I was just listening to FoxNews on XM and just caught the end of some "analyst" wringing her hands about how there cannot be a military option because of all of the death and destruction it would cause on the Korean Peninsula. It may have been Marie Harff, which would be typical, but I'm not sure who it was.
Well sweetie, there will be a heck of a lot of death and destruction in one or more American cities if we don't stop this. These idiots with their heads in the sand truly believe we can just close our eyes and wish evil away. We absolutely positively would have lost WWII if these "can'tdonuffin"s had been in charge.
We have a military for a reason, and I can't imagine a more immediate threat deserving of being prevented via the full fury of that military than this one. I challenge any Libertarian isolationist to explain not what shouldn't be done, but instead precisely how they propose that we stop this threat.
Yes, that's what frightens me.
I've thought about this for a long time and spoken at length with an ex-spook about it.
What bothers me most is I can't see any end-game acceptable to the United States that doesn't require the destruction or removal of the North Korean regime.
My take is that NK is secretly (not so secretly now) being backed by Chinese and/or Russian technology. Their end game is to see the US driven from the Western Pacific, with America's traditional allies (Japan, SK, Australia and Taiwan) all forced to recognize Beijing's hegemony over the Pacific in exchange for keeping Kim on a leash.
If we are forced to take military action against NK (and it's hard for me to see how that doesn't quickly escalate to turning NK into a glass parking lot), one payback for Chinese ought to be the sale of Tridents to Japan, nukes for Seoul (assuming it survives) and possibly Taiwan.
Let Beijing suck on that lemon for a long while.