> On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one.
You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?
>You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties...
It's probably a worst-case estimate. It really depends on the efficacy of allied counter-battery fire and air capabilities versus enemy artillery positions.
There's also room for creativity. Park a carrier battle group off the coast of Seoul and fake a serious reactor event during a period of easterly winds, with mandatory evacuation southward in the days prior to the invasion.
>...not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war.
If you're referring to North Korea: I'm not advocating invasion presently, merely lamenting that NK was not confronted prior to acquiring nuclear weapons. Invasion today only works with absolute assurance you can neutralize NK's nuclear capability, and that's extremely difficult if not impossible.
If you're referring to China and Russia: I'm pretty sure that to them, North Korea is squarely not worth risking nuclear confrontation with the United States over.
>That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?
No, I don't. There is an almost equal number of people languishing in hellish prison camps—some their entire lives—with a far greater amount in the general population living meager, miserable existences.
The very nature of it should transcend simple body count calculations in all but the most extreme cases of disparity. The civilized world has a moral obligation to wield its power in such a manner that doesn't allow such suffering to exist, even if doing so incurs a heavy cost.
Can you imagine if World War II had a different outcome, with Nazi Germany contained yet retaining its statehood? The term "Holocaust survivor" probably wouldn't be present in the modern lexicon. Such fiction isn't too dissimilar from the plight of North Korea's political prisoners today. By and large the civilized world doesn't give much of a shit about them.
When airmen go down behind enemy lines, the forces available to rescue them don't say "Well, we ran the numbers and it's not worth the potential cost of a rescue mission. So, we're just going to forget they exist instead." Esprit de corps ensures a moral obligation to do the right thing regardless of the risk.
I'm simply advocating for the same ideal on a basic humanitarian level.
However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian crisis is really that bad in NK, then it's the role of their neighbors to see that it ends.
If said neighbors don't act, then the role of the rest of the world is to apply sufficient pressure on them.
USA is not the de facto leader of opinion you seem to be suggesting that it is (no offense intended, I just try to state my mind). It has the military/economical power, yes, but as a country it stands as equal to others. It has no legitimate mandate to solve the NK humanitarian crisis.
If you really want USA to be a benevolent dictator, then you should wish for USA to take on the third world problem (give an end to extreme poverty and uncontrolled population growth), or tackle the energy equation (seek unlimited/low-cost/co2-neutral sources).
That would be applauded and praised (but this is clearly not the path chosen right now...).
USA going into NK (deterrent/mass-destruction weapons or not) would simply repeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak: a even more divided world where more and more humanitarian crisis will emerge.
You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?