BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
North Korea seems more concerned about surviving rather than attacking.

North Korea's perception of what is necessary for the survival of its regime may well be very different from ours. North Korea has over the past few weeks been increasingly belligerent, threatening the Japanese "militarist vipers", the US "imperialists" and the South Korean "fascist puppets" with a thousand fold attack. This cant all be dismissed. North Korea's pledged to punish the UN for daring to criticise its long-range missile test in April. "In case the [security council] does not make an immediate apology ... [North Korea] will be compelled to take additional self-defensive measures in order to defend its supreme interests." Since then the North Korean regime made good on its promise and conducted a nuclear test.[[Justin McCurry, 'North Korean tirade against US latest in string of outbursts', The Guardian, 17th June 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/north-korea-outburst-against-us%5D%5D
North Korea seems more concerned about surviving rather than attacking.

All experts agree that North Korea will not do anything that will jeopardise the survival of it's regime. So it is not likely to do something stupid like at the least launching a barrage of cruise missiles and artillery into South Korea or at the worst attack Chinese installations. [[Ralph Cossa "Dealing with North Korea" Global Security Situation Report http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090531369-dealing-with-north-korea-by-ra.htm Accessed 2.06.2009]] To attack China would be the ultimate act of national suicide as it would be attacking it's biggest historically ideological, strategic, ally and major trading partner.
Is not worth the price

Unlike the US invasion of Iraq, and that of the USSR into Afghanistan, the people of North Korea would welcome the Chinese. They bring with them not only the same ideological base as the DPRK but an ability to stabalize the economy and way of life for the average North Korean. As far as Laos and Vietnam intervening it is a long shot at best. Neither have any real military infristructure to provide in a conventional conflict. If any support from thoes countries came it would come in the form of insugents. The US,Russia,South Korea & other interested countries could make a treaty with China that allows NK to be annexed. China is resistant to the idea because they believe their control would be overstretched; however with appropriate treaties, they may be convinced to go ahead. It is likely to be a bloodless coup d'état against it's generals & a coup de grâce against the regime. The annex will benefit China, North & South Korea because of free trade & reduced crime on China's border. Investment will flood into North Korea from all over the world. twitter.com/SocratesOAthens
Is not worth the price

One question that happens to be of crucial importance is what happens if an Invasion of North Korea by China goes wrong. For example the People's Republic of China decided to invade and North Korea decided to launch its nuclear weapons then it could. Furthermore communist countries like Vietnam and Laos might intervene on the side of the DPRK to send a message to the PRC about communist imperialism. Alternatively it could become the PRC's equivalent of the US invasion of Iraq or even more tellingly the equivalent of the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan something that was partially responsible for bringing down the communist regime in Russia.
China has the most interest in

Out of all of the countries involved in the Pacific area it should be the People's Republic of China who should be the most worried about North Korea and interest in seeing a peaceful transition whether through covert or overt military force. Losing it's buffer area in the south due to it being assimilated would be a blow both to the PRC's national and ideological psyche as it would represent yet another "triumph of capitalism" over its communist foes. Also the fall of North Korea would also be a pull on the dragons tail (wake up call) as the PRC would find itself surrounded by more importantly pro American countries in the Far East.
North Korea is a threat to China in the future and a nuisance now.

Well, first of all, North Korea has no intention in attacking China in any way. North Korea is dependent on China, as China provides North Korea with food and financial assistance. The point of North Korea trying to obtain the missile technology is simply an act of showing the US that they are capable of attack nearby countries. This is the same logic behind Iran wanting to obtain nuclear weapons. By having missiles, North Korea can at least have a say in the international community. North Korea is very unlikely to become a threat to China, as China is one of NK's closest allies and it is unlikely that NK will succeed in nuclear weapons without the financial backing from China. Secondly, invasion of North Korea is not the answer to getting rid of a nuisance. To stop illegal immigrants, the police force should be strengthening their border patrol. Territorial disputes should be resolved through the means of negotiation. These two problems should not be solved through an invasion of another sovereignty.
North Korea is a threat to China in the future and a nuisance now.

