|
Well my point is that I don't believe we can take the same type of action against N. Korea as we did against Iraq. It was clear to all parties that the United States could take down Saddam with minimal casualties, even unilaterally. I believe North Korea would be an entirely different story. We have very little reliable intelligence on North Korea, and regardless of intelligence lapses in Iraq, this is a completely different situation. Most analysts I've heard agree that strikes by the U.S. against North Korea would immediately result in strikes against Seoul. Thus, as our ally, before taking action we need ensure South Korea's safety. I think many people have gotten the impression that the American military may not be as strong as originally thought, but I am positive that is not the case. The situations we propose to address are simply different types of battle, and I don't mean the "war on terror." We simply are not fighting wars in the same manner which allowed us success in WWI and WWII. With the increase in technology, people have an expectation that wars are now to be fought in a precision style manner, which has advantages, but also lengthens war and lessens victory. We dropped thousands of bombs on Berlin and other German cities at the end of the European front during WWII. Similarly, we were forced to use the atomic bombs to bring Japan to its knees. Our society now, however, simply will not tolerate such high loss in civilian life. We could probably break North Korea by firing a thousand Tomahawks into cities, but we as a society are not willing to do that. However, with a situation like North Korea, if a nuclear strike on the U.S. is possible and threatened, I would hope the U.S. would devastate the country without regard for casualties. Protecting the United States is obviously the country's top priority, and it will probably become more important in coming years. I only hope we have a leader strong enough to face down the EU and UN, and do what America must to protect herself.
|
Threaded Mode
