You don't need to go nuclear to wipe them out... a concerted effort by the Russian, US, and Chinese Air Forces would basically wipe out all major points of interest with enough force that nothing would be left standing, all with conventional armament. If it was initiated with a stealth strike on their early warning system, followed immediately with targeted attacks on their launch facilities, then followed up with core leadership targets, I'd think they'd be pretty well fucked in a hurry with very little fallout to South Korea. Besides, I have to believe that the US has some pretty serious technology floating in the water that will do a respectable job of protecting South Korea from anything that might get launched.
I'd almost bet that a few of Kim's political foes were either strapped to that device or somewhere close to ground zero. I'm sure he's growing bored with simply shooting them with anti-aircraft fire.
The military intervention part seems easy. It's more the "what do we do with 30+ million people who have no actual skills beyond being poor and worshipping a doughy megalomaniac" that has everyone approach this with kid gloves. I think China and SK were hoping what others were pointing out earlier in this thread, that NK would detonate a nuke killing most of the population while irradiating the rest.
The issue is China doesn't want to deal with the enormous humanitarian crisis that follows. Not only are they immediately refugees, they have zero understanding of the rest of the world. It would be like if a spaceship landed and out poured 30 million aliens that we need to care forth at have no grasp on human society or anything at all.
I may have previously interpreted "fallout" a bit too literally. For sure, there will be a ton of "what do we do now" stuff to do, but as much of a pain in the ass it would be, Best Korea playing with nukes like that has got to be heading towards forcing everyone's hands on the matter. If I were China and South Korea, I have to think that dealing with a country of refugees (that you could just leave in place, unlike most other national refugees), would be a better option than dealing with (best case) nuclear fallout, or a direct nuclear attack.
China is also afraid of a reunified Korea that would be pro-western instead of a puppet regime. But I do agree with Nett, the other option is a seriously unhinged leader that is now in control of more then just pop gun nukes. 7 years after Fat Man and Little Boy we had bombs that were 450 times more powerful. I don't think the norks will advance that quickly, but then again...I didn't think they would be capable of what they are now.
The idea would be to just take out Cartman. It's gotta be the most difficult task ever. Because I feel like one of his generals would have just done it by now. Is it a safe assumption that the rest of the population would totally be on board with removing Kim Jong Un from power? Who takes his place?
I'm not sure Kim would actually use his nukes. There is little strategic upside to him detonating a bomb over Seoul or Tokyo or anywhere. It seems more like he wants to sit at the adult table and rattle his sabre. The second he launches a missile that has to be intercepted Pyongyang is bombed into oblivion. As crazy as he might be, I don't think he has a death wish. I could see a successful coup occurring at some point. He just isn't strong enough. The VICE Guide to Travel: North Korea is an excellent documentary on it. Shane Smith acting like an asshole the whole time makes it even better.
Actually I don't think it is a safe assumption, I am sure there is some part of the population that would, but if you and your parents have been raised in this type of life style and told what they are told about the outside world.
That shit in the stadium, having 40,000 performers put on a full show for a couple dozen tourists was the most insane thing I've ever seen. VICE used to not suck. That is no longer the case.
Insulting 1/4 of the voters doesn't seem like a very good campaign strategy, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I understand insulting the candidate, but I will never understand why you would attack the supporters.
It's also his style... he's aggressively defensive, and strikes out at and bullies anyone who questions or threatens him. He has no long-term, big-picture diplomatic skills, just in-the-moment reactions.
It may not be a winning political strategy, but from a larger societal perspective it needs to be said. Over and over. We've coddled this pond-scum layer of the US electorate for far too long, and it's brought us to the position we find ourselves in today.
Isn't this really a perspective issue? It's really all relative to your perspective: If race is your hot-button issue or if honesty and integrity is your hot-button issue, you are going to view a different group or different percentage of people as deplorables? You could go so far as to say anyone who supports crooked Hillary or Don the bigot are soulless scumbags who want to help further deteriorate the country, couldn't you? What percentage of people is that? 85-90%? In any case, it will be uninteresting to see how the legacy media reacts to this; everyone remembers when Romney talked about the 47% and where that landed him, right? Let the mental gymnastics and defense of the crooked one begin!
Clinton certainly agrees with your point. In her "apology" she didn't regret saying Trump supporters are deplorable. She regretted saying "half" of them are.