re: N. Korea:
<it is a "MAD" situation, on a non-nuke basis>
Yes. And in the event, it could easily escalate and become nuclear. If Seoul is dying under a rain of conventional artillery, it is very possible, we "solve" this problem with one or more small tactical nukes. That may be the only method to save Seoul; all conventional means wouldn't work fast enough. And then N. Korea responds by........
<the NK's know they will lose>
If Seoul is destroyed, we lose, and the S. Koreans will never forgive or forget, even if we go on to do Regime Change in N. Korea.
<there is no way we can know for sure with them>
"Trust, then verify", is the correct policy. Your belief, that there is no point in talking, that there is no point in even making an attempt at accommodation, leads to a policy of pure Force. You end up supporting America as Sparta, garrisoning the planet. Two objections to that: 1) Jefferson would be appalled, and 2) this OverReach leads to Waterloo, Dien Bien Phu, Stalingrad.
<they cheat>
We cheat. An honest look at what was promised in the 1994 agreement, by both sides, and then what was actually done, is that neither side kept their word. I could get into a detailed chicken-and-egg argument about who cheated first, who cheated most, but that's pointless. This "they cheat" curse, is just another excuse to use bombs instead of words to solve our problems.
<What we have here is a "Hobsons Choice.">
What you have, is a failure of imagination. There are other choices. |
