LOL I'm really dissapointed in you(that's if you were serious). You really believe that China, Russia, U.S are scared of N.Korea? You think no country has intervened so far because they are scared of N.Korea super power weapons?LOOL
Old boy.......
For one, if not for Soviet Russia and China there will be no Fat crazy Kim regime today. Korea will be united long ago under the S.Korean government, and they will all be living happily ever after, since they will be a larger developed advanced country.
Secondly, Soviet Russia(indirectly, since they provided all the weapons/logistics/arms) and China intervened to save the Kim regime for their own interests, China obviously wanted a buffer state(it still does) against U.S/western backed South, while Russia as a superpower rival to the U.S wanted to reduce U.S influence/foothold in Asia BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY.
Even today, China/Russia(they both share a border with N.Korea so it will be even easier), U.S have the ability to completely decimate/invade N.Korea in a war anytime they want without much harm. The hell, North Korea cant even defeat Japan in a war. The only reason world powers haven't done that is simply because the current status quo seem to suit their interests to some extent and they don't want to engage in a war they are not sure about how other world powers will react.
You reminded me of some people who say The U.S/West/NATO were/are scared of Iran, reason they didn't invade Iran unlike Saddam's Iraq.
The hell, North Korea cant even defeat Japan in a war.
Michael, power projection ability does not necessarily mean the will to use it is there. One's kinetic capability has to be governed, kept in check by regulatory processes in government and military. Naturally, we Japanese would like a diplomatic way of solving the issue, hopefully, to realize the peaceful reunification of Korea. Afterall, since the late 19th century, an independent and unified Korea, had ceased to exist.
You reminded me of some people who say The U.S/West/NATO were/are scared of Iran, reason they didn't invade Iran unlike Saddam's Iraq.
Well, there is a major dichotomy between Iraq and Iran, my friend. Iran is not as sectarian and divided as Iraq, which is a actually a Shia majority country with a Sunni minority ruling (Saddam was Sunni, so is his home base of Tikrit), whereas the majority of IRAN is actually Shia. Iraq, unfortunately, was a British artificial creation, with a large Kurdish population in the north, a small Sunni population in the center near Baghdad, and a very large Shia population in the East, South, and parts of the Southwest, my friend. The eventual splintering of Iraq was bound to happen absence of a strong political figure like Saddam Hussein, who was able to quash divisive and sectarian forces (in fact Saddam summarily had Takfiri clerics executed on regular basis, many of whom were deluded in Saudi-influenced Wahhabism), as he knew even then of the potential threat of radical Takfiri ideology.
In Iran, my friend, the nation is majority Shia, with a wide national base. Iran, unlike Iraq, was not artificially created by the British, since the present borders of Iran is the continuation of the borders of the Safavid Dynasty , and even during the Persian Empire, the bulk if not the majority of the Persian heartland remains in the current borders of modern Iran ( Iran, Islamic Republic). Iran, unlike Iraq, also has a massive population, Michael. She has a population of over 81 million, and that is growing, making Iran one of the most densely populated states in the MIddle East (at par level with Turkey, and to an extent, Egypt). Iran is also relatively , politically stable, with a harmonious religious establishment that synergizes with their political establishment.
Any invasion of Iran would result in total, and epic failure, my friend. Iran is at the heart of Western Asia, she is home to the 2nd largest natural gas reserve in the world, and has the third largest reserve of petroleum, mostly untappped, actually. So, on resource level -- she is able to last a long war, bolstered by her large man power, which has the ability to demolish her much weaker neighbors. Third, Iran is strategically linked to Russia and China, and to an extent even India. So a practical war on this population-rich, resource-rich, strategically vital nation state is antithetical to the interest of Moscow, Beijing and even Delhi.
This is why, my friend, the West, NATO, and the United States does not have the capability to muster strength to take on Iran, Islamic Republic. The West can barely even commit ground troops to take on ISIS, or even the Alawite Regime in Syria, are you saying that the West has the appetite to swallow a much larger state, Iran? Let's be realistic here, my English friend. Let us not argue in absurdity.
Let me end this here with this. Even at the height of Iraq's power, with all the defense equipment she had purchased from the USSR and the Americans, with American intel provision, even tho she battered the fledgling Revolutionary Iranian State for close to 8 years, still, Iraq's some 500,000 size Army was unable to break ground on Iranian soil, and unable to even capture key positions. What makes you think that ANY country now in the region (please don't think the KSA can even take on a fight with Tehran, LOL) can dare take on Iran head on? We are no longer dealing with a fledgling revolutionary state in the early 80s, my friend, we are dealing with an industrializing power, with the potential to be a regional great power, in her own right.
@Daneshmand @Serpentine