Totally agree!
There was a time the US military machine was geared to being able to fight two major conflicts in different parts of the globe, and win, however due to some cuts that started taking place after the fall of the Soviet block that ability has largely atrophied. Meaning that when it comes to fighting in an Iraq/N.Korea level simultaneously that the efficacy of such an act would not be prudent.
This is not to say that the US would not kick the collective @$$#$ of I-raq and N.Korea ....it just says that it would be a much harder fight than anticipated.
And when i say major conflict i am including a ground offensive. By this i mean US troops (army) actually getting into N.Korea just as they get into Baghdad. It would be relatively simple to send a carrier battlegroup into the Korean peninsula to attack N.Korea, while another is simultaneously attacking Iraq fromt he Indian ocean .......however the Bosnian campaign proved that air attacks alone cannot be relied on (in Bosnia NATO had said they had destroyed 'hundreds' of Tanks and myriads of bridges ....only to discover that they had been tricked into bombing microwave ovens that simulated radar sites, black sheets of plastic that simulated roads, log structures that seemed like bridges from a mile up, and less than 15 tanks were actually destroyed). Hence the need of a ground campaign.
And i do not think right now we are ready to ight two major conflicts at the same time. We woudl still win if we went ahead with it .....but the casualties and logistic problems would not be very pretty.
And while it would be very easy to send one of our 'Boomers' (strategic missile submarines) to launch a Trident SLBM at Pyongyang and nuke them that would never happen unless they struck first (and they are too clever to do that ....actually, looking at China, the experts who predict a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2007-2008 say the Chinese will be diligent to ensure no nukes are used on their part, in effect making it hard for the US to use its nukes since we are currently too PC to do anything that woudl arouse the ire of the UN)
And talking of China if there was an armed US led invasion(actually let me just say US and UK because the only country that can be effectively relied upon to support us unselfishly is G.Britain) of N.Korea then that would be a great impetus of China to invade Taiwan! I know i said paradigms say they would wait until 2007 (when they have sufficient assymetrical stratagems to fend off the US from the Taiwan straits ....as long as they do not go nuclear) ...however why wait until 2007 when you can do so now? After all the US military will be over-taxed dealing with I-raq and N.Korea, meaning facing China would be one of the most injudicious decisions possible (unless of course we launch some Tridents .....which i seriously doubt would occur starting from the time Reagan stepped out of office onward). China would also try to do something to show that it is still relevant in the geo-political spectrum of that area ....and hence would find it hard to just sit on its laurels. I am not saying we would see hundreds of thousands Chinese conscripts streaming towards US GIs like we saw in the Korean war .....but the Chinese would do something ...maybe like gobbling up Taiwan like a tasty morsel (maybe not that easily ....but the end would be obviousl for Taiwan since it would only be a matter of time).
Hence i think the best thing to do is to tackle one objective at a time.
However i may be wrong on that since i also believe there are bigger threats than I-raq ............
And maybe, just maybe, Rumy and GW are un-PC enough to do more than wag tongues at N.Korea when they act as they have been acting in the future ....who knows, maybe rightnow there is a 'boomer' chilling deep in the Korean peninsula with a direct line (or direct orders since they are supposed to be quasi-independent) to the White House, and maybe if Pyongyang was to attack Seoul, or if Beijing was to attack Taipei, maybe serious action (read:Trident SLBMs) would be taken by us. However i would not be holding my breath for such an outcome ......
Thanks...Seems good to see some intelligent thinking for a change.
Many things have changed since 1950. We could hold China because they had no nukes, just masses of humans. Now we can no longer play that hand as they have even larger masses and nuclear weapons to boot. NK also is in or on the nuclear edge. That leaves one poker hand we can no longer play, there is no ace in the hole.
When Clinton took office we had 18 army divisions, now we have 10. Bush is into the reserve and national guard to a great depth just to manage Iraq. That is not good.
We paid a great price in Korea in 1950 for our being unprepared, it would be an even greater price now. I lost many friends there as we took a licking from a small third world country and then we took another from a large country. Next time around, the price will be very heavy and perhaps not winable in conventional war.
Besides, no one would trust the US if it started throwing nukes around and unlike what most people here would like to believe, the US can not go economically alone. If isolated, many US industries would go bankrupt from lack of markets, not to mention resources. Furthermore, the US military hasn't had the capability for 2 fronts in over 10 years, Gulf War I showed it with the 6 month prolonged build up. Only the fact that Saddam was a shmuck and didn't go on the offensive right off, allowed the US coalition to win.
As for China, the US will not go nuclear, it will not risk all it's troop bases and navel bases in the area, as well as it's richest state, California, to nuclear annialation, and the Chinese know it.
Nukes only work when the other guy doesn't have them.