N. Korea Successfully Tests Nuke Warhead

Since North Korea has made a direct threat to the U.S. Can we fight a third war with two wars ongoing at the present time? Any military people here who can enlighten us.

 

Now just how many wars can we fight? I know the thought of starting yet another military adventure is something that gives neo-cons a wet dream, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not have the military capability as of now. The U.S military is being stretched thin with two battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if the neo-cons had their way, we'd have others in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea and China.

I'm not a clinical psychologist, but that is the epitome of craziness if you ask me.

 

The world has gone crazy. Where do I get off.

 

You don't have to be a military aficionado to understand, that fighting wars on multiple fronts, usually does not end well for the aggressor. Take Germany for instance, during WW2, which had perhaps the most highly trained and disciplined soldiers on the globe, only to LOSE the war. They were fighting on many fronts, which allowed the allies to punch through to Germany, because of their thinning forces.

Dial the clock to the present, and you will notice how stretched our troops currently are, the increasing amount of post-traumatic stress cases, and everything else. Open up a THIRD front with a deadly adversary such as N. Korea, and what will you fight with? You can only drop so many conventional bombs. There will ALWAYS be a need for 'boots on the ground' to recon, secure territory, establish bases and defend against counter-attacks.

This is all based on the understanding that N. Korean allies, within the Theatre of Operations, did not get involved, which would make things even worse.

 

I don't think "making friends" is a part of our national security strategy, but I think we're doing just fine in that dept nonetheless.

You ladies apparently didn't bother to read the excerpts that I posted. Along with the US, the UN and several nations see NK possesion and proliferation of nukes as a security threat that should be prevented, and military force has not been ruled out as an option.

If democratic nations like the US hadn't possessed nukes, we would probably all be living under a totalitarian regime right now (and you and I would not be allowed to have a discussion like this one). If you don't/won't acknowledge the difference between the US, UK or France possessing nukes vs Iran or NK, you are being quite naive IMO. I really don't think that is the case, I think in your bleeding hearts you try to pretend like there is no evil in the world.

 

That is why I think the US should publicy upgrade its WIN-WIN strategy (maintaining the ability to fight two simultaneous conventional wars), to a WIN-WIN-NUKE strategy.

In other words we are saying to the North Koreas and Irans of the world:

"Just because I'm busy with Iraq and Afghanistan don't think I won't send a couple of B2 bombers your way with a payload of nukes. I ain't got time to fool with you".

We don't have to do it, we just have to let them know that we are willing to do it. Reagan and Bush had that. People thought they were crazy enough to push that button. Statements like the one below were purposely made available to the press, which the Soviets read with great interest. Statements like this made them think, "Oh shit, this motherfucker is crazy enough to actually do this!" They led to victory in the Cold War without a shot ever being fired.

In late 1981, President Reagan approved a National Security Decision Document committing the United States to fight and win a global nuclear war.
___New York Times, Spring 1982

"There is no alternative to war with the Soviet Union if the Russians do not abandon communism."
___Richard Pipes, Top Reagan adviser, 1981

"The probability of nuclear war is 40 percent...and our strategy is winnable nuclear war."
_Richard Pipes, Top Reagan adviser, 1982

"Yes, there could be a limited nuclear war in Europe."
___President Reagan, 1981

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/nuclear.htm#When

 

I am well aware that there is evil in the world. I generally have very little faith in humanity to not screw it up. Nor am I a bleeding heart. You are really not likely to find many women whose hearts bleed less than mine. I care very little about others.

Of course, I see the difference between Iran and North Korea having major weapons and "western democracies". You might think it, but I'm not stupid, nor blind...that much I can assure you.

I think, generally, the characteristic of "I'm right, I have the right, you must agree with me" just irritates me. It bugs me in people, but a person has negligible impact on me. It is much harder to ignore a superpower. There's also an association with machismo which irks me. So, it's more about the delivery method and not the actual policy, although it's difficult to separate one from the other. The word subtle comes to mind.

I'm sure there are a myriad of ways and policy positions enabling the adequate diffusion of the situation. It appears to me that the USA is not able to see this, however.

As I have said many times - this is not an area in which I have much knowledge. It also doesn't interest me enough to cause me to read up on it in adequate detail at this stage of my life. Perhaps when I "grow up" some more, and I have more to lose . Usually I have a personal policy of "if I don't know, shuttup", but I decided to veto it on this one. Sometimes, the simplest of views can bring fresh insight. Perhaps not. haha

I would be interested to know whether you disagree with me on the surface, or actually have analysed my point of view. You would do well to acknowledge that there may be some truth in my different opinions, as it will only make your own point of view stronger.

 

FEHG you are one of the most intelligent people on this board, I hope I didn't come across as condescending. I have read your ideas very carefully, it is not a surface thing, or just for the sake of argument.

Your opinions are just as valuable/worthless as mine, depending on how you look at it I guess.

 

No, not condescending. I just didn't want my point of view to be coloured with what you think are overly emotional/illogical responses.

I certainly don't think that my views on this could be extrapolated into a policy position. I am merely offering an alternative opinion on the issue. Something which may beneficially alter the trajectory of existing policies.

But, back to the topic. I've hijacked this one enough.