You appear to have missed the line: "(and remember I'm not talking about the humanitarian issue here)" and the overall message of my comment that such things are, like it or not, largely irrelevant to the important powers-that-be unless it negatively effects their own economy or state security.Mad Stalin said:I cant see how rendering a place unliveable for decades having people literally die from bloodloss and radiation sickness is any better that what it is now.Davrel said:Glass the entire place.
My reasoning?
1) We would only invade because of the humanitarian issue.
2)During the invasion hundreds of thousands of civilians would die (rendering point 1 redundant).
3)If we don't invade those same civilians die, albeit more slowly, from starvation.
4)If we don't stop the regime in NK we still have to deal with a reckless, incredibly dangerous nation that relies on brinkmanship to further its foreign policy.
There are, therefore, no positives to doing nothing about NK.
Invading would be incredibly costly in terms of our own soldiers lives etc. So to have a very high chance of removing the "problem" (and remember I'm not talking about the humanitarian issue here) the only option is nuclear weaponry.
Everyday, powerful states do nothing to stop conflicts and overthrow regimes were civilians are killed en mass; morality is no issue in IR.
N.B. - I'm not saying that this is a good solution but it would probably work.
I should also mention that a further reason to avoid a traditional invasion is because of two following figures: an estimated 1million SOUTH Koreans would be killed and $1trillion would be wiped off the world economy due to the almost guaranteed loss/destruction of Seoul.
I'm really not bullshitting, you can look this stuff up.