I wanted to add this entry because I've been thinking about it a lot and I have seen a lot of Op-Ed pieces out there this week and most of them say the same thing:

"Let's go bomb the crap out of North Korea's Nuclear Facilities"

In response to that, I would like to say this:

"Are you out of your fucking mind???"

It is no secret that I do not like President Bush. However, in his policy of Not-Bombing-The-Crap-Out-Of-North-Korea's-Nuclear-Facilities, I am in total agreement.

The current administration is pushing for a diplomatic solution to the North Korea problem. This is a good idea. To be more precise, its the only idea.

Don't misunderstand me. The administration has not suddenly taken an overdose of niceness pills or grown a conscience. This is purely a matter of logistics. The administration wants a dimplomatic solution only because there is no viable military one. Here's why:

Nuclear Facilities are where you process Uranium, and/or Plutonium. Since Pyongyang has Plutonium, I'm guessing they have a heavy water reactor.

Let's say we followed the standard Republican approach to foreign policy and launched an airstrike against the DPRK's Nuclear Facilities.

The best case scenario is we miss.
The most likely scenario is we don't miss and effectively set off a radiological bomb.
The worst case scenario is the unstable Plutonium explodes, and we have effectively set off an Atomic Bomb.

Oh, and by the way, guess where the radiation ends up: China (our biggest fear), Japan (our second biggest fear) or Taiwan (if we're lucky).

That's why we can't go in by air.

We cannot send in ground troops for several reasons:

1) It would give too much notice to North Korea. At least enough notice to fuel a missile and send it somewhere nasty.

2) South Korean popular opinion would not support it. Many people in the South are too young to remember the Korean war, and all they want is reunification.

3) Japan wouldn't allow us to use them as a staging ground, since they would be the most likely target for an attack by the DPRK, and more than likely, that attack would be pre-emptive once we started amassing troops there.

4) China most certainly wouldn't allow it for obvious reasons.

5) Taiwan wouldn't allow it because they would immediately get the shit kicked out of them by China, and we would find ourselves in the wrong war.

6) Even if we could attack from South Korea, we can't send in ground troops, because the million landmines that keep North Koreans out of South Korea, also keep our troops out of the North.

7) To launch a ground attack by sea (a la the D-Day Invasion) would result in either the 7th fleet glowing in the dark, or Seoul, or Tokyo or perhaps even Honolulu.

8) We don't have enough spare troops anyway. To conquer a defending country in a ground war, you need overwhelming force - Three to six times the defensive force. Assuming 75% of Norh Korea's military laid down their arms, we would still need at least one million men. And without the support of a connecting country to use as a staging area, we would have no way to
get them in place other than in dribs and drabs.

In short, the reason we are not attacking North Korea over land is that we would lose. Either on the battlefield, or in our homes the body count would be too high to risk.

The only other possible approach we have outside of the diplomatic arena is through small scale sabotage operations, which is basically just another way to Piss Them Off.

I don't know where this will all end up. The best possible outcome is they bow to political pressure, or undergo a regime change. The worst possible outcome is a thermonuclear war in South East Asia, which could easily spread, very quickly, to the rest of the world.