That is DEFINITELY for sure...
Posted on 04/08/2013 3:14:34 AM PDT by markomalley
The United States and South Korea have reportedly drawn up joint plans for a retaliatory set of tit-for-tat responses to any strikes by North Korean on its neighbour.
The scale of the response has been set down in a new war plan to ensure that there is no unintended escalation into broader war.
The new "counter-provocation" plan is calling for an immediate but proportional "response in kind" to North Korea if it decides to launch a ground attack or a missile, the New York Times reported last night, citing unnamed US officials.
Under the plan, the source of any North Korean attack will be hit with similar weapons, the report said.
If the North Koreans were to shell a South Korean island that had military installations, the plan calls for the South to retaliate quickly with a barrage of artillery of similar intensity, the paper noted.
White House officials are attempting to downplay the military build-up on the penninsula in an effort to calm the situation. Dan Pfeiffer, the senior advisor to President Barack Obama, said on Sunday that North Korea had display similar behaviour "many times" in the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
That is DEFINITELY for sure...
That is stupid. We should either ignore the Norks, or, if we can’t, strike with overwhelming and massively destructive force.
Personally, I’d go for declaring a blockade, mining their harbors, destroying their rail links to China and Russia, and taking down any major bridges I could reach. Clamp down on the food and fuel, then sit and wait. If any one complains about “humanitarian issues,” tell them to go piss up a rope.
“... and hailing the Fuhrer...”
Sadly, there are those in this country today doing exactly that.
On this day, cannot think of anything else other than what would Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher do? Then the understanding comes forth of why these two are missed so very much. God normally allows Giants to come forth to solve problems when most needed as was the case with God having brought forth Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While typing today it is easy to think God has turned His back on this planet. If God has not turned His back may there be leaders coming forth instead of the lack of leaders we presently witness in power.
Exactly.
The libs didn’t learn a darned thing and are doomed to repeat their error. . . at the cost of American lives.
Proportional response, I seem to recall, was first used in the nuke context, as in instead of massive retaliation we would respond in a proportional manner.
Oh heck. . .she would luv it there, what with all those skinny people avoiding fats and salts and other bad foods.
Could be, but I always thought our response to nuke was supposed to be all-out retaliation...hence, MAD.
If you unleash the dogs of war, you had better be in to win.
What happened to “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?
Oh yeah. That’s just his approach to dealing with US citizens.
What happened to “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?
Oh yeah. That’s just his approach to dealing with US citizens.
Yes, MAD is/was part of the plan:
We first had massive retaliation (you hit us, nuke or not, we don’t care, we will simply nuke you); then proportional response (you hit us then we respond in kind, in proportion to the type and severity of the attack); then MAD (exclusively a USSR/US balance of terror type of thing).
We may as well declare "victory" and pull out - just like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...
Just think how we used to laugh at the French! Do you think anybody is laughing at us?
Benny Hill: "In that case...'tat'."
>>> The scale of the response has been set down in a new war plan to ensure that there is no unintended escalation into broader war.
That is precisely HOW war broadens.
The longer it goes on, the bigger it gets.
Yep sounds like an “O” response.
Personally; you slap my hand... I slap your face... You shoot anything in my direction, it is on till one man is standing. Tit for Tat my a$$.
“Proportionate Response” means that you fight back only hard enough to keep the war going without end, or until both sides just get tired of fighting. Can someone really say they’re protecting America when they sacrifice American lives in order to be “fair” to the enemy?
If you’re not going to fight to WIN, don’t fight.
Clearly Obama is angling for a second Nobel Peace Prize.
He has either asked his own reflection in the mirror, or Valerie Jarrett, or maybe he consulted some reruns of The West Wing, to tell him what a Nobel Peace Prize-winning President should do when confronted by the reality of unprovoked aggression by an insane enemy. The answer that came back was ‘establish a new Obama Doctrine: tit for tat - they’ll be singing your praises for it’.
This approach is aimed at appeasing a few Commies in Scandinavia. It has nothing to do with safeguarding the interests of America (of course Obama would do no such thing) or even safeguarding the South Koreans.
They simply refuse to fight that way. Fight to win as quickly and decisively as possible. It’s maddening!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.