[the_doc]

You didn't understand me. And you didn't understand Rumsfeld if you heard him.

He said we could fight two wars simultaneously. And I will assure that he was not talking about drafting several hundred thousand troops and throwing them into battle on 24 hours' notice.

My point is that the United States will NOT fight a war with NK using 690,000 troops. If this thing heats up into a real war with North Korea WHILE we are are waging a war with Iraq, we will do what we need to do to win. And that includes nukes.

In other words, we will not RE-FIGHT the old Korean War. We will fight it the way MacArthur wanted to fight it fifty years ago.

It's obvious to me that this is what Rumsfeld was talking about.

[HighRoadToChina]

Should explain the MacArthur way of dealing with the NPRK. Wasn't he going to sow radioactive cesium 60 (or something like that that would last about 60 years) from the DMZ all the way up north. Should have done it. Now it's going to get radioactive south of the DMZ.

[fogarty]

So you think we would abandon the restriction on first-use of nuclear weapons? Do you think Bush will initiate such a major change of national strategy, and what affects will first-use nuclear weapon use have around the world with regards to our diplomacy abroad?

[WRhine]

My point is that the United States will NOT fight a war with NK using 690,000 troops. If this thing heats up into a real war with North Korea WHILE we are are waging a war with Iraq, we will do what we need to do to win. And that includes nukes.

If we do that then we effectively sanction the use of Nukes as a valid military option. This will only put our own country at a greater risk of a nuclear attack with enemy nations and rouge terrorist networks that are looking for any excuse to do the same to us…when they can. I don't think we should go down this road unless it is absolutely, positively the last option.