09-21-2017, 01:11 AM
(09-20-2017, 04:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:(09-19-2017, 01:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(09-19-2017, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:(09-18-2017, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
I prefer to play it safe, which is why I prefer to take my chances resolving this now rather than taking my much worse chances after Kim has nuclear weapons and free rein to sell them to terrorists and rogue states.
The people in Seoul might disagree with this. Sure, we do fine, but they take a huge hit today, tomorrow and into the indefinite future.
If the US attacks only the nuclear program and not the Kim regime, then the risk of Kim shelling Seoul and dooming his own regime is very small.
In contrast, if the US does nothing, then a successful invasion of South Korea by North Korea is very likely within a decade.
You're acting like Kim is rational in the western sense of the term. I would suspect that an attack on his nuclear program would trigger an artillery barrage of Seoul. More to the point, I doubt we can knock out either his nuclear of missile program entirely, so we gain nothing at huge expense.
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.