Citing Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities, Perle says, “We should always be prepared to go it alone, if necessary.”
Sure, North Korea is not Iraq when it comes to WMDs, but should the US seriously consider such a strike, let alone tell the world about it? The world has certainly changed in the 22 years since the Israeli strike.
All the reports I’ve read indicate the North Korean leader is more than a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Is it wise, especially as the Iraqi affair takes on new post-war turns almost daily, to begin heating up the rhetoric with North Korea? The USA is on its back foot when it comes to diplomacy and international relations right now.
Even if this pronouncement is just high stakes poker, er, sabre-rattling, er blind man’s bluff from the Administration, my gut feeling is telling me the Administration may have a “strike while the iron is hot” mentality that just won’t go away.
And precisely how long, following a strike against NK’s nuclear facilities, would it be before artillery shells started raining down on Seoul? Apparently, the South Koreans don’t count when we’re “going it alone.”
Our government is truly in the hands of some dangerously loony folks.
So, what are you saying? We should leave the world to be ruled by whoever’s craziest? We should let ourselves be blackmailed? If NK responds to an airstrike with an artillery strike, we’ll respond with widespred bombing and probably an invasion. So Bush ordering an airstrike is a lot less loony than Il ordering an artillery strike. So why does Bush get the blame in this hypothetical?
No! One hundred times NO! Someone has to stop President Bush!
Oh I see you are on his side. Oh well, nice solution you have there. You think South Korea will like it? And while we are at it I guess we could deal with African problems by bombing the shit out of them too. That ought to teach them not to be hungry or start wars.
Because he orders the first shot and turns a high-tension situation into a shooting war. War kinda sucks.
Staying out of war because your opponent might have the cheek to shoot back as he’s able to isn’t “being blackmailed”, it’s reacting rationally to deterrence. Anyway, it might be conceivable that the South Koreans ought to have a say in whether or not they want to risk having Seoul levelled as part of the opening gambit of the Korean War 2.0.
Yes, it is wise for the US to seriously consider such a strike. It may or may not be wise to tell the world about it. I suppose they want N. Korea to know we mean business. N. Korea is dangerous.
**
Given the history of N. Korea do you really think they respond well when we’re nice? The N. Korean government has kidnapped foreign nationals, they regularly sent submarines to introduce infiltrators into S. Korea, and in 1996 they said they would no longer observe the terms of the armistice. We never signed a peace treaty with N. Korea.
N. Korea is dangerous and we have an obligation to defend S. Korea. Any fire fight will be uglier then what we saw in Iraq. If we did a strike against their nuclear facilities we’d likely have to attempt to destroy their ability to make war at the same time.
He just stepped down from being in charge of the Defense Advisory Board.
AFAIK, he’s still trying to broker a deal that would turn control of the phone system used by the fed gov and the US military pver to a chinese national who has strong ties to the Chinese intelligence agency. The deal has already been struck down once as a threat to national security.
If the US is going to attack NorKor, they will have to use weapons of mass destruction to take out a 5-10 mile swath along the entire 38th parallel to wipe out all the offensive weapons aimed at Seoul. Not sure that the US is ready to do that yet.
Because the US has some tens of thousands of sodiers in SK and considers SK as an ally. Therefore an attack on NK will result in an attack of SK by NK.
Because the destruction of SK’s economy by a war with NK would have horrible effects on the world economy. SK is a major player.
Of course, all that is in addition the the obvious reason why SK should be defended. They are friends, right? Forgotten?
That makes it pretty plain to me, at least, that he thinks “taking out” NK’s reactor is a realistic option. Sure, it would preferable to defuse the situation with the cooperation of NK’s neighbors. But, IMHO, a strike against NK’s reactor is not a realistic option; how many South Korean lives would you say it’s worth?
The quote that you are so proud of is already referred to by the OP.
The statement, “Perle Calls For Pre-emtive Strike Against N. Korea Nuclear Reactor…” is obviously incorrect. Perle stated that strikes were but one option in dealing with NK. Perle states that he favours a coalition effort to excert pressure on NK. The OP was obviously either misinformed or intentionally misleading.
As to how many S.Korean lives, blah blah blah, do you really think the danger to S.Korea will lessen once NK starts turning out nuclear weapons in number?
Oh, please. Nobody is being fast and loose with SK lives, other than NK. And one day, when NK is able to fit a nuke to a missle (if they cannot do so already), and threatens to wipe out Seoul, mere artillery will look like a cheery alternative.