I have to disagree pretty strongly here.
This argument completely flies in the face of the Israeli raid on the Iraq Nuclear Reactor. Either that raid worked, Iraq was shut down, and stopped producing weapons of mass Destructions, or about 2 billion people owe Georgey W an apology.
I have not seen convincing evidence that the Israeli raid actually stopped Iraq's nuclear program. Slowed it perhaps, but you can always rebuild something you built once. Yet their nuclear program was gone by the time we invaded. So...it would seem that diplomacy (or at least, a nasty embargo) DID remove a nuclear threat...or at least contributed.
However, what the Israeli air strike did do was further engender ill will and fear towards Israel, and by extension the U.S., and make further diplomacy efforts on our part more difficult, give more support to organizations like Hamas, and possibly goad countries like Iran into more saber rattling than they otherwise would have.
The less that should be learned from this is that a concise strike (Technoglically superior aircraft) against a specific Target (North Korean Nuclear Enrichment Plant) can be succesful at stopping the development of Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Delaying, certainly. Stopping, no. And invoking unfortunate side effects: you (1) point out to the adversary what the holes in their air defense network are so that they're better prepared if you go to war for real, (2) reveal to them exactly how good your intelligence on them and their facilities is, potentially endangering intelligence assets and encouraging them to tighten up on leaks, so that they're better at hiding future efforts from you (it's the old "if there's a wasp in the room, I'd rather know where it is" argument), and (3) unify their people, who might otherwise pressure the government to back off or become dismantled, behind the corrupt, paranoid government (imagine if, right before East Germany or Poland had thrown off the yoke of communist rule, we'd executed a tactical strike against a critical target...all of a sudden, the failing communist governments would have gained popular support and increased legitimacy).
Where as diplomatic efforts to reduce the military strength of an opposing falling apart quasi-terrorist communist extremist state are 0 for 468174968713498617439687164 tries.
This is flatly not true, and shows, in the best case, a failure to recognize selection bias, and at worst, a weak knowledge of history.
People tend to remember wars or failed attempts far more than they remember successful diplomatic attempts at encouraging peace or disarmament, simply because in the successful attempts, nothing happens and hence nothing more than a one minute blurb on the news mentions it.
Here's a few recent examples of disarmament/conflict avoidance that have been accomplished through diplomacy:
-South Africa (among other nations) voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons program after successfully detonating nuclear warheads, due to international pressure.
-Libya has recently abandoned its terrorist ways and joined the ranks of non-adversary nations, because of diplomatic pressure
-The Palestinian Fatah faction controlling the West Bank has avoided the conflicts that Hamas in Gaza has had, through diplomacy
-Pakistan and India have been avoiding another war for decades, despite horrible tensions, through diplomacy
-Almost all of the former Soviet republics (practically the definition of falling apart quasi-terrorist communist extremist states) gave up their WMD capabilities due to diplomatic pressures, without NATO firing a single cruise missile.
In fact, North Korea seems to be more the exception than the rule if you consider the last sixty years of history or so.
And that does require pulling any forces off the line to engage in battle. In fact, the entire operation could not be conducted by Hellfire Missiles fired from Drones and Tomahawk Strike Missiles, not require a man to do anymore then push a couple of buttons.
And the entire operation to remove Saddam was accomplished in a month. But the repercussions of that operation are still with us today. If you push a couple of buttons, and take out a North Korean enrichment plant from a base, say, just south of the DMZ, maybe North Korea decides that to prevent future such strikes they march their army through the DMZ and capture those base sites. Maybe they decide to try to knock down some of our satellites. Maybe they use it as a pretext to launch a full scale war against South Korea, since crazy failing goverments know that nothing unifies a suffering people behind them like a good war. Not probably, but not inconcievable. Especially if they are aware (as I'm sure that are) that the U.S.'s military resources ARE stretched thin right now, and the American people are likely reluctant to support more war.
No, the reason you want dialog is because you're ignorant of Human History, which has demonstrated time and time again that diplomatic arrangements have unilaterally failed to accomplish the stated objective of military disarmament. The only case was there is an exception to these rules is with the START Treaty's and talks, and the only reason THOSE are successful is because they've changed...exactly nothing. When you have enough power to blow the world away one or two million times over, what does it matter if you want to get rid of a few out dated launch systems that are just eating up your cash reserves to maintain anyway?
The only time Diplomacy has won military concessions has been when both sides have nothing to lose.
Not sure where to begin with this one. I already mentioned quite a few times in recent human history where diplomacy lead to disarmament. Also, I would disagree with your characterization of the disarmament treaties. Our stockpile today is an order of magnitude smaller than it was 25 years ago--way more than getting rid of a few outdated launch systems. Russia has seen a corresponding reduction. In fact, for all his faults, George W. has reduced the size of our stockpile more than any other president.
I would also argue that Diplomacy has won military concessions when both sides have EVERYTHING to lose--this is the funadmental principal of deterrence which has kept us out of a third world war for over sixty years despite historic mistrust, arms buildup, and tensions. Classic example--the Cuban missile crisis (just imagine what might have happened if someone had followed your advice and tried to disarm Cuba with a tactical strike!). Both sides had a lot to lose, so both stood down their militaries and Cuba was disarmed.
Either because the amount of reduce able weapons was insignificant (START Treatys) or they intended to simply start back up again (Treaty of Versailles, North Korean Agreement).
Again, you list only countries that did start back up again because when someone starts up again, it makes the news. Countries throughout history that disarmed and didn't start back up again:
-Switzerland (the Swiss used to be the most feared army in Europe)
-Sweden (the Swedes dominated northern Europe for hundreds of years)
-South Africa
-Ukraine
-Kazakstan
-Belarus
-Post WWII Japan
And the list goes on.
.
