[EternalVigilance]

It sounds like a good plan...there can be no doubt what the outcome would be given a resolute United States.

But the probable cost to Korean civilians would be horrendous. The North has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to level it to the ground in very short order.

[stylin19a]

Not that they are worth spit, but where is the U.N ? Korea is a U.N. mission. The United States, once again, carries the worlds' water.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

We are going to be very sorry that we didn't crush these bastards when we could have done it relatively easily. We were paralyzed by the fear of China, and now we are going to pay for that cowardice.

That said, I can see NO POSSIBILITY that we (or the South Koreans) would attack North Korea until AFTER they have struck the first, devastating blow- most likely at Seoul and Tokyo, as well as our bases on Okinawa. I suspect that our military casualties ALONE will exceed the total for the entire Vietnam War before the Second Korean War is a week old. This regime is actually the closest thing imaginable to one of those crazy, evil James Bond villains- even down to the hidden underground facilites that were so popular in the Bond flicks.

I would not be surprised by anything they do- there appears to be no effective internal opposition, and Kim himself is not sane.

[Maynerd]

Depressing scenario. The general public has a long ways to go before it would support a preemptive strike against NK.

I think we should let Japan and Taiwan gear up nuclear programs. That will get China's ass in gear. The Chinese are probably enjoying the NK shenanigans. It distracts us and perhaps they desire a quid pro quo. They take care of NK we acquiesce on Taiwan.

[nathanbedford]

The military planners must contend with:

1. Two (probable) existing atomic bonds affixed to rockets capable of striking all of Korea, Japan and our troops on Okinawa and perhaps Alaska or farther. Other delivery systems cannot be discounted. (The authors suggest that striking the nuclear production facilities will eliminate the bombs, but can this assumption be made given the risks?)

2. Chemical and bio WMDs similiarly mounted.

3. An array of artillery capable of dilivering 500,000 tons of ordinance of our tripwire troops and on Seoul within 24 hours positioned in hardened underground redoubts.(The authors assert that these are vulnerable to stealth strikes. Again, can we rely on this assertion? How vulnerable? What if these guns deliver chemical or bio weapons, would a preemptive stealth strike guarantee they would be knocked out in time?)

4. A huge multi million man army. ( How many casualties would they inflict before they are destroyed?)

5. Hundreds of thousands of fanatical special ops forces committed to near suicide strikes into the south.

The political planners must contend with:

1. All of the above.

2. The unreliability of our allies South Korea and Japan where millions of leftists and just plain scaredy cats will take to the streets in violent protests.

3. Virtually no cooperation from most of the world, angry opposition from most and actual perfidy from some. Virtual unamious opposition at the UN. No help from NATO.

4. A devided nation at home. Resistance to calling up the reserves as recommended by the authors. A virtual political fifth column known as the Democratic Party.

Bush is in a tough spot. If he talks tough the left reacts and uses it as a compaign issue. If he walks softly, as he has, he loses leverage. Not a good situation.

[marron]

North Korea is in effect a Chinese protectorate. The road to Pyongyang goes through Beijing.

Any peaceful outcome will come about by using whatever leverage we have with China. The leverage we have is limited; trade concessions such as Most Favored Nation status which could be reconsidered or revoked, or the threat to provide nuclear weapons to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

China may attempt to sell its help in Korea in exchange for our betrayal of Taiwan. Or, if war comes to the Korean peninsula, it may sell its acquiescence at the same price; it would be easy for us to deny assistance to Taiwan if we were engaged in heavy combat and no one would ever question the decision.

An invasion of North Korea carries with it several threats.

The first is that neither Japan nor South Korea may be willing to back us.

The second is that Korea's force along the border, just a few miles from Seoul and our own base, may be impossible to defeat quickly enough to avoid massive damage to the city and our garrison. Impossible, that is, without resorting to the use of tactical nukes. Whether we have the will to use nuclear weapons, in a first strike, to clear the battlefield is doubtful, almost unthinkable. Which means we have to be willing to absorb the enormous civilian losses that will result if war breaks out at the edge of Korea's largest city.

The third is that China is unlikely to sit with hands in pockets while we invade its puppet kingdom. Unless we have done our political work very well, we may find ourselves confronted by the Chinese Army, which ups the ante. What is the level of force required to defeat not only the North Koreans but the Chinese as well?

I believe we could do it, if we were serious, but it would not be Iraq. It would be violent beyond belief, and again we would have to consider the use of tactical nukes with all that this would entail.

We could probably buy off the Chinese, but the price is Taiwan.

The force needed to defeat the North quickly would need to be brought in. It could not be brought in without the whole world knowing it, so there will have to be a buildup, which will give both China and the North plenty of opportunity to cause trouble. The likely result will be a preemptive strike by the North before we are ready. Again, if the north with its million man force were to cross the line, we would almost certainly be forced to resort to nuclear weapons or see our garrison overrun and Seoul destroyed.

It can be done, but it will be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, both politically and militarily. China almost certainly owns more US politicians than did Saddam, and that would be a factor in a way that it was not in the Iraq war.

[nravoter]

Human scum / bloodsucker bump.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

ping

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Some Things Never Change,,
All Roads Lead To Rome,,,,{{{{{{{{ KLANG }}}}}}}}

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

ping

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

ping

[edsheppa]

Somebody's smoking dope if they think the South will go along with this idea. No, the key is China and the keys to China are Taiwan and trade. On the former, we can trade action against NK for the status quo on Taiwan. On the latter, we can afford a trade disruption far better than China.