If North Korea has nuclear weapons and the IRBM means to deliver them (even to Honolulu and Anchorage -- let alone Seattle, Portland, Frisco and LA), then you can be assured of this: they will not be attacked by US forces.
Attacking a nuclear-armed adversary is sheer madness.
Whether or not Iraq was developing "WMD's", I respect Bush's War against Iraq on the simple grounds that Saddam was training Hijack-Terrorists at Salman Pak (and, very possibly, trained the 9/11 terrorists therein -- the probative evidence is uncertain, but "close enough for government work").
However, when you are dealing with atomic weapons, different rules apply.
We ain't God. There are some things that the United States can't do.
Attacking a Nuclear-Armed Adversary is one of them.
Can't or won't?
God bless
That obviously depends on how could your intelligence is. If you know where all the nuclear weapons your enemy has are and they aren't in large numbers you have a good chance of taking them out in a first strike.
Considering the recent past track record in intelligence though it would give one very serious pause.
Something to remember, you can deliver a nuke in many ways. No need for an IRBM. In fact using a missile requires that the weapon be made smaller. A more practical approach is by aircraft or surface vessel.
An assumption. Most likely a bad one.
Kill their leaders now! The people are starving and living in inhumane conditions. DPRK has no particular friend in the world that I know of. South Korea, much like west Berlin, would accept the responsiblity for reunification with a free North Korea.
An assumption. Most likely a bad one.
Kill their leaders now! The people are starving and living in inhumane conditions. DPRK has no particular friend in the world that I know of. South Korea, much like west Berlin, would accept the responsiblity for reunification with a free North Korea.
But what if the worst-case scenario occurs and North Korea begins selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder, including terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda? Then we have another Cuban Missile Crisis and the very survival of our nation would be at stake. That scenario would force us to attack and destroy their nuclear facilities. We would have to do it, even if it means a massive first strike with nukes and e-bombs that wipes out all possible missile sites. I hate to say it, but this scenario is quite possible beginning next year. Between Iran and North Korea, the next few years could be extremely tense...similar to October 1962 in slow motion.
N. Korea is pretty well covered. It would be difficult for them to get those few missiles out of the holes, much less up to enough speed for them to get away and force us to rely on systems on this side. But there does remain the chance that one could get through or that China would do something really squirrely. The outlook for that should improve over the coming months as more of the ABM defense is planted.
Yet, we are still reluctant to participate in hurting anyone unless it is absolutely necessary.
Personally, I believe the U.S has all the Intell on them and knows exactly how to deal with them.
Bush has named them all. He would not have mentioned them "by name" If He did not have at least a piece of evidence that they are all inter-connected some how. GWB has been briefed on their capabilities.
Iran is the next issue on the Bush agenda.NK may be exaggerating. BUt I believe Bush want's to help the middle East become stable.
NK we can deal with through the UN. Iran , we have all the equipment and manpower there to fight.
But NK is surrounded. ANd I just fear that KIm Jong may be trigger happy.
So that means they win? Because they will and are going to attack us with nukes. The only way to survive a nuclear war is to build your country so that it is strong and stable, decentralize power, water and phone systems, overbuild hospital services and most importantly build in your people the morals and fortitude to fight when it is the right thing to do, not just the winning scenario.
If your society is hedonistic and self centered, dehorned and gelded for ease in shearing, you are doomed, you have nothing to live for in peace, nonetheless live for in war.
Alas, Babylon...
Depends on who the adversary is, how big there arsenal is, etc. And the executive order WAS recinded by Bush.
Since when? So America is nutjob if it attacks NK for ANY reason?
THis is PC schizophrenia at its worst.
Yeah, let us just ignore the threats and our options... (sarcasm)
FWIW, I think that EO was de facto done away with when they started the war by blowing the hell out of Saddam's "last known locations".
Interesting what that means for the Islamic / Arabic states attacking Israel, hmmmm. Could your belief be wrong?
Not entirely true; can't is not the proper word. Won't is more like it. Our preemptive attack could be over in 15 minutes and they'd never get a missile off the ground. But the civilian casualties caused by our need to take out every possible (even if not confirmed) storage and launch site would be too horrific to contemplate.
With sufficient intelligence we could pull it off with pinpoint targeting, but depending upon intel is risky business.
"before we spent $200 billion on a War"
BZZZZT!
Even "Night Line" recently confirmed that the true figure is "only" about 125 billion.
Details, details, ...
Pure BS!
I'm not prepared to accept this view as doctrine. It won't be long before there are a preponderance of countries that have nukes.
They'll use our doctrine of not attacking a nuclear armed foe against us by threatening one of their neighbors with overwhelming conventional force, then defy us to do something about it.
Ballistic missile defense is something we have to do at this point, and we are.
I think that our future strategic defense policy has to assume that the foe WILL be nuclear capable, and devise their plans accordingly.
I have no idea how I managed to replace "good" with "could"... Sorry...
"We ain't God. There are some things that the United States can't do.
Attacking a Nuclear-Armed Adversary is one of them."
So that's it I suppose ?
When Iran gets the bomb we surrender ?
These people eat grass to survive (even if the fat cats have more grass than normal people) - what makes you think their IRBMs would work the first time they're used?