If you want to put the goalposts over there, then I’m gonna ignore your second and third points and focus on the first.
Actual analysts are looking at this in updated terms of mutuality that the damage to both Koreas in the event that the conflict re-ignights are essentially mutually destructive. This same holds without the idea of the US using non conventional weapons.
The US position on using nukes in the Korean peninsula hasn’t changed since MacArthur got shut down for wanting to do so.
Nonetheless what could be considered as effective is entirely different in each scenario variation depending on the perspective of the participant. Even given the known unknown, if the DPRK launches one or more nuclear weapon either during or at the end of active conflict, that could satisfy a definition of effective. OTOH the DPRK military seems to be fully aware that they can reach effective end goals of the destruction of SK without nuclear weapons as well.
At this point I wonder if you even Clausewitz or van Creveld?
In a Tuesday interview on The Today Show, Graham said the US should not only take out the country’s nukes, but “North Korea itself.”
“[President Donald Trump] is not going to allow the ability of this madman to have a missile to hit America,” Graham said. “If there is going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands die, they are going to die there, they’re not going to die here.”
I saw the Senator Graham content before already, you arent bringing anything new to the discussion by reposting two different links to the same content. At the time he was not in charge of US military policy and as best I can determine, that has not changed since then.
You can use handwavium phrases like TrumpGOP all you want, but you still arent making an actual case.
Note also that the word “conquest” still does not apply.
“The Trump-aligned faction of the GOP, AKA the President, Senior Staff, Cabinet, pretty much all political appointees, almost all of the base and an unknown proportion of the legislators”.
OK its an easy claim, back it up. Where have the POTUS, senior staff, cabinet, appointees, etc clearly stated they’d consider the destruction of South Korea to be an acceptable loss?
OK you got nothin. Fair nuff. Its always possible someone has read some facts that I haven’t. Especially in case like this one where there is indeed a chance that my own life and that of my family is possibly on the line. Wanted to fully confirm if this was about feelings or facts from your POV.
If you have facts not previously covered here I’d be happy to learn. Heck, even opinions can be interesting. After all, most of the analysts covering the various hotspots for potential conflict and low intensity conflict do add opinion or qualified speculation based on facts.
For years North Korea has had extensive batteries of conventional artillery—an estimated 8,000 big guns—just north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which is less than 40 miles from Seoul, South Korea’s capital, a metropolitan area of more than 25 million people. One high-ranking U.S. military officer who commanded forces in the Korean theater, now retired, told me he’d heard estimates that if a grid were laid across Seoul dividing it into three-square-foot blocks, these guns could, within hours, “pepper every single one.” This ability to rain ruin on the city is a potent existential threat to South Korea’s largest population center, its government, and its economic anchor. Shells could also deliver chemical and biological weapons. Adding nuclear ICBMs to this arsenal would put many more cities in the same position as Seoul. Nuclear-tipped ICBMs, according to Lewis, are the final piece of a defensive strategy “to keep Trump from doing anything regrettable after Kim Jong Un obliterates Seoul and Tokyo.”
So, you know, if @Israel_B lives anywhere near Tokyo, he’s got a bit of skin in the game.
Me? I’m living in the DC area with Trump. You Westerners? Y’all can go screw yourselves. I’m out of range.
Not a bad primer for those that have not been paying attention to the situation over the decades, but some of the suggestions don’t seem all that well thought out:
They should ramp up economic sanctions not only against the North Korean regime but also against the Chinese companies that trade with it or handle its money.
That would actually include Chinese companies which are known as State Owned Enterprises and also those owned and operated by the PLA.
America should formally extend its nuclear guarantee to South Korea and Japan, and boost the missile defences that protect both countries.
The first part is understood to be included in the treaties with both countries, but can not explicitly be stated due to domestic politics in both countries.
This would help ensure that they do not build nuclear weapons of their own.
OT1H: really?
OTOH: Considering the domestic politics of both SK & Japan, the likelihood is understood as low. Both have the know how but both are hamstrung from acting by domestic considerations. For SK, domestic will and lack of any sort of mandate by the current administration. For Japan, impossible under the current Constitution and according to legal experts both inside and outside the JSDF, impossible under proposed revisions to Article 9 as well.
America should convince the South Koreans, who will suffer greatly if war breaks out, that it will not act without consulting them.
Again, thats how it currently stands by both operational understanding and treaty.
Although America should not recognise it as a legitimate nuclear power, it must base its policy on the reality that it is already an illegitimate one.
That train left the station a while back. Not really a suggestion.
Trump warns North Korea will be met with ‘fire and fury’ if threatens U.S.
"Perhaps Mr Trump believes that no hyperbolic threats should go unmatched or that apocalyptic warnings are the only ones the North Korean leadership will understand. Perhaps he - intentionally or not - is pursuing a Nixonian “madman” style foreign policy, where adversaries will tread lightly to avoid triggering the wrath of an unpredictable US commander-in-chief.
When the leader of the world’s greatest superpower, the only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons on an enemy, talks of unprecedented “fire and fury”, however, those words have consequences." -BBCNews
It was pointed out by the NYT, I believe, that North Korea has a military-first mandate written into their constitution; sanctions deeply hurt the country, but not their military program. The UN strategy relies on Kim Jong Un’s compassion towards his starving people. Not a great gamble.
