Can't we just agree that invading North Korea is a bad idea?
Yes, but perhaps not for the reasons you think.
North Korea is a little different than most brutal dictatorships, since they quite possibly have functioning nuclear weapons. Seoul would be a crater if the US tried anything overt.
Not quite. North Korea doesn't have much of an interest in nuking South Korea even in the worst case scenario. For one, the fallout will all be blown north. Into North Korea. Secondly, it's suicide for all the other reasons nukes are suicide. And finally, North Korea's nukes are not exactly the epitome of reliable, nor are their delivery systems.
One issue I have here is that there has never actually been the sort of senseless, spasmodic war between states in modern times where people just brutally flung their strongest weapons at the other and simply attempt to annihilate as much of the other as possible, which Armchair General-ing assumes. If we imagine an ahistorical timeline, we have to assume things that didn't happen, whereas if we imagine nations at war in the future that aren't currently at war, we have to imagine something
in particular will happen that will change things from how they are now.
It's not like one day Glorious Un would wake up and be like "I'm going to nuke everyone". Obama's not going to waltz into his situation room tomorrow and say "You know, Gay Marriage and Healthcare are cool, but I think the most important part of my legacy should be wiping the DPRK off the face of the earth. Let's do that." Something has to happen. You know, we discuss "escalating into war" as if all war is all the same, but it really isn't. A Naval Blockade is an act of war. So is a land invasion. So is the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. No one would ever use all three at once. They are all
circumstantial. The danger of North Korea is not that, in an out-and-out fight they could wound the South (which they may not be able to do, as MSH points out), but merely that things are *uncertain*, and circumstances could lead to a situation with unacceptable costs; uncertainty is the greatest risk when dealing with an unstable, nuclear-armed, hermit kingdom. What would cause any US administration to decide that NK cannot be allowed to exist (no de-escalation, unlike every single time so far), no matter the costs (accepting the risk of a Nuclear Error), if it has already not done so? (Proof it hasn't done so: North Korea still exists). NK would have to have
already done something beyond the pale; perhaps already wounding the South to an unacceptable level, or maybe US being very strongly under the impression that North Korea was intending to do so. But what would provoke the North to do that, since it is so obviously suicide? Whatever it is, it might just provoke them to use nuclear weapons anyway, regardless of the obvious costs, and there goes your argument.
The problem with using counter-factuals is simply that at a certain level, it's fundamentally wild speculation. And speculation does not good policy make. Invading North Korea easily
could, in theory, go off without a hitch and be a great day for everyone; let no one say it couldn't. Or millions could be dead within hours. And it would be up to chance. Above all, North Korea is a
risk, confronting it is
risky. And as long as it remains on the course it has been, it will continue to be Satan's Coinflip. That is the danger of North Korea.