 |
|
|
|
 |
Yoepus
Neo-condimist

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Ketchup fields, Texas
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
Both of these options are not even remotely feasible.
A single American bullet shot across the 39th parallel would cause an immediate end to the 50 year cease-fire and subsequent, and nearly instantaneous artillery bombardment of Seoul, killing possibly tens of thousands of innocent civilians. If a single .22 caliber bullet could do that what do you think a bombing of a nuclear plant would do?
|
You know there have been many bullet exchanged across the 39th parallel don't you? This is almost a weekly exchange, sometimes US forces are involved. A bit of exagerations no?
Again, think of diplomacy through the mind of your opponent. The US just ATTACKED 'your' nuclear reactors - that's damn crazy, no? Now you get a US message recieved to you that if any artillery shells are launched, the US will nuke your country.. what do you think you would do? Who's the crazy looking luntic now.. huh Kim..?
| quote: |
On the "tactical nuke" idea. A tactical nuclear strike would kill 37,000 US troops stationed on the DMZ along with the North Korean troops stationed on the other side. but more importantly the ramifications of a preemptive nuclear strike on another nation would be nothing short of chaotic. |
Good point, however first the 37,000 troops could be withdrawn - this would increase the seriousness of the bluff - second, you could just threaten to nuke their cities instead of the front, alla WWII.
The thing with nukes is its a madman's game. You just have to nuke something, to prove you are mad, then the other guy quits, or you nuke something else till he gives in...
Also, I was not the one that argued a pre-emptive nuclear strategy, that was Drug_tito. I don't believe North Korea is willing to risk military action to get these nukes, let alone face the wrath of potential annihilation. I don't believe the US will have to use nukes, but if it is called on its bluff it should act on it - so as to deter future such nations from callign the bluff.
I believe world fallout would be extremly appaling if the US actually did use nukes (but less then what you picture, after all if the US would use nukes, this would only be after Seoul had been barged, the images of that would justify in the eyes of many a exagerated US response). Then again it would also probably be quiet appaling if it the US did not use nukes, as this is simply a militaristic strategy, and you know how good-hearted our world tries to look today.
But if you ask me if I think the US should play the madman game - yes, yes I do. Do I believe they will? No, I'm not a damn liberal, I'm a realist. But if you ask me what is the US's only option to stop NK from getting nukes, well then you already know.
So far I have not seen any other options that seem to succeed this.
|
|
Sep-01-2003 18:20
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:44.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|