If they have enough time. They might consider what preparations they can begin making now and not wait for two or three years to begin a cold start toward unification (though I know they are not really waiting)
But I will again ask the question to US policy makers. What is the US doing in terms of developing a plan to support the ROK in achieving unification because unification is the only way to both end the north's nuclear program and stop the horrific suffering of the Korean people living in the north who are subjected to some of the worst human rights abuses in modern history at the hands of the mafia-like crime family cult of the Kim Family Regime.
Panel pushes to finish unification preparation in 3 yrs
Video at the link. Can't tell if this is real or trick photography. I am sure that if it is real that no American taught them to do something like this (or at least I hope not).
CATEGORY: ENDURING FREEDOM
N. Korea ready to fire medium-range Nodong missiles: military source
MARSOC SHARES GLIMPSE INTO ASSESSMENT, SELECTION
By Sgt. Donovan Lee, Defense Media Activity
NewsDisplay/tabid/3258/ Article/571247/marsoc-shares- glimpse-into-assessment- selection.aspx?utm_content= buffer3041c&utm_medium=social& utm_source=twitter.com&utm_ campaign=buffer
But beyond the knee-jerk criticism, the president’s National Security Strategy is not just a bowl of rice pudding. Although readers won’t find a strategy aimed at a unitary threat with clear ends, ways, and means, there is a pretty coherent philosophy at work. This strategy is the second and last of Obama’s presidency, and it rightly describes a world beset by challenges and in dire need of American leadership (“lead,” “leader,” and “leadership” appear 94 times in the context of the United States’ role in the world). It is not “leading from behind,” as the president’s restless and war-ready critics love to claim. Nor is it hard-charging unilateralism.Instead, the world of President Obama’s National Security Strategy is one in which the United States’ economic and military might serve as the bedrock of strong, participatory, and rules-based global institutions. It’s smart multilateralism—working within the international system while also being willing to bear the burden of defending it, although not always with military power. This is likely as close as we’ll get to an “Obama Doctrine.” As the president told West Point graduates in a major foreign policy address last year:Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only—or even primary—component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader—and especially your Commander-in-Chief—to be clear about how that awesome power should be used.
A lot of good words. The problem in my mind is that a strong leader does not telegraph his strategy or publicly remove any options, e.g., a superpower can never remove military force as an option and in fact by leaving military force on the table and demonstrating not only the capability but the will to use it, can actually result in better diplomacy and in fact allows a leader to always be able to lead with diplomacy and refrain from using military force. But stating self-restraint in public (in the vain hope that it will generate good will for the US) can lead to self defeat in statecraft.