Quote:
Originally posted by dave
think you're mis-reading much of what I'm saying. I'd
|
Dave says attacking N Korea is not an option for reasons tactical. Option is discussing strategic reasons for and not for attacking nations. They are complete different worlds.
However, an attack on DPRK is not unreasonable depending on what the objectives are. The US currently has 37,000 troops in country. We can easily move 1/2 million to the other side of the world. Then easily we could move 1/4 million only across the Pacific Ocean.
1/4 million US and 650,000 S Korean, combined with unrestricted mobility of a Navy and Air power makes an invason of DPRK tactically possible. Success would even be better since the N Korean army, severely short of fuel and other basic materials could not match the US/ROK mobility.
The realities of those missiles: they are only terrorist weaspons much like Saddams Scuds. They don't have military significance. They don't have accuracy to be anything but similar to German V-1 and V-2 rockets.
An invasion of N Korea is tactically quite possible. But it is not possible for both diplomatic and strategic reasons. Clearly a better case could be made to justify an attack on DPRK as compared to Iraq. But we are not talking about invading Iraq for justifiable reasons. George Jr wanted Saddam before he was sworn in as president. The reasons for attacking Iraq are personal. For example, everyday Saddam is there, then most of Geroge Jr's advisors must look at their mistake. They failed their jobs as politicians under George Sr. George Jr has long held personal distaste for Saddam for what ever reasons.
But these same people did not come into office with same biases towards N Korea. That is the difference. There is no justification, strategically, to attack either. A better case could be made against DPRK. But instead, for reasons that make no sense to American interests, we are instead going to invade Iraq.