[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.

[risk]

>>>> A devided nation at home.

This has got to stop. I think the next election will show that the radical left in America (i.e. the DNC) has no footing at the center of American politics. For all we know, Bush's popularity declines have come as a cost to his inconsistent treatment of Israel's terrorist problem and the fact that we didn't roll west to Syria and east to Iran after Iraq fell.

[jackbill]

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?)

Seems to me that the authors underestimate the massive destruction that would take place in Seoul immediately upon us taking any preemptive action. Seoul has about 12 million people. Dropping a half million artillery shells in a day will kill millions of South Koreans.

If Seoul was 100 miles south of the DMZ, rather than 25, a preemptive strike would make a lot more sense.

Sure, we could eventually take out the artillery, but when? And after how many rounds would have been fired?