10-25-2017, 11:58 AM
(10-25-2017, 11:28 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(10-25-2017, 11:15 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > But a north korea strike leads to us involvement in ww3 only when
> ww3 is in a very advanced state. No strike means the US would be
> involved in WW3 from day one.
I have no idea how you could possibly reach that conclusion without a
great deal of analysis on the military options. How could you
possibly know that a strike on North Korea wouldn't trigger WW III,
with US involvement, from day one? Would you try to kill Kim, and if,
how would you know where he is? Since the missiles are mobile, how
would you know where they are? Nuclear material could be moved
around. How would you know where it is? What's to stop China from
intervening? What's to stop the North Korean army from launching
missiles on Seoul? I would want detailed answers to all of these
questions from military and diplomatic experts, before making a
decision.
Seoul would probably have be sacrificed, they would just have to accept bombardment. North Korea has a lot of launchers but a very limited amount of potentially ICBM capable launchers. The strike would focus and on the destruction of the long-range missiles as well as the nuclear production centers and fissile material stockpiles. This would be followed by a ground invasion.
