Only one million civilians lost? That would be a benefit to North Korea, who can't feed the civilians they have now...
This is all presuming no nukes would be used, obviously. One strategically placed nuke would end it quickly with a minimum of U.S. armed forces lost. The big question is, "Are we prepared to use real force?"
> Only one million civilians lost? That would be a benefit to North Korea, who can't feed the civilians they have now... <
I think the reference is to possible civilian deaths mostly in SOUTH Korea -- due to a massive conventional artillery bombardment of Seoul, with nerve gas thrown in for good measure.
Answer is: No!
We're too afraid of what "other people" might think. We'd rather play foot-dragging and lose 50,000+ soldiers like we did in Vietnam than use the force we have to put a quick end to it and save lives on both sides, just like Truman did in WWII. Nobody wants that kind of response, but sometimes it's the quickest way to terminate conflict when all other options fail.
Where's Harry Truman when you need him?