[2banana]

I don't get it. There are not even 52,000 American troops stationed in Korea. The first 90 days would be carpet bombing anyways. Then the ROK army would go in.

[airborne]

Sounds familiar.

Where have I heard these dire forecasts before?

Hmmmmm.

[Coyoteman]

PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang.

Perhaps a better plan has since been drafted? One would certainly hope so.

[nmh]

So I am to believe that we are scared to death of losing to a tin can dictator?

Pathetic!

[phoenix0468]

Well, the consequences of inaction must be weighed. 52,000 military and 1,000,000 civilian lives sacrificed to avert a possible global nuclear tragedy. It makes me disguted as well, at Kim Jong Il.

[StormEye]

"PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang. The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test."

How ridiculous. Just nuke the bastards and be done with it.
There is no reason to accept any American causulties in a war with the North Koreans.

[puppypusher]

How many deaths will the U.S. suffer if we allow these thired world nutjobs to launch their nuclear tipped missiles at our country. I think the cost of neutralising North Korea and Iran is better than the cost of allowing them to get those nukes.

[familyop]

"PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang."

That's what the desk jockies said about going into Baghdad in '91.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Thanks again, Harry Truman for not letting MacArthur finish the job. We're technically at war with these cretins. A ground war with NK would make Somme look like a family picnic.

[Jim Robinson]

How many will die if they are allowed to continue building nuclear weapons? Sooner or later they will sell them to terrorists or use them themselves and tens of millions will die. As usual, the Democrats want to appease the enemy and give them gifts to not kill us. How long can we hold the starving wolf at bay? Tick, tock...

[Alfonso1000]

I don't see why we would send one soldier into DPRK. We have no reason to occupy it. If they attempt to attack us or their neighbors with WMD we should obliterate them from the air and sea.

[clamper1797]

Yeah ... just like they predicted 50,000 US deaths if we attacked Iraq

[Sawdring]

I wonder if everyone Kim Jong Il counts on to defend his power would remain loyal in all out hostilities, but with Chinese help anything could be possible.

[Cicero]

There is a problem, because Seoul with its large civilian population is so close to the DMZ. It would be a nasty war, IMHO.

Even so, war may be a better choice than the alternatives.

I don't think sanctions are realistic. In the first place, they would be meaningless without China's cooperation, which is doubtful. In the second place, the ordinary people of North Korea are already starving. What good would it do to starve even more of them? Kim Jong Il couldn't care less. In fact, he'd probably enjoy it. It would make him feel important.

[denydenydeny]

PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon

I think the "previously" must mean 1954.

[1035rep]

"But military contingencies are considered as a matter of course and analysts paint a horrific picture for even the most targeted of US strikes."

[SpaceBar]

These are the same sort of "experts" who were were calculating how many would die in the trenches, and how long the Maginot line would hold should the Germans attack.

[o_zarkman44]

I bet this is a really true assessment from the insides of the Pentagon. Gasp!!

[The_Reader_David]

Stratfor's undoubtedly correct analysis of the NK artillery capacity within range of Seoul is the reason that any attack on NK has to begin with a tactical nuclear equivalent of carpet bombing of all NK military positions within artillery range fo Seoul, and all NK missile emplacements. (On top of the usual measures to gain air supremacy.)

(Heck, even my wife, who is usually almost pacifist and suffers from a mild case of BDS was advocating nuclear first strike against NK when they were running missile tests, so there might be enough political support for it in the US. Trouble is, SK has to be in, or its a non-starter.)

[Cobra64]

With my plan, there would be zero dead Americans.

Truman had the right idea.