[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

BTW - Interesting piece that spells out a probable outcome with caveats (not including how PRC responds) but even if the DPRK was defeated it will be at terrible cost to South Korea and its civilians:

http://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...an_111241.html

As I said their conventions forces are a bigger threat then their Atomic one

In 24 years NK has added thousands of artillery pieces and probably thousands of SRCM within range of Seoul. as a direct result of the US placing nukes in the south


I completely disagree As far as one sided, we have been inconsistent (democracies are)

Not sure but 3 Republican administrations and 2 dem adminstrations the record does not support 1 sided being inconsistent.. there is plently of blame to pass a round R and D

Ronald Reagan was in office in 1986 when plutonium was first produced in a North Korean reactor. They continued their program under President George H.W. Bush, producing enough plutonium to make 1–2 bombs.

Bill Clinton’s presidency, North Korea froze its nuclear production, though it continued testing missiles until deterred by American pressure.

In 2002, President George W. Bush took a strong stance against North Korea by including them in the “Axis of Evil” with Iran and Iraq. A year later, Pyongyang restarted their reactor and by 2005 produced another 15 kg of weapons grade plutonium. In 2006, North Korea is believed to have had between 4 and 13 nuclear bombs and tested a nuclear weapon for the first time.