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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (13037)	5/29/2009 3:05:53 PM
From: pompsander	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

"Your question is good, but it overlooks many middle steps... first of all, after the first sortie, there would be no million man army nor much left of all key locations in n korea... there would be no middle ground, it would be all, total, and complete... the first sortie would not be sent to start the war, it would be sent to end it..." _____________ Obviously a strike of that size against an military state, prepared and armed to the teeth, implies use of WMD. No other way to do it. So, you are in favor of preemptive use of nuclear arms in a surprise attack against North Korea if your other means fail? And since the NK leadership can see your ever-escalating efforts, don't you think they would take some actions to protect themselves from annihilation? Like activiating their thousands of sleeper agents in South Korea? Maybe pre-emptively cross the border so your military action would have to be against both the North and the South in order to end it as quickly as you state it would happen? Maybe lob a nuke toward Japan as a warning? How does your plan handle this likely event?