Currently If North Korea turned on China it's missiles would be able to strike deep within the People's Republic's territory possibly damaging the capital Beijing and hitting coastal ports as well as most of eastern and southern China. This is demonstrated by reports that the DPRK's newest missile variant is reputed to have a range of around 15,000 kilometres enough to put large amounts of people worldwide and across China at risk. Although currently the North Koreans don't have enough fissile nuclear material or the technology to put nuclear warheads on to missiles they represent an irritant to the Chinese and could become worse as their missile technology develops.[[BBC Online News "North Korea's missile programme" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2564241.stm Accessed 03.06.09]] Furthermore for China, North Korea is a nuisance in the present. The amount of illegal immigrants going across the border is in the tens of thousands region something which pushes up crime rates and means that China has to station more troops then it would like on it's border. It also has territorial disputes over islands in the Yalu and Tumen rivers something which hasn't been solved. [[ Accessed 3.06.09 "CIA The World Factbook- Korea, North https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html ]]
Precedent already there

When the United States of America invaded Iraq in 2003 to enforce non compliance with UN resolutions they set a precedent that pre emptive action could be used against a nation. China would merely be following the United States footsteps in this regard. Also given North Korea's recent belligerent behaviour China would have more grounds for waging war than the US had. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8076451.stm Accessed 01.06.09]]
To invade could trigger an Arms Race: the very thing everyone wants to avoid!

There is little likelihood of an invasion triggering any more of an arms race than there already is. China’s military is already bigger than North Korea’s and better armed with much better technology. China is similiarly much more capable of supplying its army through sustained conflict. It should be hoped that if such an invasion occurred it would be over quickly as the Iraq war was giving no time for either side to build up their army establishments. Once North Korea has been defeated there would be much less reason for the powers in North East Asia to keep their level of arms supplies at the level they are at now and could even reduce them. Both South Korea and the USA keep large numbers of troops and equipment to prevent a North Korean invasion which would no longer have any chance of occuring.
Parents Can Prevent Violence by Spending Time With Their Kids

The worst cases of neglect are rare. Most parents give their child some kind of shelter, food, and clothing. It might not be the best, but their attempts can't be discounted or blamed for the path that a child chooses to lead in life. Some children simply have no desire to follow societal rules because of a deep-seated desire to rebel against authoritative figures who try to put limits on them. So even if they are given everything that they could possibly want in life, they could still end up violent.
While a violent home or upbringing can be one contributive factor to bullism in schools

Much of the time; abusive behavior stems from teachers,fellow students & servants in schools. Studies reveal that 1 out of every 8 abuse victims become abusers. This is a minority.However; if a teacher/servant/fellow-student tyrannizes the grounds; then 1 out of every 8 students will in all likelihood acquire these habits. Studies also reveal that institutions have their own corporate culture. That rules of behavior are set by one`s environment. Bullies prevail where they are bred. A child would not continue in abusive/violent behavior in school if the child faces fair and timely discipline/consequences/reform. Emphasis on `fair`as unfair punishments backfire. This reform can be anything from detention to a few hours of mandatory counseling; alternatively both.
Parents are too busy with their careers which leads children to seek attention by being aggressive

Parents become increasingly busy with their job and don't spend enough time with their children. They don't have time to talk to them, listen to them, know their problems and simply don't know their children enough. As a result children don't get enough attention they need and deserve so they turn to anti-social behaviour in hope it will eventually alarm the parents and remind them of their existence after being notified by the teachers, even if the kids have to deal with negative consequences afterwards.
Parents Who Abuse Their Children Set an Example of Violence

No child starts out as a cruel, violent person. NBC says that studies show it is only when they are abused in horrific ways, or they have to witness the ongoing abuse of others, that they learn to act this way. This has been proven time and time again through the testing of violent children who ended up as repeat offenders in the criminal justice system. The vast majority of them all had at least one family member or parent who had abused them in some way. It wasn't necessarily physical abuse though. An authoritarian type of parenting, which some people refer to as a “dictatorship style,” affected them too because of the emotional damage that it did. And besides this, they didn't learn to make good decisions or gain control over their actions because their parents were so critical of everything that they did.
Authoritative Parenting is Better Than Coddling to Prevent Violent Children

Some parents do the exact opposite of being abusive to their children. Instead of harsh punishments, beatings, and neglect, they give no consequences for their bad behavior at all. This is problematic because children both need and want their parents to set limitations for them through an authoritative parenting style. If their parents don't, they will act out in ways that are meant to get their attention. Coddling children will not prevent violence because it doesn't teach them that they need to act respectfully and kindly to those around them. If anything, it encourages more violence because the child is always allowed to get away with cruelty.
Parents Can Prevent Violence by Spending Time With Their Kids

Neglectful parenting often has an even greater impact on the violent tendencies of children than physical abuse does. Neglect can be characterized by withholding love and affection, food, and a clean, healthy environment from the child. This usually happens in households where one or more of the parents have some type of mental illness or addiction to drugs and alcohol. The children who are raised with neglectful parents have no idea how to function in a healthy environment. They are hungry, dirty, and ill from untreated health problems. And this impacts them on a deep psychological level that causes them to lash out at others through violence.
The host city becomes an international hotspot for business investment, develops a new 'creative industry' and encourages new practices of cultural consumption

