4 ms·

I'm not going to take the time to find the link, but it's been reported in the WSJ that even Obama (who is presumably more dovish than Trump) said he would orde

• boomboomsubban 9y ago
  That's likely true for some sort of missile strike, but a missile strike also doesn't remove the problem. Even in the event we killed Kim in a strike, the replacement would be unlikely to be western friendly. This discussion is about "going in," which I take to mean an invasion. Any invasion attempt would start with the understanding that Seoul is going to look like London after the blitz at best.
  • chibg10 9y ago
    The point of the strike would be to destroy threats to Seoul prior to an invasion (i.e. removing the obstacle). As even you noted, the US wouldn't strike and wait as that creates more problems than it solves.
    • RugnirViking 9y ago
      The threat to Seoul is mobile artillery near the border. It doesn't even have to be cruise missiles on anything like that; Seoul is close enough to the border that indiscriminate shelling at the city is probable Mobile artillery is a very difficult problem to remove all with one strike, because it is mobile for the precise reason that its difficult to know where they all are. That's why many nuclear missiles have been deployed on trucks, so that they can be stationed in remote areas and moved at a moments notice, similarly to submarines