When I saw Tillersons comment my jaw literally opened.. I instantly wondered does he even realize what he's saying? Such a antagonizing statement, under a normal government (which, I know, this is far from that) would be debated about not just among top staff at State, but top officials at DoD, the national security council the intelligence community and importantly:OUR ALLIES, particularly in the region. I have a hard time thinking anyone in this group would think needlessly antagonizing a reckless, unstable, ruthless dictator who is frequently rumored to be mentally unbalanced makes all that much sense.
For starters, they already have nuclear weapons!!! For anyone rational, no matter how hawkish or militant they are in thinking, the time for a "millitary solution" passed long ago, the moment they tested a nuclear weapon. This is particularly the case with a country like North Korea, with a leader like the one they have. Knowing the country and it's leaders history, it's not hard to believe at all that the they would respond to any military actions by using the nuclear weapons they already have. Especially If they feel like they have nothing to loose.
How would this scenario play out in Tillersons mind?? Would the military be used for regime change??? In the event of a full on US invasion, I have little doubt that Kim Jong-un, with nothing to loose and fighting for his very survival, would use the bombs they already have against US forces, against South Korea, against Japan. A more limited campaign of Bombing nuclear sites still wouldn't resolve the issue as they already have bombs in hand! So all you do is perhaps delay them from completing any new weapons for the time it takes them to rebuild facilities and given Jong-un's instability that action could still risk him lobbing a nuclear bomb into South Korea or Japan.
I just don't get the rationale here. Perhaps they're playing Nixon's "madman" theory and are talking tough, wanting the world to think Donald is crazy enough to actually launch military action as a way to then get North Korea to do what we want them to do, when in actuality we have no real intention of doing any such thing (for all the obvious reasons I mentioned among many other reasons). If this is the case, while preferable to the other actual military alternatives, it's still a very dangerous game with such an unstable leader like Kim Jung-un in the picture, not to even mention our own rather unstable leader currently occupying the White House.
= new reply since forum marked as read
