The military option, to all practical purposes, does not exist. “An attack is highly unlikely to destroy any existing North Korean nuclear weapons capability,” wrote Phillip Saunders of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, in a paper analysing its risks.
“The biggest problem with military options is preventing North Korean retaliation,” Saunders said. He believes half a million artillery shells an hour would be rained on Seoul in the first day of any conflict from North Korean artillery hidden in caves. The North Koreans could fire 200 mobile rocket launchers and launch up to 600 Scud missiles. American and South Korean casualties, excluding civilians, are projected at between 300,000 and 500,000 in the first 90 days of war.
Good grief, who came up with this estimate? There is no way in hell that the crumbling North Korean military could fight for 90 days let alone kill 36,000 to 60,000 soldiers during that time. The North Korea military is no longer capable of marching on Seoul. Oh sure, they can start marching on Seoul, but then they'll get hammered and just provide an excuse for South Korea and America to march on Pyongyang and hang that paper-hanging SOB Kin Jong-Il from the nearest lamp post.
This casualty estimate is laughable. The cost in lives--mostly civilian if North Korea bombards Seoul--would be so high that I don't advocate starting a war with North Korea. But if North Korea starts one, we will surely finish it. And their won't be a Third Korean War down the line.
