North Korea there will be blood?

How is it honest? You will just invent whatever ratio of US soldiers to NK soldiers for your "pain" calculation that your argument needs. You are just making it up as you go along.

Besides, the US will do it all with unmanned drones on the ground, bombs from fighter jets above. No casualties needed.

You haven't been reading this thread have you?

quote:

---

As you say, we do place a high value on human life, and we value 100 of our own casualties higher than 100,000 enemy ones.

---

from Message 85.The average American places greater value on one American life than on the lives of all the North Koreans combined, but they place an even higher value on being able to watch WWE, having the latest cell phone and app.I wish I were making it up, but I am not.

The average N. Korean places greater value on one N. Korean's life than on the lives of Americans. The equation works the other way as well.

Does it?And does the average North Korean even enter into the equation?

Even if this were remotely true, which it isn't, why should any rational person like yourself use that standard to gauge the harm that the US would suffer. A casualty is a casualty and there is no way that the US will suffer more than the N Koreans.I am sure that you are aware of the history of the Korean peninsula. This idea of just packing up and leaving is not only repulsive but incredibly naive. What about Japan and Taiwan? Shall we abandon them as well if Kim young son gets the urge to invade? Not our problem? The real potential for harm will be a disruption of global political stability.It is tragic that the Koreans have been screwed over for centuries by the Japanese, French, Chinese, Americans and Russians. The people there suffer for being at the front line of a global clash of ideologies. The idea of leaving them to their fate at this point in time is just wrong.

But a casualty is not a casualty. A casualty has the value placed on it by a government.The value may not even be consistent or constant.Is it time for Japan and Taiwan to assume responsibility for themselves?The issue is just how much pain and costs should the US assume?

Do these soldiers not have families and loved ones?

Does it matter?Do the folk in North Korea who may commit them to a war place any value on whether or not they have families and loved ones?

I think what jar is trying to tell us is that even if the US could eventually wipe out the enemies ability to fight, the enemy likely will get in at least one shot that will cause thousands of casualties...this not even taking into account the cost of such a conflict. Is it worth it? Must we continue being the global cop and at what price?

Different gov'ts certainly value life differently but a casualty is a casualty by any rational or moral standard. I thought that the question was how do we avoid the destruction of Korea. What makes you think that the harm would be less if the US were to pull out? US withdrawal would most certainly lead to a war that would quickly spread. How much would that cost?

But as you admit all casualties do not carry the same value or cost. Well no, that has never been the topic of this thread regardless of what you mean by "Korea". What makes you think I think that?The issue is "What is the least harm to the US?" That would depend on whether we joined in the madness of it spreading. Is there some reason to think the result might not be the same as with Vietnam and China? Might the result be that in a decade we find that "Korea" (the unified peninsula) is a major trading partner?

Here you are saying that the US will suffer more harm than the N Koreans if we engage them. In order to support that notion you claim that US casualties are more valuable to the US than the Korean casualties are valuable to the US or to the Koreans. I think you went as far as saying that 1 US soldier was worth more than all of the N Koreans combined.I am not really sure if you mean that the Koreans can afford to lose more people than the US can or just that they are willing to sacrifice more people or what. Do you mean that there are some people who are more important to the war effort than others?In terms of casualties, any rational assessment of harm caused by a conflict will conclude that 1 dead person = 1 dead person. From the OP "4. what is a possible solution to stabilize this crisis?"And by "Korea" of course I mean South Dakota. When you said "We could just bring the troops home." Say we do nothing and let them hash it out. We abandon the S Koreans to be taken over by the North and we do nothing if they start sending missiles into Japan. (Which you claim is not an isolationist approach.)Then we wait a decade or two for them to realize that capitalism isn't quite as evil as they thought it was and then start trading with them?Somehow this makes sense to you because the average American thinks that 1 US casualty is more valuable than all of the Koreans combined?

He's saying that regardless of their importance, some people are more valued than others. No matter how rational that equation seems, it is never the formula used in a conflict.

I appreciate that every nation values it's own soldiers and citizens above all others but I would completely reject the idea that the lives of the 'enemy' have no value. The evidence is the public's reaction to 'accidental' killings of civilians and the treatment of foreign prisoners. It would seem that Americans actually do value the lives and rights of others.Many of them value the ideal of freedom above their own lives. This is why we, in the free world, are willing to spend blood and treasure to preserve and extend it. We do this for our own benefit and because our moral code says that what is good for me is probably good for you.This notion that the US has no interest in what happens in Korea or Japan is nonsense. There is the small matter of $67 B in annual trade with S Korea, $147 B with Japan and $48 B with Taiwan. Were all of this trade to be disrupted by some conflict the quality of life for millions would suffer.It is one world and the US by virtue of having emerged from WW2 on the top is obliged and fully interested in seeing the whole thing work. This is why Truman et al actually did spread the wealth around and made great efforts toward rebuilding the world that had just been ravaged. Cynically, we needed someone to buy our stuff and people to exploit. In reality, that is what puts food on the table for everybody. Eventually, like China and Russia, N Korea will come to understand this. Perhaps even jar.Edited by Prototypical, : add an is