New businesses are set up in host cities, and international investment flows in. The new Olympic sites operate as labour markets, where many unemployed may find a job, even if it is temporary. This can (potentially) contribute to the development of business skills, inject workforce in key sectors (tourism and leisure, media and other digital industries) and enhance the employability of the existing workforce and all those who seek employment (self-employed, freelancers or even voluntary staff). On a more collective level, it may also promote the engagement of communities and localities in the Olympic project through voluntary activities – these communities ALSO partake of the development of ‘creative industries' tied to the Olympic Games, as they find their own unique ways to express ‘culture’ through the organisation of local events and the performance of local culture for global guests. Olympic tourism, traditionally international in nature, generates new regimes and practices of consumption, as well as new creative industries (that trade in mascots, Olympic images and rituals, music, audio-visual products etc...), which generously contribute to the host city's international profile. Especially Olympic consumption practices (from collecting souvenirs, to photographing host places and cultures, to attending the athletic events 'on location', all well-established rituals of 'participatory observation') should be considered as a creative process that enriches our global 'travelling cultures'. Otherwise put, every person who decides to visit and 'consume' the culture of the Olympic 'hosts' is a tourist who produces their own version of this culture and place - a version that survives and further develops in the narratives, images and objects they take back 'home'. This global circulation of national cultures (and of their local versions) is constitutive of the 'cosmopolitanisation' of taste (what we can consider as the 'aesthetics' of cosmopolitanism).
It sanctions and encourages 'Islamophobic' panics and promotes the excessive 'securitisation' of the globe

The Munich Olympic tragedy and now 9/11 have become common denominators in discourses of state protection. They have also entered the organisation of the Olympic events, encouraging the consolidation of 'Islamophobia' (We may be debating what the term really means, especially in academic contexts. We do, nevertheless, witness the impact this has in terms of discrimination and hatred expressed against Muslim communities around the world) and leading to a ridiculous securitisation of the host city - a securitisation often translating into 'Americanisation'. It is not just the host city, but also the hosting nation-state as a whole that is treated as a 'zombie zone' of insecurity. In tandem, global Olympic visitors are constructed as vulnerable subjects, in need for protection. Protection by whom, however? Athen's invitation of NATO forces to supervise security during the 2004 Olympics is a case in point: NATO accepted the Greek invitation and promised the provision of technology for airspace and maritime surveillance as well as the deployment of its chemical, biological, radiological and Nuclear Defence Battalion. For some, especially those well-disposed towards ideas propagated by the Greek Communist Party (KKE), such security arrangements operated as an excuse ‘to justify pre-emptive wars, such as those against Afganistan and Iraq, and to restrict civil rights and liberties’ (Consulate General, LA, CA, 26 June 2004). The Olympic Games become thus implicated in global power games that reproduce the idea of 'risk' without offering any concrete solutions except for more securitisation - and more insecurity.
It is an honour for the host city and provides global recognition

Citizens of the host city, often uninterested in the Olympic spectacle, can end up having to foot the bill by paying extra taxes, or having their existing taxes routed away from other services. The construction of Olympic facilities, company investment and the regeneration of areas in host cities can be very disruptive, pricing local residents and shopkeepers out of their areas. Building an Olympic site can necessitate the demolition of homes and historical places (for example, a set of allotments in east London which are hundreds of years old are being bulldozed for the sake of a walkway which will be used for ten days in 2012). Previous Olympics have shown that Olympic resources, when the games are over, do not always benefit the host city or society. Olympic sites can become ghost towns, so characteristic of the year they were built in as to be aesthetically odd, impractical, inhospitable and unfashionable a decade later.
The Olympic spirit is a universal message for peace and togetherness

The Olympic charter's call for a 'peaceful society' and the 'preservation of human dignity' is a very noble one, but its means are rather odd. Through fierce athletic competition between nations (and it could be argued races), individual rivalries between athletes, who, training for 75% of their waking life, probably play a very little role in their society anyway. The Olympics is an arena for individual achievement: however, if someone is to win a race, others must lose. Emphasis is not placed on athletes improving their personal best but on who wins. Having many nations come together shows worldwide solidarity, but it is a strange sort of solidarity, nations united by their athletes in lycra and branded shoes. The cultures of nations are shown by little more than flag waving and the appearance of their mascots.
Historically, the Olympic Games are the product of Eurocentrism

