Quote:
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
But does that matter? I suspect we'd puss out, and even if we didn't, I doubt the Dear Leader would think we'd gamble the future of Los Angeles or San Francisco to save Seoul . . .
|
What choice really exists?
First, I don't think there is any real evidence that Kim has any weapons that can clearly reach LA or San Francisco reliably. Even if he does, should he come south, all the bets have to be that he will use everything he has. The South Korean Army fights, no matter what, the economy of the South and of Japan are destroyed if we don't risk it... and that likely means a depression like the Great Depression. So, you have to fight... and the only way to have any chance in that fight is to go nuclear, and to destroy the NKPA completely... including any launch facilities they might have. In my opinion, North Korea having nukes has made the response options much less flexible. War starts? Destroy the NKPA. Completely. Really isn't any other viable choice.
Doesn't mean every President would do it, but the ones that don't? Will watch a disaster unfold regarding Korea and Japan and may very well still see weapons launched at the United States. Kim is not sane, not attacking him does not mean you are not risking LA or Seattle anyway.