suirai said:
The primary reason that the DPRK is not a threat is because they don't have the petroleum it takes to flex their vast military forces. A modern fighting machine runs on its fuel supply, and then its stomach. Sorry Napoleon, times change.
Anyway, Napoleon knew he needed those many horses he had before he fed his troopers. His horses didn't go hungry.
.
Threat vs potential threat.
Perhaps I was not quite exact in my wording.
I suppose any country with any amount of military is "a threat".
Especially if one views it through the warped prism of US 'security'
policy - that of not even allowing any country to even attempt
to get close to any where near the US in military might.
If given that, then yes, any country that increases its military in
any amount, is by definition a threat.
But, back to the real world.
In which the United States is the United States (50 states and the
people - that actually make up a country), and not, say,
US "interests". Read : investements. Even Republican Rep Ron Paul
of Texas recognizes the code word of "interests". It is always somebodies interests. And he's not even an anarchist, who usually say that
governments represent some sort of domestic power structure. He's
a Republican, although with Libertarian leanings.
i digress.
petro - who's going to give it to them?
Probably no one.
...and that's where the nuclear fuel comes in.
...and the denying of nuclear fuel to N Korea.
Even if N Korea had such fuel,
The horses to invade another country,
why would they? Just because one has the ability to do something,
doesn't mean they will do it. Kim Jong Ill, with his rad hair, goofy shoes,
and hobby of movie obsession, doesn't make him suicidal.
But again,
missing the fact that South Korea & North Korea were making peace
all by themselves, on their own terms at the end of the 90s.
Working together to reunite family members that hadn't seen each other
in decades. Building business ties. Cultural exchanges.
But, no...., Madeline Albright (the Clinton administration) had to swoop
in there quickly as if to say, 'oh, no. Not without us. Not unless it is
on our terms.' How goofy and unfortunate to place something
as lame as hegemony above another, even single life.
---
edit add on--
I don't remember the numbers, but it is estimated that x millions
or however many people would die in the first weeks of fighting alone
if the Koreas fought. Something I doubt either side would goofy enough
to place their egos on.
N Korea spending of 20%-25% of its GNP (according to wikipedia's
"Korean People's Army" page) on military IS plain mad,
but so is spending 1/2 of total discretionary spending on current
and past military (not including extra off budget spending for Iraq & Afghanistan)
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
or
* The seven potential "enemies," (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria), plus Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.
--from World Military Expenditures from the Center for Defense Information (CDI) and their Miltary Spending: U.S. vs the World table.
via website
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=518
So....,
it does not even enter into one's mind the possibility
that countries, such as North Korea, might be stock piling weapons
for
defense?