On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:12:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 9:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:43:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 6:26 PM, wrote:

I am sure we are "trying to influence" their elections if they
actually had elections. The propaganda arm of the US government has
been going strong for 100 years. (did you watch the PBS WWI show?)
I am still thinking what I said in the other post. Maybe the best
thing we could do is lose Korea and let Kim try to perpetuate the lie
with 50 million south Koreans in his camp.


That would work. You can't take knowledge away from the South Koreans.
Problem is, they would pay a heavy humanitarian price.

How much damage would a nuclear war on the peninsula cost in
humanitarian terms?


The threat of using nuclear weapons always seems to be the focus of
everyone's attention yet the world has survived since their only use 72
years ago. I am optimistic that will continue.


As the leaders of the world who actually remember WWII, as a recent
thing, die off, the likelihood of WWIII increases.
A true world war that threatens a nuclear power's land would go
nuclear pretty quickly. The US was never actually in danger and we
nuked the japs anyway.
That is the problem with places like Iran or N Korea having a nuke.
They both have nuclear powers threatening them, much like India and
Pakistan going nuclear in quick succession.
N Korea may be the most dangerous since they definitely feel
threatened and I am not sure they actually understand what a nuclear
war would be.