Okay, a critical thinker's question...North Korea.

[BeHereNow]

As we all know, our government recently "droned" a US citizen and then weeks later, his son in Yemen.
My question is this:

Clearly, an insane youth is running North Korea- making all sorts of threats and advising foreigners
to leave South Korea immediately.

My daughter came into my room a few mornings ago, terrified that Hawaii had been hit
by a North Korean nuclear weapon, because we had intense wind storms and the house was shaking.

So I ask you DU- WHAT exactly, as taxpayers, are we funding as far as paying for these "drones"
when they are not used against a clear and justifiable target?

Just wondering out loud...

BHN

[99Forever]

1. Drones assassinating foreign heads of state?

What could possibly go wrong?

[BeHereNow]

2. "Head Case' of State We did far worse in other countries...

Without proof of ANYTHING.
Where you been the last 30 years?

BHN

[99Forever]

11. I see...

... since we're already seen as murdering bullies, what the fuck, might as well take it all the way, right? I mean, no one else in the world could possibly figure out how to do it to us also, it is 1970s high tech stuff, speaking of "30 years."

Brilliant plan there, bubba.

[quinnox]

3. the counter argument is always, if we do it to them, then they can do it to us

So if we knocked off a foreign leader, then other unfriendly countries would get a green light to assassinate our leader. It is a persuasive argument as to why it would be a bad idea.

[BeHereNow]

6. So we sit back and do nothing? He has made his threats quite clear.

Unlike other leaders we have assassinated without consequence.
BHN

[quinnox]

8. exactly, we sit back and do nothing

Until or unless he does something to us. We are also supposed to be the leader of the world. I don't think, morally speaking, that would set a good example, to do what you propose.

[Mika]

14. Exactly. We haven't set any good examples recently.

In fact, I'd estimate that the US has invaded and occupied and killed more than North Korea in said operations.

Just an estimate, mind you.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. He's far more of a threat to Soth Korea, Japan, China, and...

other Asians. Perhaps we could watch what they are doing about it.

[Mika]

16. Preemptive strike. Hmmm. That would be a bad example. But, the US is a leader in many examples.

[quinnox]

18. yup, the US has not been setting good examples in recent history

Hopefully that can and will change.

[JVS]

4. North Korea would easily shoot down drones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_drones

115 hp. 135mph

They could probably be shot down by people in Cessnas.

The selling point of drones is that they are remote controlled (no casualties) and much cheaper than sending a f-16 after some guys in a Toyota truck. They are most useful against civilians or militaries with no airforces and air defenses.

[Mika]

5. Justifiable to who?

My my my. How we have been cowed.

[BeHereNow]

9. Well apparently, justifiable to those who "deem" a threat to National Security?

If anyone has made it clear by now, it is the nut case running North Korea.
BHN

[Mika]

13. Are you sure?

The real threat to our national security, IMO.

[Marrah_G]

7. Considering the massive loss of life that could happen

I think the Admin is trying to not escalate things.

The real issue isn't American lives, but instead is Korean lives. SK has millions of people 40 miles from the border of NK.

Also I would point out that just killing of the boy king or even the boy king and a bunch of his generals will result in enraging a very, very brainwashed people. NK IMHO is not like other "enemies". They are are ruled by a very strange mixture of fear, hate, love, starvation, blind trust and loyalty instilled in them from birth to an extend we can't even really comprehend.

I would not put it past the north to try and take back the south, as this has been a goal since the ceasefire. The boy king might decide to try and attempt what his father and grandfather could not do. Or.... he might just be blowing smoke up everyone's butt.

It's a complicated problem with no really good solutions. And peaceful changes would need to come from within...not much of a chance of that. And a wartime solution would cost probably millions of lives.

[Mika]

10. Not much of a chance of that. Indeed.

Look up the Buddhist story of the Anger Eating Demons.

[Drale]

12. Yes you could kill the crazy kid

but he's not crazy on his own, he has generals and other staff members that are just as crazy egging him on, so unless you kill all of them at once, nothing would change and it would probably make things far worst.

[JaneyVee]

15. North Korea has an actual military capable of shooting down drones.

[bhikkhu]

17. Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan governments have given us permission to use them

...we can't fly drones over NK any more than we can fly jets - in either case, it would be considered a violation of sovereignty. I suppose its easy to throw international law out, based on the other guy being a nutcase, but following it is still the best policy.

[Volaris]

20. I am NOT in the camp that says using militiary means to prosecute terrorism, is a good idea.

That having been said, I would say that there is a difference between using a drone to kill a "terrorist" and using one to START a shooting war with a Sovereign (albeit, rouge) NationState...ESPECIALLY since the NKorean response almost certainly will be to start lobbing shells over the fence into what is essentially, the suburbs of Seoul. By the time the first American MANNED warplane entered Theater, upwards of 10,000 S.Korean civilians would be dead. If that's a thing we can prevent by ANY kind of NON-action, yeah, that strikes me as the better strategy.

But since I know there are other opinions out there, I'm always happy to have them offered up for discussion.