12-24-2017, 04:41 PM
(12-24-2017, 03:10 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Not striking north korea is rational only if you don't think north
> korea would use nuclear weapons aggressively, only if you think
> north korea would not attack the US unprovoked is the idea of not
> striking first rational. But that Is NOT your position : in fact
> your position is that north korea with nuclear weapons would
> eventually launched an unprovoked surprise nuclear attack on the
> United States. If that is the case the only rational course of
> action is a nuclear first strike on North Korea.
You've stated the problem more or less correctly. China and Russia
have both signed off on new extreme Security Council sanctions that N
Korea calls a "total blockade" and "an act of war." It's becoming
increasingly likely that a war with North Korea will begin soon, quite
possibly starting with a preemptive strike by the US, and that China
will tolerate it as long as US troops and S. Korean troops don't
remain in N. Korea, or come close to the Yalu river.
Analysts are hoping that any such situation will end in some kind of
peace treaty, but from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, I
would expect it to escalate in a much larger war.
There are really no good solutions.
Merry Christmas, everyone!!
