In article MPG.1aa2ee4ab5f1cc5d98991a@news,
Bernardz writes:
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

I think you miss my point. It is one thing to take on countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq. It is another to take on a nuclear power like
China.

If that were really the situation, we'd had 50 years where, by your
reckoning, we could have/should have invaded the DPRK. (With which,
btw, we, and the UN, are still at war with. Armistices are not end to
the conflict, they are cease-fires.) But we didn't do so.
In fact, the situation wrt the U.S. Armed FOrces, andth eDPRK hasn't
changed much at all.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster