In response to:

'Proportional' Response

Lance133 Wrote: Apr 09, 2013 7:27 PM
Oh, come now. We want to make war safe. Let's get rid of nuclear weapons. Hell, lets get rid of "weapons of mass destruction." Let's impose rules of contact that limit attacks on civilian targets, cultural or religious structures. Let's make war safe, clean, and FUN. Hell, let's make war so much fun that EVERY country will want to have one. Do people think things through? War should be so horrible, so terrifying, that grown men will wet their pants at the mere thought of it. The countries will avoid it, and if any leader is so insane as to contemplate it, the people will rise against him. The reason North Korea tolerated Kin Jong Un is that the last time they threatened us with nuclear weapons, we did not attack.
Since when has it been considered smart to tell your enemies what your plans are?

Yet there on the front page of the April 8th New York Times was a story about how unnamed "American officials" were planning a "proportional" response to any North Korean attack. This was spelled in an example: If the North Koreans "shell a South Korean island that had military installations" then the South Koreans would retaliate with "a barrage of artillery of similar intensity."

Whatever the merits or demerits of such a plan, what conceivable purpose can be served by telling the North Koreans in advance that they...

Related Tags: North Korea