(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.
And what sort of "strike" do you think would destroy North Korea's nuclear program? Surely you haven't forgotten the Iraq war? The original objective for that war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs, particularly their nuke program. Don't you think if we could have achieved that goal with a "strike" rather than an invasion, we would have done that? Surely you haven't forgotten they we had total control of the airspace above the country?
It is not possible to take out North Korea's (or Iraq's) nukes using an air strike unless you want to go nuclear. Are you advocating starting a nuclear war with a first strike? How do you recommend we respond when China nukes Israel (tit for tat, you nuke our client we nuke yours)? Do you really want to go there?