[BCrago66]

Loss of American lives would be great too - what with our deployment right accross the border. But at this point it's hard to see what choice we have; a nuclear explosion in New York City of Chicago would take millions of innocent lives.

I never served; I hope we get some military Freepers on this thread to access whether the strategy above sounds plausible.

[Filibuster_60]

This isn't something we can do without South Korean approval, and obviously there's no enthusiasm among South Koreans for risking their own well-being to serve the security interests of a patron they no longer appreciate.

What the authors describe is essentially reiterating what our military planners already know: We'll beat NK easily in a full-scale war but won't emerge unscathed. Thousands of US and South Korean troops will die, and there's no guarantee that we'll hit all their missile sites before they unleash their chemical/biological payloads to Seoul and Tokyo. Acts of terrorism are very likely - NK's special forces are the largest in the world and have trained fanatically for their often suicidal missions. Forcing regime change in NK would make Iraq look like a picnic - and we're still losing a soldier a day in Iraq.

[lepton]

Loss of American lives would be great too - what with our deployment right accross the border.

My understanding was that over the last few months we redeployed many of the forces south, out of range of N Koreas artillery, which upset N Korea.

[ought-six]

"I never served; I hope we get some military Freepers on this thread to access whether the strategy above sounds plausible."

U.S. Air Force vet here, 1970-1974, Air Force Intelligence (USAFSS). To answer your questions: Yes, it is plausible. However, I would like to have some domestic (i.e., in-country N. Korea) help from N. Korea elements who can be "turned". That will be necessary to neutralize the lunatic dwarf at the outset, which will precipitate an early collapse and defeat of the N. Korean military.