Dan Minette wrote:
> One interesting point regarding air power. It is assumed that the US
> airpower can stop any talk assault. IIRC, the war in the Balkans was the
> first war ever won with air power alone. Since the problem in Korea is not
> winning a long term war but stopping an assault within 30 miles, it does not
> seem unreasonable that a combination of anti-personnel and tank mines at the
> border would be a major help.
While it's true that the Gulf War was not won with air power alone, from what
I understand, the ground war was little more than mopping up after the utter
devastation from the air war. The point being that air warfare against a
technologically inferior enemy can possibly be effective enough to neutralize
them. If, in fact, as one of the the articles suggests, there are only
certain mountain passes through which an army can advance, it seems reasonable
to assume that air strikes could easily render these impassable. Mines or no
mines, after Desert Storm and the Balkan War, the North Koreans would have to
be absolute idiots to attack South Korea.
All that being said, if the analysis of the treaty you posted is accurate, I'd
have to side with Clinton's rejection of the treaty.
Doug
