mature and wise for being old, then turning around and start insulting another person over what was a civil debate, hypocrisy at its finest.
 
Time out everyone. It has been civil and now we are moving away from this. Although this is a written forum I am starting to see multiple people try to put folks in check with terms and tone that if used verbally would come off badly. Also watch the language... this is a public forum and borderline language is not needed to make a point. This is the last warning to keep it about the topic and not personal. We have lots of good intentioned, intelligent folks with varying backgrounds on this forum, lets prove we can keep this above board.
 
Just a suggestion but may want to cut back a touch on the caffeine. Being anonymous might not necessarily equate to being safe from discovery.
 
Just a suggestion but may want to cut back a touch on the caffeine. Being anonymous might not necessarily equate to being safe from discovery.
Very true, I appreciate the advice. And with that, I will be leaving this forum. It is clear that some of the members here have a habit of making what I take to be inflammatory comments, and based off of the post I made less than an hour ago, I lack the restraint to react in an amicable manner to these perceived provocations, and therefore the restraint to safely post on this site. I hope no hard feelings remain and I apologize if you took offense to my words, they were said in an emotional state @cb7893
 
I'm confused, throughout this board you indicate you are a cadet at West Point, why the Naval Academy Avatar.
 
1337Beachedwhale1337,

Got it that you read a lot about NK. I will just caution you to separate facts, opinion, and personal agendas. Apply some critical thinking and analysis and throw in some healthy cynicism.

In my past postings I think I posted something like we can't define the right size or our budget for the military until you decide on what threat we face and what our mission is. If you ask generals and admirals, they will always say we need more soldiers, ships, tanks, airplanes, and etc. Did I say we need the missile defense? No. Don't you think the defense industry lobbies everyone to buy more stuff regardless we need it or not.

Got it that you are passionate about certain things, but you are not going to get others folks to agree with you.
 
Back
Top