The (only?) major downside to attacking NK would be the collateral damage to SK and Japan.

As for non-military action against NK, I think it is a total losing strategy (at least anything short of a physical blockade). Military action is the only thing that will bring the regime down - and it could probably be done short of (or as a precursor to) invading.

There are rumors that this activity is intended, in part, to anoint Kim’s son as the third in their brand of dyanastic Communism. One wonders whether the son is saner than the father…

My estimates of military technology says we are probably passing the cusp of our military superiority, it only goes down from here. Yes, I know you are a former military (I think), but the entangling bureaucracy of the DoD is strangling any ability to ensure that future weapon systems will advance as quickly as they did in the past. Once again, people are going to die eventually, and Iran will be joining the ranks of the Nuclear club within the next 6-12 months.

We are going to have the chance to see diplomacy because Obama will not do anything militarily and we will have the chance to see how that works out. I mean your take on this whole matter. My opinion is therefore, worthless.

One last thing, unless we can defend against nuclear warheads we pretty much have to hope that MAD works out just like it did for 50+ years. BTW, my opinion, India will not stand for the nukes of Pakistan to fall into the hands of the Taliban, religious zealotry is dangerous.

Israel would be an immediate target, with Saudi, which would likely be on our side, almost certainly being the beginning of a moving front in the war that is surging toward N Africa.

You’re talking about what will almost certainly be a literal World War — the first one since the major nations of the world gained nuclear weapons.

The answer is to be tough with North Korea, offering no concessions and no aid without proof of compliance. Invading isn’t a realistic (read: non-suicidal) option. Effective diplomacy and strong sanctions can work — but there have to be repercussions against the line-crossers.

Again, I pray I am really, really wrong on this.

I will once again state that when NoKo refuses to recognize the 1953 armistice, that is basically an act of war or war posturing. If we do not deal with situation soon whether it is diplomatic or through a strike on NoKo, we will be dealing with many more deaths in the future. BTW to all U.S. citizens and our military personnel I pray that this works out in a way to keep you safe.

Lastly, has anyone ever looked at the foot soldiers in the NoKo military? They are guant and very skinning which shows a lack of proper nutrition. These guys would not be able to fight for very long and do not be surprised if they give up quickly. Anyway, this situation is very bad and I sincerely hope I am wrong.

I hope Russia and China decide its no longer in their benefit to support North Korea anymore even if it was a good attack dog against the U.S. Then maybe we could resolve this whole problem with little to no violence.

Roughly half of the 50 million people who make up the South Korean population lives in the Seoul metro area. The entire area - city and suburbs - is built up, not out, meaning that the death toll from a nuclear attack would be absolutely staggering. A nuclear attack could easily kill upwards of 20 million people. Given the ties between the people of North and South Korea, who consider themselves Korean, not North Korean or South Korean, it is difficult to say whether President Kim Jong Il could sustain his popularity with such an attack. He has a remarkable propaganda program and his military, at least by appearances even on the ground, is solidly behind him. He also commands full control of the media, meaning that such an attack would be his to spin.

A ground invasion could be his more favorable option. Again, for what it’s worth, South Korea knows of four invasion tunnels built from the North with the express purpose of preparation for an invasion of Seoul. Some of these tunnels are well within 100 miles of Seoul, including one just 27 miles away. One estimate I’ve heard is that the North may have built as many as 20 more that have not been discovered. South Korea, meanwhile, has little more than a token military, and some estimate that Seoul would fall within a matter of hours. With the reduction of US troops here during the Bush administration, a change which was supported by many South Koreans, some estimates suggest that the North would have control over the peninsula within as little as three days.

One other thing to consider, again, however relevant you think it may be (it’s incredibly important to me), is that there are tens of thousands of US civilians scattered throughout the country, and an evacuation could be especially complicated given the delicate nature of the situation. An evacuation of US citizens could be seen as the last move before war and be the trip wire that leads to an attack, either ground or nuclear.

All of this is, of course, in the context that we are dealing with an actor who, at least in my view, is not rational. During the Cold War, leaders of both the United States and the Soviet Union worked to avoid conflict, especially direct conflict between nuclear powers and refrained from using nuclear weapons out of concern for the devastating impact that their use would have had on both countries. In the case of the North Korean President, though, I don’t think it is safe to say the same. I hope I am wrong.

In short, I’m not against military action per se, but in considering it, the President and the rest of the administration must carefully consider the best course of action given the complications presented by the situation. If - and that is a big if - military conflict can be avoided, it must be, as quite literally tens of millions of Korean lives and tens of thousands of American lives could be wiped out in a matter of minutes. Iraq could easily be made to look like Grenada. If it must be undertaken, plans must be in place to prevent as much of the sure to be devastating loss of life as possible.

Our best chance is probably an assassination, followed hopefully by a coup by someone the U.S. can at least work with.

Having said all this, though, I suspect that NK is as much of a paper tiger as Saddam’s Iraq was - once they roll out their artillery pieces from their hiding caves to bombard SK, it’ll be a ‘turkey shoot’ for the U.S. Air Force, as they take out the artillery pieces one by one.

The worrisome part is that, at that point, the nuke issue becomes a “use it or lose it” proposition for NK, and it’s hard to say what they’d actually do when that happens.

It would likely be the bloodiest day in U.S. history since WWII.

I would hope North Korea realizes their only way to maintain power is to never attack South Korea… because as soon as that happens I expect our only option would be to wipe North Korea off the map.

I know one thing I will be praying for the 30,000 troops in harms way protecting South Korea. If war ever did break out it would probably be one of the nastiest days in U.S. history.

For me, as a casual observer, I don’t think waiting is the best option right now. If North Korea really has nuclear weapons, then it’s only a matter of how many nuclear warheads will it has when it collapses or launches an attack on South Korea and us. I think none of us wants to find out the answer to that question.

As much I hate to say this, maybe going to war is the best option right now, as long North Korea has only a few nuclear warheads, with less explosive power than ones we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, I know there will be a lot of dead civilians in Seoul, but think of how many more will die if North Korea launches 100 nuclear warheads toward South Korea?

South Korea should get it over with. Stop waiting, it’s going to cause more problems down the road. Of course, that’s just my opinion, so what do I know as a casual observer….