There are also some questionable conclusions. The most significant is Mr. Friedman's suggested sequence of events when he writes about North Korea's counter-attack following a pre-emptive US attack on the DPRK's nuclear facilities. It would be a foolish military tactic to attack the facilities then wait to see what happens.
A more forceful and powerful US strategy would be to target the artillery, munitions and barracks in the first wave of attacks. This would limit the inevitable damage to South Korea. In the subsequent attacks, which would happen in immediate sequence, the nuclear facilities would be hit. Attack the opposing forces first, then the military facilities.
Unless something catastrophic were to happen, the US would not need to use nuclear weapons. Our conventional weaponry is far more powerful and plentiful than North Korea's.
Another issue is Mr. Friedman's assertion that the North Korean Surface-To-Air weaponry is equal to the United States' aircraft defenses. It is very likely, given North Korea's isolation, that their battle technologies are inferior to those of the United States' arsenal. The US would sustain loses, of course, because it would be war. But the strength and depth of the US's forces means that our military could sustain much more than North Korea's could.
By no means am I advocating for a pre-emptive attack of any sort on the DPRK. It is beyond foolishness to seriously think any such plan could succeed. Diplomacy must resolve this conflict. I just think that the author of the article is not articulating the most likely battle plan should the Trump Administration take such a dangerous path.
In fact, it's hard to think of any outcome where nuclear weapons don't come into play should Trump order any kind of attack against North Korea.
Donald Trump is an idiot. He's also a fool to be poking at this hornet's nest.
But thanks for posting the link, rug. It's a very interesting read. Enjoy your weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read
