This is a little more difficult than any of the posts indicate. Our actions in Korea are linked to agreements made by Kissinger back in the seventies. They are linked to more than one other country in the region, and they are strategic in nature. If the US wanted a war in Korea, we could win it with forces on hand today, and not pulling down the forces in Iraq. It would take a little while to re-theater them, as they have been working with another region in mind, but in a pinch they could begin moving in a week. Korea is small narrow peninsula, easily reachable in total from naval air. And at least one carrier is in the region right now, Kitty Hawk in the Indian Ocean IIRC. And Stennis and Eisenhower are surge ready. So we are not totally without the ability to use force. We just don�t have the will. And let�s face it; we won�t have the will unless the North invades the South. You don�t have to occupy the whole of North Korea to win. Just prevent the movement of fuel and supplies. And not for very long, the NK army can not live off the land unless they invaded the south, and you can bet that scorched earth would be the first thing they found south of the mine fields. Some reports have them draining fuel from parked armored vehicles to heat their barracks in the winter. The Chicoms could tip the scales, but they have other scales to worry about, billions of bucks on one side and isolation on the other.
Oh and to set an issue straight here, everyone who was at war with North Korea in the 50�s is still at war today. And that was a large part of the free world of the day. All that was signed was a temporary armistice. The UN is the lead agency on that front, so how could the US ever sit down alone with NK and sign a peace treaty. That is a tired old ploy that the North has been using for thirty years, but people still fall for it.
Iran is doing the same thing. They invaded US soil and took the US embassy, severing diplomatic relations with the US. Now that they have removed the tools of communicating diplomacy, they complain of not having face to face talks. Then after we agree to the talks we will then spend years arguing about protocols, since none will be in place. Anyone old enough to recall the same problem with the NK�s? Not me, I was a little after that but I read about it. And I do recall the same issue with the NV�s; over a year to decide on a table and where to sit. That�s why civilized nations have and use rules of diplomatic contact. Do any of you realize how many low level meetings took place between the US and the USSR before the big boys met in Iceland? And Iran wants to just put aside their past acts and have a sit down in a mater of weeks. Makes me think that perhaps they have a schedule to meet and they are some months short at the moment. Spend some time hashing it out with the US, then let the EU back out. Then start over with the French and have the US kill the deal. Then before you know it, you have the Persian bomb. I�ll bet Iran had to refigure their calendar after the partial event in Korea. What a joke, we use bigger bangs than that just to get things going good on a B83. I also wonder who will have to go salvage the bomb site. I�d bet that the NK�s would spend several thousand lives to recover a few ounces of reusable material.
And in closing, nuclear containment is a myth. It�s used as a diplomatic cattle prod, a tool of state policy. There was never a remote hope of keeping them out of the third world. And there is no hope of keeping them out of the hands of non-state groups. It was only a fight to delay the spread until the defenses caught up. We can�t even keep France from testing them, how could we keep Iran or Korea from doing it? So one day in a country near you, someone will use one on a neighbor, then receive anther in return. But what the heck, if we kill off a few billion and block out a lot of sunlight, we can solve global warming and the energy problem all at once.
