Is the author really saying that -in his view- our best options are to either:

1) Betray our democratic allies and principles by 'giving up' Taiwan to communist China? This means taking 23 MILLION people, completely disregarding their right to self-determination (and not to mention some international agreements like the Taiwan Relations Act, which obliges us to support the defense of Taiwan) or any of their wishes and simply 'trading' it away for the hope that the Chinese would come out 'on our side of things'. Seems backwards, and far too presumptuous. It also sounds a lot like the behavior of a colonial power rather than that of a modern democracy. More than anything else it would tell our other allies in the region that they are 'expendable' as well if it comes down to it, and that our alleged principles of democracy and freedom are nothing more than wordplay to allow a cheap justification for short term gains. Why would anyone trust us?

Or

2) Bomb them into dust? This is even more stupid than the first suggestion, and would likely result in regional chaos, the likes of which we are not quite prepared for. Either way, it is likely that tens of thousands would be killed by the N. Korean retaliation. There are literally thousands of artilliry peices pointed at Seoul, burried in caves and deeply entrenched. While I dont doubt for a moment our ability to eventually track down and destroy many of them early on, it is nearly impossible to 'get them all' before a horrific counter attack is launched. Either way, lots of people die, and the resulting YEARS of turmoil are not very appealing either.

Im not saying there are easy answers to this issue, but the suggestions posited by the author are ignorant and reactionary, to say the least. Humbly speaking, my advice to Mr. Pascal is simple: Grow up, learn more, READ MORE, and think outside your own narrow minded perspective for a moment.

If our real concern about N Korea is the export of technology, that is far easier to stop, through cargo interdiction. N Korea is not such a huge exporter that it would even entail that many cargo ships. If our concern is 'terrorism' from other regions, like Syria (?), again we're fighting the cold war. Terrorists don't need a nuke. Damn, has everyone forgotten 9/11? Box cutters! Those wanting to be nuclear terrorists would have to be abysmally stupid to think they needed plutonium from N Korea, smuggled from there to Syria, then smuggled into the US, or made into a missile. They have to know that there is more than enough poorly-guarded radioactive material here to carry out their evil schemes.

Seriously, isn't it time we stopped this foolish fretting and posturing? We're not going to stop N Korea from increasing their military might, nor Iran. We had better find another way to reduce the risk that any weapons will ever be used against us.

China isn't doing anything because that's the plan…lol..

duh..

Think China, Russia, N. Korea & Iran. Then think: “matadors”. Then think US = Bull.

Then go see a bullfight. Then you'll understand..

OTOH, I find the cancerous tumor imagery unsettling because this is how Iran refers to the State of Israel.

A) North Korea will never have a delivery system that can hit the US. So we really shouldn't worry about it.

B) South Korea has so much artillery pointed at them that I've heard estimates of 500k-2 million dead within 45 minutes. North Korea would have to hit them with many nukes just to equal that, so not even South Korea cares that much.

That means that the only country that “cares” is Japan, as they are outside the conventional artillery range and inside the potential nuke range…although they don't really get that much hostility.

Marc, I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you're not fully aware of the differences between North Korea's nukes/technology and say, Russia/China/etc. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I don't see how an objective study of the situation could lead someone to believe that North Korea poses any threat to people outside of its conventional one.

As a matter of principal, Taiwan is not ours to “give” to China. Taiwan is an independent nation. What we would have to do is pull our protection from Taiwan and give our blessing to China to invade and take over by force. This hardly seems the high moral ground that America should represent. Abandoning an ally, additionally, sends an unfortunate message to other allies. Will such a message invite Russia to create problems so we will pull our support for Georgia, for example? In other words, the message sent is that America will withdraw its support from allies if enough pressure is placed on us. And, as an aside, though a very real concern for a country that believes in freedom, Marc's “solution” notably ignores the will of the people of Taiwan.

On the practical side, it is simply a bad deal. China gets a robust, vibrant, economically powerful addition to its already growing economic influence in the world, a net plus. We get to pour billions (through South Korea) into a failed, dysfuntional, economic and political black hole, a net minus. And we give a Korean (port) city to China in the deal? And if the deal isn't bad enough, our committment is to a demilitarized Korean penninsula in a continent that is already militarily dominated by China. Their military and economic dominance of the continent would be significantly enhanced, while ours would be significantly diminished.

It's a bad deal, premised on walking away from an ally, sending the wrong message to the world and founded in sacrificing our moral authority.

We do not need another “war of choice” with unknown medium and long term consequences. Didn't we just try that? The unknowns of regional instability cannot be overcome by aspirational assumptions like those contained in the article. Phrases like “greeted as liberators”, “democracy spreading throughout the region” are still ringing in our ears. The neo-con approach to foreign policy, without understanding the consequences of unilateral military action, is unsound.

“There are times to when it is necessary to strong-arm other countries into doing what’s in their own best interests and that of the entire world. And if that is not successful, then we simply have to use our military power in the best interests of our Country. All the lofty words we issue must ultimately be backed up by concrete actions, or else the U.S. risks being viewed as a paper tiger that no one on the planet would respect.”

Insanity… Absolute and total insanity!