Who is more dangerous: Iraq or North Korea?

[Pistolero]

I've been hearing arguments equally convincing for both. On the one hand, NK already has nukes (verified), but they pose a lesser risk than Saddam because they have no way of delivering a nuke before they are obliterated themselves by the US. And it has not been verified beyond the shadow of a doubt that Iraq really has nukes, or Super Flu or crap like that (Likelihood: Extremely high, though)

It is my personal opinion that North Korea poses a way greater risk to the US and its allies in the Asia-Pac region than Saddam, and the AJEM! oil AJEM! interests can wait while the real threat of nuclear strikes in Asia is dealt with (How? dunno. But that Kim Jong Il is damn scarier than John Asscroft, and Saddam, well, dog that barks...)

So at whom, if at all, should the US military direct their gaze to? And in which order?

And before I get flamed, I am in no way pro-war. But there is going to be a war whether we like it. I am just asking who is the creepiest creep.

[Captain tycho]

North Korea is just saber rattling, Iraq hasn't been hostile to other countries for some time, so who knows?
We know for sure NK. has nuclear weapons and is possibly willing to use them. Iraq, however, we have no solid evidence of nuclear weapons, but we do have evidence of chem and bio weapons. And if Iraq launches an attack against us or another allied country, needless to say, 'Bombs away.' At this stage it is very hard to tell, as both countries are decieving.
Saddamn should be removed, in my opinion, not by force unless we absolutely have too. Exile or assasination will help the Iraqi people (and the world)much more than a costly war in both terms of lives and money.
North Korea can be stopped by trade sanctions, if they do threaten an attack, but if we have to go to war with North Korea, it will be much, much more costly than facing Iraq in open conflict. Since over 3 million NK. troops are stationed there, and NK's artillery is within striking distance of Seoul, the costs for a war with NK will be FAR higher than Iraq.

[Mr Bean]

All one has to do is look at facts to see which is more dangrous


Iraq, HAS Chemical and Biological Weapons, of that there is no question, They have at the very least a few thousand Gallons of various substances that was accounted for BEFORE 1998 and was never Destroyed after Saddam kicked the Inspectors out, If your sugesting that Saddam would rebuild over twenty plants just for fun then burn off all of his old weapons(Nevermind unless he poored them into Gulf we would have seen the masses of trucks nessary to transport them to a dispolas facility

No think about this, and here's the Key
If Iraq gets Nukes(Which it mostly likley does not have now due to the reason for it wanting Nukes)
What happens?
Two things
1. We can no longer invade because Saddam can simply annilate/severaly damage all Oil Production in the Middle east with a mear nine weapons, Seven if he blows up the ones in his own country, Even one Nuke attack on an Oil Field would be horrendous

Cut off the Middle East Oil and the American econmey is due for another hard and long resession
2. Saddam gets the chance to devople rockets that can reach American or anyone else along with heavy payloads because we can't do anything about it

Saddam having weapons is a BAD thing

Now then North Korea
North Korea has Nukes, Between Four to Five, with missles that can reach China(Which has Nukes) Japan(Which Posses little threat to them) Or South Korea(Which the Fall-out will come righ back into North Korea

Now what can it uses it weapons for it an offensive role? Yes thats right pretty much nothing
In a Defense Roll however they are extremely effective
South Korea can't hope to stand aginst the North Korean Army, Nukes or not,

We DONT have the Landing Craft we did in WWII, The Best we can manage is a few Brigades, Not Half a Dozen Divisions(We can land 10,000 people at a time, not 200,000)

Now then seeing as its in its best Intrests to stay alive if we started landing Troops in SK, NK would see its best chance in survial in elimating SK once and for all, One Nuke in a Staging Area for example would kill alot of people
We don't have the room to spread out after all remeber that in SK so we are escpilly vurable to Nuke attack, Also don't forget that NK can shoot at anything in SK from the DMZ thanks to their massive Amounts of Artillery, They don't need Nukes to level Cities and burn SK to the ground

Now the final factors, NK is siting on nothing that Important and anything(Aside from giving its Nukes to Terrirosts, which is does not have the contacts to due easily)
Second, The NK Army thoguh strong is just a points from Revolt thanks to the fact that nearly all of NK budge is devoted towards Military spending meaning Interal Revolt is likley
Alright so thats the sitaution in NK
They having nothin Vauable, They can't use their Nukes on anyone and make a real diffrence, They are increably poor and likley to self imploded at any time


Meanwhile Iraq is going strong, though Saddam does not have his people's support, considering the numbers of Military Troops he has and the amount of Secret Police, loyal to him, It does not much matter, He must be taken out before he gets Nukes, otherwise he becomes invisible to US Invasion

[Mr Flibble]

Well speaking as an Australian I see north Korea as the more dangerous. Why? Firstly because it is closer to Australia than Iraq. Secondly because North Korea poses a threat to Australia's second largest trading partner, Japan. That makes North Korea the greater danger to Australia.

As to the question of what the US military should do, and for that matter what Australia should do, I don't know. I don't know enough of the details to judge what the best course of action would be, and my biggest concern at the moment is the Prime Minister acting on these issues without even consulting the parliament.

[jegs2]

I know a significant amount about both, and I can safely say that North Korea is more dangerous.

[Mr Bean]

And can you explain why? North Korea has nukes but no where to go with them
Nuke Japan you say?
To what end? Will it help them take over South Korea? Will it put food on the tables of thier people? Or deliver them all into Nuclear Hellfire?

[Warspite]

I have to agree with Bean. Iraq poses a bigger danger, since Saddam has shown to have the "guts" to carry on with it's threats, and not carrying a fuck for anybody else but him. Even if he doesn't destroys the oilfields, he's likely to attack Israel, just like in '91, in an atempt to chance the stance of the Arab World, after all, remember, it's not political idiologies that are in conflict here, but religion, which is much worse.
As for North Korea, and in relation to Mr.Fibble concerns, they can threaten the right-of-passage law for the Sea of Japan, but that carries the penalty of having to deal with the global community.
Pretty much else has been dealt by Bean.

[Arrow]

Lets also consider that North Korea is in China's backyard. I have a feeling that if even looks like NK is going to something stupid the Chinese would take some sort of military action. Of course, I could be wrong...