Since their modern introduction in 1896, the Olympic Games and so-called ‘Olympism', the philosophy of the event, were permeated by exclusionist nationalist ideology disguised as a cultural event. The origin of the modern Games is usually attributed to a Frenchman, Pierre Fredy, Baron de Coubertin (1863-1937), who was acting out of an anti-German sentiment: his inspiration to revive the Games and establish an International Olympic Committee (IOC) stemmed from his determination to hearten his French compatriots after their devastating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870). His selection of venue for the first Games, Greece, was also important: decades before de Coubertin’s initiative, the modern Greek state (an institution that was born out of the Western European political conviction that the modern Greeks are the descendants of ancient Greece, the cradle of the Olympics) supported a similar Olympic movement. The discourse of Hellenic excellence was still alive in 1896, when the Games took place in Athens, despite the country’s economic collapse and political upheavals. We forget that the very idea of ‘ancient Greece’ still figures in political debates as the birthplace of a white ‘Europe’ that has no political or cultural debt to other, non-European cultures. The Olympic legacy is embellished with the rhetoric of universal respect, solidarity and peace, but in fact is defined by multiple discriminations and human rights violations. ‘Olympism’ is the embodiment of a Eurocentric, racist ideology upon which various Olympic hosts draw to produce a public image addressed to the rest of the world. The involvement of nationalism and politics in the Olympics is as enduring as the institution itself. Notorious cases include: the American complaints about biased British Judges in the Olympic elections of 1908; the resignation of an IOC British member when, after the outbreak of the Great War, the German members of the Committee were not ousted; the refusal of Canada to allow Taiwanese athletes enter the country for the 1976 Olympics as competitors of the ‘Republic of China’.
Commercialisation and its consequences

The original 'Olympic spirit' responded to the needs and circumstances of that bygone era! The 'professionalisation' of the event has also led to the improvement of athletic standards, supported new talents and consolidated the idea of a transnational athletic community that initially existed only in peoples' imaginations. It is not injudicious to say that we need media conglomerates, global corporations and mobile capital to support athletic excellence. Only romantic fools would argue for the preservation of a 'pure', non-commercialised, athletic competition these days. This argument is normative (it tells us what is 'bad' and potentially corrupt) but not necessarily very realistic. 'Celebrity profiles' can also work as good role models - in fact, given that today everything is mediated through internet and TV advertising, such good role models are necessary for educating the young generations. And there is more: it can be argued that celebrity profiling is tied to processes of democratisation. We have, of course, known of some elected politicians or candidates with a background in sports (Ventura, Coe) who mobilised their previous 'symbolic capital' (their global fame in sports) to built a political reputation, even gain political credence. But athletes may also use their fame just to promote a good cause. Take for example the straightforward analogy between the political debate in Austria, Belgium, Britain, and France to boycott the 2008 Olympics if China does not alter its treatment of the Tibetan minority, and the open petition that French athletes launched to Chinese President Hu, asking him to respect human rights and not 'spoil the games'. Operating on the threshold of formal (led by elected politicians) and informal (led by the person 'next door'-turned-celebrity) political struggles for justice, athletes may use their symbolic capital to empower oppressed socio-cultural groups better than foreign governments, which have to gauge the international consequences of a spontaneous outcry against injustices. Advertising may also become a useful means to a noble end: it certainly does not oppose the spirit of the original Olympic movement but comprises its continuation.
It is an honour for the host city and provides global recognition

Who would have thought that Athens, the capital of a small, insignificant state would have been given the privilege to host the event? The institution provides unknown corners of the world with the opportunity to become globally known and respected. All cities should have the right to a public voice and image. Let us not forget that this is a long-term process that commences with the announcement of the successful bid, and proceeds with the development of a whole new 'village' - the symbol of urban regeneration and a source for national pride. If the Olympic symbol, emblems, anthems and motto are a celebration of universal values, the choice of the host city should be a celebration of local and national values. It should also be seen as an urban face-lift opportunity. It is expected that the London 2012 Olympic/Paralympic Games will be the catalyst for the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley in east London. This is an area ethnically diverse and in desperate need for development. At the moment, a great part of it is contaminated (with poor water supply and overflown with rubbish), derelict (with bad, old buildings that would rather be demolished) and neglected (its communities suffer from poverty). It is expected that over 4,000 new homes will be built for the Olympic Village, and after the event will be converted to new neighbourhoods with new local schools, community and health facilities, as well as appropriate utilities, roads, and transport infrastructure. Even a great metropolis such as London has its dark spots. Should they not be iluminated a bit?