[irish_lad]

You missed the point. Yes, we would launch a nuclear strike against them and wipe out NK. Then what? San Francisco, and about 1 million people are dead, the economy is in ruin, and now we have SEVERE problems.

We can possibly destroy their launch facilities which would still mean that South Korea would be overrun by the NK army, and a very messy war begins.

I'm not saying we do nothing. I'm saying that the NK problem is very delicate and must elicit intelligent responses rather than blustery bravado.

[DCBryan1]

Then what? San Francisco, and about 1 million people are dead, the economy is in ruin, and now we have SEVERE problems.

Are you saying that nuking SanFransicko is a bad thing? I say its a win-win situation. Take out NK and we rid the world of one of the last Stalinist regimes on earth, and they in return, destroy our sodom and gomorrah.

Lets start the show!

[Beck_isright]

I'm saying that NK is not a sane regime to deal with. We will lose San Francisco and/or Seattle before we attack them. And that's the new reality. Damn the economy, we're talking World War III. If you haven't noticed, we already have "SEVERE" problems, and most were self-inflicted.