Should we use nuclear weapons against North Korea?

US nuclear doctrine is nukes for nukes. However, our doctrine on the targets is military targets, command and control targets, supply depots and power grids -- not population centers. Would you rather more innocent South Koreans die as the Nork army came across the border?

We elect leaders to look after Americans and American interests (including allies). So yes here.

Yes I think we should. I would not be happy about any innocent lives lost, but sometimes life is just unfair. I hope that there can be a less deadly outcome to the situation in NK, however if they use their nukes then I feel we will have no other choice and I would support that action. What we did in Hiroshima was a necessary evil that ended a very deadly war and as an American I feel no shame for it. I assume I would feel the same way if we had to use such force in NK.

I think nothing should be taken off the table.

The threat of utter destruction is generally a pretty good deterrent to doing evil.

This post is simply a re-worked "trolley car" thought experiment. I suspect you will fond different views with absolutely no correlation with religions beliefs.

I'd do it just to see what it looked like.

Some say we should have demonsrated the A-bomb to the Japanese to convince them to surrender. We did, on Hiroshima! They decided to continue the war. It took Nagasaki to fully convince them!

It's a good thing, too. We were getting pretty short on nuclear weapons after Nagasaki.

As far as the Norks go, if they release nuclear weapons, then our response had better be tailored and proportionate. And, yes, we could literally kill them all. But to what purpose?

I WOULDNT WANT TO GO TO A GUN FIGHT WITH A KNIFE. IF THEY NUKE YEA ....DOUBLE NUKE THEM...GET IT OVER QUICK. IF THAT HAD BEEN THE CASE WITH ALL THE WARS THERE WOULD BE NO WARS.

Of course not. We should take out their infrastructure with as little civillian causulties as possible. First off, if Bush hadn't withdrew from the deal with North Korea that the Clintion Administration put in place, there probably wouldn't be any problems out of them. Clinton had North Korea all but shutdown. North Korea had suspended all things nuclear. Bush gets in there, backs out of the deal and Lil' Kim starts hoarding plutonium. You Bushies don't have to bring up Yongbyan, either. That was meaningless since they still have other means to make bombs and plenty of plutonium to do it with.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie 9tails:
Of course not. We should take out their infrastructure with as little civillian causulties as possible. First off, if Bush hadn't withdrew from the deal with North Korea that the Clintion Administration put in place, there probably wouldn't be any problems out of them. Clinton had North Korea all but shutdown. North Korea had suspended all things nuclear. Bush gets in there, backs out of the deal and Lil' Kim starts hoarding plutonium. You Bushies don't have to bring up Yongbyan, either. That was meaningless since they still have other means to make bombs and plenty of plutonium to do it with.

Do you blame your erectile dysfunction on Bush as well?I'm not surprised you wouldn't use nukes against an enemy of ours.You obviously hate America an everything about it except for Obama.And you only like him because the POS is trying to destroy it.He's got all his little Obamatards like you helping him with it.

zombies are brain dead and our resident one displays his with gusto. Kim had no intention of honoring any deals made.

''''if Bush hadn't withdrew from the deal with North Korea that the Clintion Administration put in place, there probably wouldn't be any problems out of them. Clinton had North Korea all but shutdown. North Korea had suspended all things nuclear.''''
Zom,
Try reading a history book instead of Huff and Puff for facts. Clinton had NOTHING.


As for nukes,
I pray it will not come to that. The devastation for Japan lasted through many generations with birth defects and mutations. It is a horrible thing. I know it was the last resort in WWII and had to be done, but I pray there will be more deterrents of a less drastic manner.

Lots of things to think about here. Kim's survival has been his primary focus for years. Now we are looking at succession issues with his youngest son and the instability associated with such a transition. These modern day "monarchy" like communist dictatorships do not have a good record of survival. It remains to be seen if the military hierarchy would follow Kim to the grave. Use the bomb - lose power and die. It is a failed state, isolated and precarious. Who knows what they will do? I support protecting our interests and those of our allies.

quote:

First off, if Bush hadn't withdrew from the deal with North Korea that the Clintion Administration put in place, there probably wouldn't be any problems out of them.

Z9, you got this one wrong. Clinton made a deal with NK, with Jimmeh Cahtahs' help, that was essentially food for nuclear disarmament. NK broke the deal by reactivating their nuclear facilities. Bush had no choice.

The Norks are notoriously dishonest, making diplomacy difficult, even if they were in the mood for diplomacy.

One also has to wonder how infrastructure deprivation will affect NK, there is so little of it there.

Very complex situation. It will be interesting.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

First off, if Bush hadn't withdrew from the deal with North Korea that the Clintion Administration put in place, there probably wouldn't be any problems out of them.

