President Bush isn't grandstanding - look at A-stan and Iraq for examples of action when talk fails. There is no deal to be reached between Bush and dear leader - bilateral talks are out of the question, as they would localize any conflict. Dear leader will have to reach agreement with all involved stakeholders or face more drastic action (as yet indeterminate). It is true that none before have found a solution, it is also true that none really tried either, at a time when an Iraq type incursion could have worked. China is key - if they agree to full sanctions - if not, dear leader will be the one to initiate the solution. That, however, will be painful.
red said:
Others are suggesting that Bush is just grandstanding and that he won't or cannot afford another military incursion and therefore it is just talk, and he will try and cut a deal as did Clinton. ( you can argue that Clinton did not solve the issue but neither did any previous US president or the UN or anyone else).
The claim itself is enough - having said one posesses a weapon implies that one will use it. If true, a nuclear dear leader could cause significant damage to Seoul, in excess of his father's ability, or hit a Japanese city, something his father could not have done.
The north claims to have nuclear weapons, but there is no evidence that I have heard of a test or successful test of a nuclear weapon by n korea. I am not sure why we think he is more of a threat than his father who was just as crazy, or why the issue seems to be coming to a head.
The impact might be severe, afterall we are talking about regional scale nuclear conflict. The impact might well spark a depression. Much more if NK can put a missile to the west coast.
but the impact on the lives of the average US citizen would approximate zero). so the US presence is fairly altruistic.
No - the other players do not have the type of weaponry required to enter combat. The last thing any army would want to do is begin an invasion without having obliterated the police state apparatus beforehand. That would be putting troops through a nuclear meat grinder. Best case would be Baghdad style, and hope that NK can't put out a response in those crucial ten minutes.
Can a united nations force do anything without the US- probably yes, but not as quickly - most of western europe and canada have wound down their forces
NMD is exactly for this scenario - one or two crude, single entry ballistic missiles. NMD is damm important for us too - if dear leader can't reach LA he might well settle for Vancouver.
Not sure how the missile defence plays into this. but I support canada being involved because its important to our southern ally if for no other reason.
