Twardlow wrote:
Sorry, incorrect on that, and even nukes won't do it.
Diplomacy might, or buying them off (same thing, I guess).
You haven't read the article, have you?
As the subhead reads, 'there are no good options, but some are worse than others.'
Please, read the article.
I feel that the subhead is understood and is not at all pertinent to my opinion regarding specific weapons.
I have read the article and it did not address the use of conventional weapons as opposed to nuclear. It did point out that even a nuclear response would not render NK unable to proceed in some fashion. We know that nuclear weapons can inflict greater damage and more quickly, but the majority of our assault will be conventional and include troops on the ground. I just don't see us throwing nukes around and the world suffering the after effects.
To say my views are incorrect could be plausible. Your reference, while seemingly factual is not the sole authority on which weapons would be implemented. Assuming our nuke use is eminent is a premature conclusion in my opinion. We can also assume the the so called battle plans have been in existence for many years and have been continually revised.
NK is certainly aware of what can happen and is quite calculated, as we are, and the behavior displayed by both is not a big surprise to many from what I can ascertain.