Threat from the DPRK (North Korea)

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2017, 01:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

Wrong.  We went into Vietnam to keep South Vietnam alive, which necessitated ground troops.  A strike to destroy North Korea's nuclear program doesn't require ground troops.

We would be risking North Korea invading the South with troops, China and maybe Russia declaring war on the USA and assisting NK's invasion with troops and missiles, and the US attack missing some missile sites from which missiles would be blasted at SK and Japan and maybe the USA too. You seem to trust the USA military a lot to get everything right. I don't.

Kim Jung Un considers that without his nuc program, he is vulnerable to attack anytime by the USA and South Korea.

It's a tempting idea you suggest; too tempting I'm afraid.