dag
The issue is, what is the alternative on offer? If NK does not respond to increased sanctions or diplomacy ... then the only option you seem to offer is military intervention.
Which will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Korean peninsula. Perhaps much of Japan and even more...
If the alternative to living with a nuclear NK is that level of death and destruction....
Is it really the preferred alternative?
Put it this way, I believe, and from what I've read most military leaders in the US believe, that you cannot eliminate the threat of the destruction of the Korean peninsula militarily. No matter what level of strike is attempted, NK will still be able to retaliate and probably with nukes...
So what would a first strike by the US accomplish? To destroy the Korean peninsula in order to save it .... is illogical. (VietNam anyone?)
On the other hand I think that NK is as likely to use their nukes as a first strike option as any other nuclear nation. That is, NOT. I do think that having nuclear might embolden NK to attempt another type of military strike on SK .... but then it is important he understand that the response will be the same as if he uses nukes . The deterrence of total destruction seems to have worked with everyone else so far...
Why abandon the tried and true for virtually guaranteed results that mirror the outcome you are trying to avoid in the first place>?
It seems pretty clear that you are willing to simply live with a nuked up NK. Is that a fair assessment of what you've argued so far? That it would be better to live on the edge than to guarantee suffering and destruction?
The issue is, what is the alternative on offer? If NK does not respond to increased sanctions or diplomacy ... then the only option you seem to offer is military intervention.
Which will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Korean peninsula. Perhaps much of Japan and even more...
If the alternative to living with a nuclear NK is that level of death and destruction....
Is it really the preferred alternative?
Put it this way, I believe, and from what I've read most military leaders in the US believe, that you cannot eliminate the threat of the destruction of the Korean peninsula militarily. No matter what level of strike is attempted, NK will still be able to retaliate and probably with nukes...
So what would a first strike by the US accomplish? To destroy the Korean peninsula in order to save it .... is illogical. (VietNam anyone?)
On the other hand I think that NK is as likely to use their nukes as a first strike option as any other nuclear nation. That is, NOT. I do think that having nuclear might embolden NK to attempt another type of military strike on SK .... but then it is important he understand that the response will be the same as if he uses nukes . The deterrence of total destruction seems to have worked with everyone else so far...
Why abandon the tried and true for virtually guaranteed results that mirror the outcome you are trying to avoid in the first place>?