Z9, you got this one wrong. Clinton made a deal with NK, with Jimmeh Cahtahs' help, that was essentially food for nuclear disarmament. NK broke the deal by reactivating their nuclear facilities. Bush had no choice.

The Norks are notoriously dishonest, making diplomacy difficult, even if they were in the mood for diplomacy.

One also has to wonder how infrastructure deprivation will affect NK, there is so little of it there.

Very complex situation. It will be interesting.

DF

I equate North Korea to a run down house. You have to gut it and rebuild to have anything of value. I say do it now. The people there are opressed and starving and there would be little opposition.

I read in a previous post by another member "to nuke'em now, I'd like to see what it looks like". It may be a little radical but maybeeeee. Oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

First off, if Bush hadn't withdrew from the deal with North Korea that the Clintion Administration put in place, there probably wouldn't be any problems out of them.

Z9, you got this one wrong. Clinton made a deal with NK, with Jimmeh Cahtahs' help, that was essentially food for nuclear disarmament. NK broke the deal by reactivating their nuclear facilities. Bush had no choice.

The Norks are notoriously dishonest, making diplomacy difficult, even if they were in the mood for diplomacy.

One also has to wonder how infrastructure deprivation will affect NK, there is so little of it there.

Very complex situation. It will be interesting.

DF

Bravo Sierra. Bush had plenty of time to keep North Korea under control. He placed them on the stupid "axis of evil" list in 2001. In 2002 Bush had already said that a deal was out of the question and proceeded to insult Lil' Kim. "I loathe Kim Jong-il" comment ring a bell? That was in 2002. Lil' Kim didn't start hoarding plutonium (weapon grade) until 2003. Clinton was close to bombing Pyongyang, but worked really hard on an alternative. You know what? Clinton found one. He kept North Korea in check and they tested 0 nukes.

Are the South Koreans "Suks" or "Soks"?

NKorea won't use nukes. They have nothing to gain by doing so, and everything to lose.

But should they lose their minds and do so, then they should be hunted down and disposed of like rabid dogs.

Z9,

It's not quite that simple.

And, if W had every reason to loathe Kim, his indelicate diplomacy is a shadow of the language Kim uses ever day about us.

Check this out: Link

DF

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie 9tails:
Bravo Sierra. Bush had plenty of time to keep North Korea under control. He placed them on the stupid "axis of evil" list in 2001. In 2002 Bush had already said that a deal was out of the question and proceeded to insult Lil' Kim. "I loathe Kim Jong-il" comment ring a bell? That was in 2002. Lil' Kim didn't start hoarding plutonium (weapon grade) until 2003. Clinton was close to bombing Pyongyang, but worked really hard on an alternative. You know what? Clinton found one. He kept North Korea in check and they tested 0 nukes.

That we know of.

I personally don't trust NK, and I think they have had a nuke program since the 50's.

Link

Link

Regards

South Koreans are ROKs.

zombie,

The Norks didn't test nukes because they hadn't developed them at that time. Same reason we did test nukes in 1943.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor1:
South Koreans are ROKs.

zombie,

The Norks didn't test nukes because they hadn't developed them at that time. Same reason we did test nukes in 1943.

exactly

I will always believe that 1 well placed nuclear missle in Afghanistan on 9/12/01 would have been the proper response to the Taliban. So, yes if N. Korea attacked anyone or anything (with the exception of Iran) I would be all for nuking them.

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
I will always believe that 1 well placed nuclear missle in Afghanistan on 9/12/01 would have been the proper response to the Taliban. So, yes if N. Korea attacked anyone or anything (with the exception of Iran) I would be all for nuking them.

Some people act like these things are just like a video game. You can't get online with your buddies and save the world in two hours. This is a little more complicated than that. You just don't start screwing around with nukes like that. I don't want the people setting our foriegn policy to mimic the gun toting redneck in the trailer park getting mad at his hillbilly neighbor. I know that it made a lot of you feel tough when Bush said things like "dead or alive" or "bring it on", but that fake Texas cowboy (really from New Haven, Connecticut) crap made us all look stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie 9tails:

quote:

Originally posted by tcf531:
I will always believe that 1 well placed nuclear missle in Afghanistan on 9/12/01 would have been the proper response to the Taliban. So, yes if N. Korea attacked anyone or anything (with the exception of Iran) I would be all for nuking them.

Some people act like these things are just like a video game. You can't get online with your buddies and save the world in two hours. This is a little more complicated than that. You just don't start screwing around with nukes like that. I don't want the people setting our foriegn policy to mimic the gun toting redneck in the trailer park getting mad at his hillbilly neighbor. I know that it made a lot of you feel tough when Bush said things like "dead or alive" or "bring it on", but that fake Texas cowboy (really from New Haven, Connecticut) crap made us all look stupid.

