What I like about the paper Matt linked us to is the idea that war in Korea is not simply a matter of dropping some, or a slew, of precision munitions on NK conventional forces as they strike south across the DMZ. It's not even about firing a ton of cruise missiles and other precision munitions at targets in the PDRK to wreck the North Korean ability to wage war. Even if we achieve a smashing conventional victory in defeating Northern aggression against the South, we are confronted with the North's possible NBC actions, possible ongoing infiltration and sabotage, possible attacks on shipping by NK submarines, and the ongoing existence of the regime. If the loss of a conventional war in Korea leads to the collapse of the Kim regime, the crisis takes on a whole new dimension that is not amenable to solution by JDAM. If Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us anything, it's that we can't skimp on occupation forces. Where are a half-million (or more) riflemen supposed to come from? I'm past the point where I'm going to volunteer for a year of peacekeeping in Korea, and I'm too old to be drafted.
Not all problems can be solved with high explosives.
Webstral
|