Reknamorken wrote:
] Heh. Check out this table right under the picture. I think
] it's an interesting comparison. That Bush speech writer who is making the rounds promoting his book discussed this question on NPR last week. Basically, he claimed that the deal is that the strategy is not related to the severity of the problem, its related to what might work. The administration beleives that diplomacy will work in NK, but it will not work in Iraq. However, one might observe that the worst case scenario in an Iraq conflict is that he'll lob a biological or chemical weapon into Israel. Israel has good defense systems in place, and its not even clear that Iraq's weapons work. On the other hand, NK can nuke Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Taipei, Hawaii, and parts of Alaska. Defense systems for this do not exist. We know the nukes work. This makes war a much riskier proposition from a purely tactical strategic perspective. More risks on one side of the balance sheet make the other side more attractive. Conversly, this is why NK is acting so beligerant in response to our cutting off their oil. They want us the beleive that they are crazy enough to actually do something like this, even though they know their country will be destroyed. I don't think anyone really buys it. Its obviously not in their self interest to do this unless they are already about to loose a conventional war. | 
