Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (81950)	3/14/2003 1:23:24 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The unfortunate geography of the peninsula makes it possible for North Korea to inflict unacceptable damage within hours of the initiation of conflict, and that limits our options. This is the crux of the matter. Except for true annihilation any US aggression puts Seoul at risk. This makes the quest for alternatives infinite. Bill Clinton took one lousy path. George Bush is looking for another lousy path. They are all lousy paths. Paul

To: Dayuhan who wrote (81950)	3/14/2003 3:37:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

All we can destroy is the reprocessing equipment, which can be rebuilt in other less accessible locations. Bombing the plant could delay the North Korean nuclear program, but it wouldn?t stop it. It would also not affect any existing bombs, and would create a considerable incentive for their use or release to terrorists. I don't have a PHD in Nuclear Physics, but I think rebuilding the reprocessing plant is an extremely difficult proposition. It also takes a lot of power to operate, which can be traced. None of the discussions I have seen about this issue think that the NKs can rebuild the facility, which I think would have been brought up if it was considered easy to do. it is the matter of retaliation that is the risk. The NKs already have an incentive for release to terrorists, money. They will not do so right now because if they have any bombs, it is only one or two. t is very, very, rare in this world that a situation presents only two options. Yes it is, and this is one of them. You say the discussion "is beginning to tire me," and tell me to "look elsewhere," for a solution, but you don't present any other solution. You then cite the "New Republic" article, which is what I had read that triggered my original "Yak Yak" comment. It's also unlikely that North Korea would sit still while we piled forces into South Korea: We would be foolish to do so. The SK has a excellent Army, trained to fight like ours. If the NK were fools enough to start a war after we hit their plants, they would be wiped out shortly. At enormous cost to the SKs, which is why we don't want to risk it. My original point is that you have to "peel the onion" and look at our choices. I don't think we have the guts to take them out now, which means, when all is said and done, we will end up paying them off again. You can "Nuance" it all you want, but that is what we are faced with.