Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (5649)	8/21/2003 11:48:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) of 793640

The problem is that if we want to use their territory for a war, the price they could end up paying is very high, especially if the north uses a nuke. If the US retaliates on NK- -which we would have to do under the mutual defense treaty with SK- -NK would also pay a very high price- -far higher than SK or the US. Now that does assume that the NK leadership is sane, which is certainly not a given. If war looks inevitable they have every incentive to attack first: they have the forces in position already. See above. The only real leverage the US would have would be a threat to pull out our forces there, and if the choice was between that and allowing us to use their territory as a base for war, they would probably let us go. I wonder. That appears to me a rather stupid move on their part. Then they are left to stand off NK on their own. How long would it be before NK decides to take advantage of that? All that prosperity they've worked so long to build would be gone in a few weeks at most; a few days if NK threatened to use nukes on them. The South may not like it, but I don't see that they have any real choice but to stick with Uncle Sam.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next