"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a9f38ff24421b1a98990a@news...
In article LjUYb.27752$Zt4.9307@okepread01, says...
Wow, how underwhelming it all is. We seem to be able to pound into
submission any puny Third World nation without a significant AF. But
we don't dare strike Iran, N Korea, or China.

Probably because there's no need to, at least yet.


Actually in this, robert arndt is right.

No, he is not.

Its one thing to take on powers
like Iraq, Serbia and N Vietnam but its another to take on nuclear
powers. The situation with crazies like N Korea is very disturbing.

We have a situation now where there are countries that are safe to
attack and others where it is not.

"Safe to attack"? Hardly. The US suffered more casualties on 9-11 to
improvised weapons than we have ever suffered to enemy nuclear attacks; any
number of nations could replicate or conduct a similar atrocity. Nuclear
weapons are as much an anchor around the owners' neck as they are an asset,
especially when dealing with a US that they can't reliably ensure their own
weapons can even reach. The key issue is the determination of the scope of
the threat, and its immediacy, versus our resources and constraints, and
with the diplomatic aspect tossed in as well. The US went into Afghanistan
and Iraq--and gee whiz, the Libyans and Iranians suddenly became amenable to
peaceful diplomatic solutions. The DPRK is still on the burner, but without
the support of either the CIS or the PRC it is only a matter of time before
we get what we want--so why start pounding the swords on the shields?

Brooks