What made our country look stupid was attacking Iraq. Everyone knew that Bin-Laden and the Taliban was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as soon as it happened. If we had nuked Kabul within 24 hours of the attacks we would have eliminated the Taliban and detered any future attacks on our country.
The other benefits of this would be much less loss of life. The financial costs would be tremendously less than the billions sunk into the two wars we are currently waging, which has thrown our country into a deep recession and has our economy on the verge of collapse.
The world would have condemned us for such a rash decision, but would have quickly forgiven us due to the circumstances. It will be several generations before we are forgiven for invading an innocent country and killing their children.

The US will not get the sent off like that when occupation troops left Japan - a parade with the population waiving US flags. However, if the invasion works and Iraq becomes the first nascent democracy in muslim arab lands, their children will be thankful.

You can teach people who've never had democracy to be democracies. The US has about four good examples. OK, maybe we failed on France, but I didn't count it.

Libs don't get it, apparently because they're not fans of democracy. Most we see on this forum are big socialist apologists, though. Here're two hints:

DEMOCRACIES DO NOT GO TO WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER

and

DEMOCRACY SPREADS

A reasonable reason to hope for a viable democracy in the middle east, and one worth the blood we have spilled, and will spill in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Libs don't get it, apparently because they're not fans of democracy. Most we see on this forum are big socialist apologists, though. Here're two hints:

DEMOCRACIES DO NOT GO TO WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER

and

DEMOCRACY SPREADS

A reasonable reason to hope for a viable democracy in the middle east, and one worth the blood we have spilled, and will spill in the future.

We have never lived in a democracy. We live in a Republic. I'm a fan of the Republic, but you don't even acknowledge that we live in one.

Zombie:

Stop interrupting the adults while we are having an adult conversation.

For your information, our form of government is a federal republic. Our society and culture is a democracy. Try to read something a little more intellectual than a comic book for a change.

Now go wait in the truck.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Zombie:

Stop interrupting the adults while we are having an adult conversation.

For your information, our form of government is a federal republic. Our society and culture is a democracy. Try to read something a little more intellectual than a comic book for a change.

Now go wait in the truck.

I'm the only one making any sense in this thread. If not for me, this thread would have been a complete and total failure.

True, Zombie. You're a legend in your own mind.

Were the PD of NK or however Dear LeaderII currently styles itself to lob a nuclear tipped cruise missile, a ballistic missile, or even an old fashioned left over Chinese bomber to SK or Japan or the US, I am pretty sure that it would be complete suicide for the NK leadership, and perhaps by radiation sickness and starvation as surely as it would be from any US or Chinese or Russian or UK or Indian or Pakistani or French or Israeli bomb.

I do not see how we could not as stated protocol stands, not respond with a limited tactical strike against C and C targets in NK.

It would be a grave crisis no matter where it struck, as Russia and China and Manchuria and Japan all border the NK monstrosity of a government, as the fallout would disrupt a huge part of eastern Asia. I doubt that they have the knowledge of timed fission bombs to detonate a thermonuclear bomb, however -- maybe such a bomb/s as they have tested and may still possess be only a Hiroshima or Nakisaki sized fat boy or so.

This is not a Democratic or Republican or socialist or any other party issue: we speak about the destruction of a crowded area in the most crowded area of the world here!

The world would not allow the destruction of Seoul or Vladivostok or Tokyo be allowed to stand for one moment. Not after WW II.

Here's the question: If NK announced that it had a nuclear-tipped missile, would we wait for them to use it before we protected ourselves and NK's neighboring countries?


DF

If the decision were up to rational people who understood American defensive doctrine, yes.

As it's up to Obama and that crowd, unlikely. See, if we were to destroy their nuclear-tipped missile, the progressives would claim that we couldn't find any evidence of WMDs, and go on a rant.

Or, if they launched it, it successfully detonated over some target, and then we blew the crap out of them, they would AGAIN go on a rant since the Norks don't have any MORE WMDs.

Wouldn't it be unconscionable to let them blow up Seoul or Tokyo if we could stop them?


DF

I wonder what China would say or do.

Ya gotta think China abhors the thought. The residual radiation would likely impact China.

Also, when North Korea is finished, South Korea will be upon China's border.

China is the key. They can either allow or prevent nuclear war.

Let us hope our Chinese friends do the right thing, but it will not be easy.


DF

When you have a beloved pet dog who has contracted rabies and threatens the family, there is but one acceptable course of action.

China should not wait until someone is bitten.

Agreed, and it's China's dog.


DF