Quote (dro94 @ Feb 8 2018 07:47am)
good article from an economic standpoint, bad article from an actual strategic military aspect.
IMO it leans to heavily on a US vs NK match, and extrapolates debt totals and war costs based on a head to head match. That might be fine and dandy for a state like Afghanistan or Iraq but with a confirmed nuclear armed state with a much higher insurgency cost than even Iraq we're not going in without South Korean, Chinese, japanese, and Russian support. We pulled all of Japan's teeth but they can bank quite a bit, same goes for the South Koreans. 3 pronged attack from China, US, Russia is the only real plan of attack, and the rebuilding wouldn't be us bringing them freedom, it would be ceding control of the peninsula to SK. That was the crux in the ME, too radical of a change from the conquerors rather than a slight change from the same gene pool.
I dont think much of Trump as a POTUS, but i dont think in a million years he'd be foolish enough to invade NK solo. Let alone without a 100% chinese blessing and blessing from Japan and SK as they're target for a potential nuke on the way out. When i ask myself what Hitler would have done with a nuclear button in that bunker then apply it to Kim it gets scary. His generals he's surrounded by wouldn't let that happen, imo.