Or the answers are so simple they need but few words.
Others = UN. You do know it was their war (granted, egged on by Truman), and continues to be their armistice? The US, as with every engagement since 1918, has always had the majority force and carried the brunt of wars (not necessarily meaning casualties, because obviously, that belongs to Russia).
Or it could just be any of a handful of allies... I mean really, think about the circumstances of which is mentioned. There would be others, and maybe some that would take the lead instead of the US (not likely, but you never know). Russia or China could likely step up if NK was stupid enough to use a weapon, any weapon, on another country, especially China if the attack happened in it's "sphere of influence". Yeah, not only the US has one of those myths....
Long enough for you?
It is funny to me how you guys rant and rave about how the U.N. is worthless and they never take action but you want it to go to war with a nuclear armed nation?? It if funny how our key allies are Britain, France, and Germany (countries who are now starting to place a strong emphasis on diplomacy as opposed to war) and you call them cowards yet you want them to go to war with a nuclear armed nation? It seems to me that people like you would have a hard time having in confidence in those nations. And please oh pretty please don't for a second try to predict how Russia and China would react to a pretty much U.S. attack on N. Korea. There is no way in hell they'd be for it and if N. Korea retaliated with nuclear force, who's to say they won't quickly ally with N. Korea. The U.S. isn't exactly best buddies with these countries. And the minute Obama would enact some hair brained lunatic scheme like this, people like you would rake him over the coals.
Stupidty abounds in your post.
First, I haven't ranted and raved against the UN have I? No. And taking my personal post, just one post, and saying it applies to everyone? That's naive, among other negative attributes of which you have. In case you haven't noticed, the US is ALSO trying the diplomacy route more (and guess what, it WAS done even by BUSH! OMG!), but is slowly learning, like Germany and Britain, that it DOESN'T work because for diplomacy to work, you have to give something up...
I give my opinion, just like any other analyst or anyone else would, about what they THINK would happen in a given scenario. You know, that's called conversation and debate. NO person knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what will happen, until it happens. Until then, you can only PREDICT it based of x,y,z factors.
The last third of your post makes no sense either. China wouldn't side with NK if it used a nuke on anyone, other than maybe themselves. In case you haven't heard, China has talked (you know, the whole diplomacy thing) to NK about STOPPING their nuke stuff... we saw where that went. China is pissed. Don't for a second think they wouldn't support action AGAINST NK. It would happen, IN MY OPINION (better?). IF the US were to go in just to be going in (which really isn't a case right now, but it could be argued both ways, so we aren't), then yes, China would be against it. But they may or may not support NK, and if they do, it will be through CONVENTIONAL means. If NK decided to respond with a nuke, that support would quickly turn and a war with NK would be over.
Don't underestimate how much China, Russia, Germany, Britain, and the US DON'T want to use nukes......
What's the problem? Won't our anti-missile defenses shoot down their missiles?
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Yes, we could intercept a nuclear missile fired from North Korea with technology currently deployed. In my mind, that's not really the point. I support the right of North Koreans to launch rockets. However, if the United Nations has issued a decree, they should stand by the decree. If they don't, they risk setting the example that their decrees may be ignored.
War isn't the only option nor would war be an appropriate response to a rocket test. However, if the UN had said "do this and we'll bomb you," and they didn't follow through, they might as well abolish the organization.
The appropriate response is for the member nations to refuse to do business with North Korea as long as they are engaging in behaviors that are against UN policy. If the UN decides to change their mind, that's fine. The solution starts by not issuing decrees that you don't intend to enforce. I'm also a fan of listing consequences with the actions.
The U.N. consists of body of nations that will have multiple interests to any different world event. Why do you expect some type of unified action as you propose?? The U.N. was created to promote dialogue amongst member nations to prevent war. It really isn't set up for taking military action.
So basically what you're saying is that the UN is a body of nations set up to discuss issues and decide on some sort of response (e.g., sanctions), but it's up to each individual country to decide if they'll follow those sanctions. If that's the case then why does the UN exist.
That's like saying well the Democrat congress passed this the bill but since I'm not Democrat I don't really need to abide by it.
In my opinion the UN is pretty much a worthless organization.
Yes, every country has their own interest... However, as a UNITED body, any and every action is to be respected by all memeber states.
The individual countries that make up the U.N. and their armies is the military arm of the U.N.
Yet another subject you don't understand... there comes a point where a person should stop trying.
Is to be respected.....EXACTLY my point. I notice that you did not say IS respected.
With your second statement, you should know better. The military arm of the U.N. is made up of a small handful of nations. You won't find the Chinese in Kosovo, nor will you find them in Africa on some type of peace keeping mission. And one place you'll never find them is attacking North Korea unless NK attacks them first which will never happen.