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: aladin who wrote (117310)	10/21/2003 4:41:24 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<If North Korea were to attack South Korea (again) and launched a massive artillery barrage on Seoul how would you respond?> As I've previously posted: <4. Powell Doctrine: military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. 5. Renounce the doctrine of Preventive War. Return to containment, deterrence, and self-defense. Use our military only to: defend U.S. territory, honor mutual defense treaties with other liberal democracies, keep the Global Commons (oceans and air, ships and planes) safe.> Since S. Korea is a democracy, and we have a defense treaty with them, if they are attacked, we should defend them. By all necessary means, including nuclear weapons. Better yet, let the Trident submarines of the UN Deterrence Fleet do it. NoFirstUse isn't NoUse. We should also make it totally unambiguous, to the N. Koreans, that we would consider a massed artillery attack on Seoul to be a WMD, equivalent to using nuclear weapons or gassing civilian populations. But..... Your scenario is posed, at the point where there are no good choices. Only incompetent governments, following failed policies, get themselves to the point where these kinds of risks have to be taken, and no good solution is left. If we hadn't negotiated a fatally flawed 1994 Agreement, and then failed to keep our promises, If we hadn't threatened Regime Change, (without the ability to carry through our threat), If we didn't equate negotiation with appeasement, If we listened to our allies, and adopted Sunshine, we wouldn't be asking your question.