[Man of the Right]

The case against containment is that we'd better win and redeploy our heavy forces to Korea right away.

[ez]

The case against containment is that we'd better win and redeploy our heavy forces to Korea right away.

Roger that...I met a guy yesterday, First Sargent he said, worked for General Dynamics and NASA, and showed me his WELL-decorated cover. He said we are definitely going to "drop an egg" on NK, and I'm not about to argue with that.

Actually, I don't see the need to deploy the heavy forces...I might leave them in place considering the event sin the Gulf. I read here that one Trident Sub with 24 empty tubes should pretty much take care of NK's threat.

[VMI70]

Exactly...

...and let me add that containment implies a long term stay of a large force in order to effectively keep SH surrounded. From a practical standpoint, that would be a very expensive proposition.

In addition, over time, our forces will lose their "edge" no matter how deadly the threat. It's the nature of the beast. Therefore, SH can afford to wait until our guard is down and then make his move.

No, containment is not the way to go. When we are in place and practiced, we ought to strike. The Iraqi field commanders know the scope of our current buildup, and they remember the results of Desert Storm. Because of that, I think there is a good chance that when SH orders the use of WMD, they will not comply.

Infiltrators carrying the bugs will cause damage of an unspeakable nature, but it would be nowhere nearly as horrendous as an all out military strike using CB agents.