|
All of this begs another question. Do you think the US would go nuclear (and suffer the resulting disaster in public opinion/domestic politics) over South Korea? While there are US strategic interests there (including the US soldiers killed in the initial attack), they are not overwhelming. . . our primary reason for even being there (halting the spread of global communism) has since evaporated.
That said, yes, I believe that if the US committed itself to a knock-down drag-out with a NK invasion that did not melt like the Iraqi army, we would go nuclear. But I do not believe we would let it get that far. I'm sure there's an analyst wonk right now in the belly of the Pentagon writing a brief to the effect that, even in the worst case, the best policy would be for the US to pull out of South Korea, wait until the communists overextended themselves/killed off the SK economy, and then let them collapse. Which do you think the policymakers/politicians more fear, the overrun of Seoul, or the incineration of Honolulu?
__________________
"I have seen much war in my lifetime and I hate it profoundly. But there are things worse than war; and all of them come with defeat." -- Hemingway
|