Apples, Oranges and Kimchi

This in response to a friend who asserts that we react differently to ISIS' and North Korea's bellicosity  because ISIS is an Islamic movement.

     ****, I think your reason is over simplistic. There are other concerns than religion. They include the facts that two Pacific rim governments we very much wish to survive (Japan and S. Korea) are within demonstrated missile range of Kim the Third's missiles. Without stationing a huge army on the peninsula, we probably could not insure the continued existence of South Korea in light of an all out invasion from the North. Japan likewise could be severely damaged before we could do anything about it.

     It seems that the potential collateral damage body count is far greater in the case of North Korea than ISIS. Additionally, we have already found out once what dangers are involved in military adventures too close to the Yalu River. And finally, yes, they have a 1 million man army, so neutralizing them would involve either a) invasion with our own million man army (we don't have that many) or b) Nuclear attack, which just might piss off the Chinese. As to the religion issue, Hell boy, them North Koreans are Atheists, ain't that worse?

     Coda: Never during the Korean conflict did we fear any violence on our soil. Hell, many Americans weren't even really sure where Korea was at first. 9/11 changed that, and cold hard facts are that most Americans still don't fear domestic violence from North Korea, probably because of a general sense that any such action would be considered sufficient provocation for an all out military response. ISIS and other terrorists, however, are a rather nebulous widely dispersed threat that can't be dealt with as simply. It is, I feel, the nature and uncertainty of the threat, not the religion (or lack of same) that defines the attitude of many of us, especially the national government, whose job it is to formulate response. 

      I will concede that there are some in America for whom religion is an issue, even though that is counter-intuitive to a rational person. If I am being mugged, or my family threatened, the faith or lack of it of the aggressor is of little concern. Right or wrong, most of us see N. Korea as more an academic problem than a personal security issue. ISIS, because of their stated goals in media world-wide radiate the aura of  clear and present danger. We see Kim as a buffoon, as we did his father, and in the absence of any real aggression from him, it just seems like the same old rhetoric, aimed more at placating his own starving nation than real goals elsewhere. We have ISIS talking heads, some of them American by birth, on the other hand threatening us personally in the here and now. ISIS has killed more Americans in the last three weeks than North Korea in this century! I think that is a far larger factor in most peoples' view of the two lunatic groups.

     It would be relevant to remember that, for all the contretemps of the Cold War, in 60 years we never faced a violent act on our soil by a Cold War foe. The same is obviously and painfully not true of Islamic extremism, but we'd probably feel the same about any group of any persuasion who behaved the same (domestic violence by terrorist acts).