SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
North Korea (DPRK — Democratic People's Republic of Korea) has launched an SLBM (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) from a submarine in the Sea of Japan, according to a Reuters story. The missile travelled about 300 miles (500 km). A similar launch last month seemed to fail.
Having the ability to fire a missile from a submarine could help North Korea evade a new anti-missile system planned for South Korea and pose a threat even if nuclear-armed North Korea's land-based arsenal was destroyed, experts said.
The ballistic missile was fired at around 5:30 a.m. (2030 GMT) from near the coastal city of Sinpo, where a submarine base is located, officials at South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defence Ministry told Reuters.
The projectile reached Japan's air defence identification zone (ADIZ) for the first time, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a briefing, referring to an area of control designated by countries to help maintain air security.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @03:50PM
You are assuming "we" is the US, or a proxy there-of. I was thinking that the parent post was proposing "we" as the entire international community, and most specifically, South Korea and China (North Korea's two neighbors), and possibly Japan.
To this end:
1) China: They would face substantial condemnation from the world for taking on a war of aggression. Even if countries (most notably, the US) secretly wanted North Korea to topple, they would need to put forward at least token offense at an aggressive "unjust war." There is substantial anti-Chinese sentiment in the world, too (e.g. see Donald Trump's rhetoric), so some political opportunists would likely take the opportunity to attack them.
You also have the problem of millions of starving people in an anarchy across your border. Do you let refugees in (bad: they don't speak the language, have a huge cultural difference, and are starving and poor), or do you keep them out (bad: guarded fences are expensive, some deaths from attempted crossings will look really bad on the international stage, and international groups will be condemning you to no end for the tragedy you created).
2) South Korea: They don't want to fight their fellow Koreans. This effectively appears like a civil war. Also they have far fewer resources than a country like China or the US (in terms of manpower, if nothing else), so it will be a riskier fight. Seoul is incredibly close to the border, and a fight would be costly.
Plus, all of the international reputation risk that China faces, South Korea would face as well. China would need to provide at least token support to their nominal ally, and may opportunistically undermine South Korea's position.
3) Japan: They nominally are anti-war (this is debatable, but their constitution does suggest the self-defense forces are only for self defense). They would also face the same reputation risks and international repercussions of South Korea. They also have less to gain than South Korea, as they are substantially further away.