View Single Post
Old 07-09-2017, 12:45   #138
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: North Korea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
I think the problem is that no one is even thinking about "afterwards", rather than there being a least worst option.
In a number of scenarios there is no 'afterwards' to think about.

A pre-emptive attack on NK is likely to lead to a nuclear response from them and a response from China. As soon as China get involved Article 5 kicks in, and Russia are likely to join in with China.

If I became aware of Seoul being evacuated I would be considering my life choices closely.

I'm not convinced Japan will remain non-nuclear either. They have the technology to have fully functional weapons of at least intermediate range in months. The only reason they haven't done so as yet is the US's nuclear umbrella, and that seems to be weakening.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote