Nuclear strike imminent

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.

Was this directed at me? If so, this sarcastic flippant remark is something I do not, nor would I ever, agree with (citations please if one disagrees though I assume this wasn't for me).

Its not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.

No more than it's "their fault" that people were born in the US

Fucking. Double. Standard.

PS. The US could respond with a limited nuclear response using tactical yield warheads on cruise missiles to take out strategic military and government targets with very little civilian collateral damage. Conventional bombing has its share of collateral damage too, you know. Especially in places where regimes use it's own people for shields.

[/quote]

This entire thread is operating on the (false and rather blizzare) pretense that NK is capable of firing a nuke to someone (SK specifically). There's no evidence of that (currently). Their pre-ICBM technology appears, at best, to be shoddy, their military, whilst numerous, is extremely poorly armed and I would argue poorly trained except for perhaps a cohort of elite fanatics close to the Kim's.

It's like 'nuke them before they nuke us' is the default position before anything else has even been considered. Sanctions are, after all, the reason why they are gesturing in the first place, and is also why the Chinese have decided to distance themselves from them. Now of course, one might rightly argue that these sanctions are only harming the populace as the elite have surrounded themselves with riches that sanctions have little effect on, but I think the effect of disenchanting china (the creator of NK) from supporting them is a massive step forward in the discourse front and will do much more for Indo-Chinese and western/ Sinic relations than any nuclear strike ever will or could.

And I'm no military strategist, but I think comparing the collateral from a nuclear strike and, say, conventional missile/air strikes is kind of ludicrous, don't you? I'm not an idiot. Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war, and despite being undesirable, it's a reality that all military planners factor into their equations (I assume). I'm an not operating under that false and invented pretense. But really, "lets nuke 'em becuase that'll show them how a real nuclear power does it" just seems, you know, pretty silly, and not thought out, probably becuase its silly, and not thought out. It reeks of emotional reactionism as opposed to a thoroughly researched and thought out, longitudinal strategy.

For a far more concise and eloquent appraisal, please see:

[spoil:2k7dq3hg]

Other countries we consider allies are well within their striking range. Any military action we take against them is taken with the resolution to sacrifice those allies. If you don't think NK will huke SK if the US attacks them then you simply don't know enough about NK.

Also I am not exactly sure what makes you think that missile interception technology is perfect, because it certainly is not. One mistake and a city gets nuked.

I don't advocate a pre-emptive strike, I'm saying that if this developed into a full-scale conflict NK would be utterly destroyed, civillian casualties would be huge though, obviously.

The second point wasn't about missile interception, although I suppose it could have been worded better. I was saying that they don't have the capability to miniaturise nuclear wepaons into warheads, and their ability to even accurately use an ICBM is doubtful. I'm saying that the USA probably has absolutely vast amounts of intelligence and surveillance data on NK and that if a conflict broke out any kind of missile base or airbase would be taken out of action almost immediately.

North Korea simply aren't capable of launching a nuclear warhead at the US at the moment. Their only option for nuking somewhere is to drop a bomb from a plane, which would only be possible just outside their own airspace, which although devastating, would also be suicidal. Just about the only place they're capable of dropping a nuclear bomb is on the border with S.Korea, which would be in their own front yard. Perhaps their dear leader is crazy enough to do something that stupid, but in any case they're absolutely not a threat to the US.

I don't think it is possible for N. Korea to be stupid enough to attack us... We can blow them off the map with 1 Boomer and they wouldn't even know where it came from...

They physically can't. They have no way of getting their huge army anywhere near the US and nothing to hit the US with from where they're sitting unless their claims about being able to hit the sea around Alaska are true, which they probably aren't.

All they can attack are US interests abroad and US servicemen and women in bases in the region.

Although NK missile sites would undoubtedly be struck quickly, some sites are still going to have an opportunity to launch their missiles.  And although some of them would fail or be shot down, there's the distinct possibility that some of them would hit their targets.  And there is also plenty of artillery trained on Seoul.  In a military confrontation with NK, South Korea would definitely have civilian casualties, unfortunately.

This is true.

A full-scale modern war in which two countries completely fight it out until another is destroyed hasn't really happened before though, and it is difficult to imagine that it ever could without huge numbers of civillian casualties.

I do think that conflict with N.Korea should absolutely be avoided for this reason, but them starting one would be completely suicidal.

[/spoil:2k7dq3hg]

[Nonsensei]

I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?

Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."

In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.

Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?

[Jmpty]

I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?

Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."

In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.

Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?

Sounds alot like the rhetoric that I heard before the Iraq invasion.

[Nonsensei]

I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?

Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."

In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.

Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?

Sounds alot like the rhetoric that I heard before the Iraq invasion.

Are you suggesting that this is a lie, and that North Korea cant ever develop these capabilities?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

China may have a surprise for NK to let them know this shit won't fly on their border aside from sanctions. If NK were stupid enough to launch an attack at their largest trading partner the people in Beijing will be unhappy to say the least.

[Hydra009]

Wow. It's really sad to see an obvious political bad move -a lame repeat at that-  turning into "We would blow them up in a second! Nukes are awesome! We would use these ones, no wait, those ones are better. We have them all. We are the most powerful one!" I am adding "God Bless America!" here. Seems like it is missing.

You know, looking through this thread, almost no one here seriously advocates nukes and plenty, including myself, have come out against such a move.  I'm not even sure the guy who brought up "glassing Pyongyang" meant it seriously.  There's this stereotype of Americans as nuke-happy warmongers, and while it's a somewhat accurate depiction of our more hawkish citizenry, it's definitely not the case in this thread.

[Jmpty]

I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?

Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."

In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.

Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?

Sounds alot like the rhetoric that I heard before the Iraq invasion.

Are you suggesting that this is a lie, and that North Korea cant ever develop these capabilities?

I'm suggesting that if we attacked everyone who doesn't like us on the premise that they may be able to hurt us in the future, we would be very busy, and more despised in the international community than we already are.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

*offtopic, but google maps is surprisingly detailed on NK despite its notorious secrecy. They've even got the 'non-existent' gulags labeled...chilling stuff (I read nonsensei's early link).

[Nonsensei]

I'm suggesting that if we attacked everyone who doesn't like us on the premise that they may be able to hurt us in the future, we would be very busy, and more despised in the international community than we already are.

You seem to be more worried about our image than our safety. What North Korea feels toward us goes well beyond mere dislike. They have threatened us repeatedly. People seem to take that as something of a joke because they don't yet have the power to carry out their threat. I find it disturbing that people like that frequently seem incapable of considering or unwilling to consider the possibility that that will not always be the case.

I also resent the idea that advocating dealing with North Korea sooner rather than later somehow equates to us attacking everyone who could ever be a threat. And if the internation community gets their panties in a twist over a government like one running North Korea ceasing to exist then what the fuck good are they?

[Hydra009]

Those people may be bad at making politics, but they have every reason to see US as a threat or 'hate' it.

Hrrm.  Maybe.  But aside from US interference in a war that was over almost 60 years ago (a war that NK initiated) and ongoing sanctions involving basically the entire world, there's little the US in particular has done to gripe about.  The NK government was and is their real threat.

-United States has already used nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

As an alternative to an even costlier occupation and a quick end to a world war.  And since then has refrained from their use, built up a huge arsenal during the Cold War, voluntarily dismantled much of it, and strongly discouraged other nations from acquiring them (with mixed success), lest a nuclear war happen.

-United States has attacked various places on the planet and killed hundreds of thousands of people, STILL is killing civilians.

As part of an interventionist foreign policy, typically targeting brutal dictatorships.  And often as a result of militarily weaker nations up shit creek and calling for aid (South Korea, Kuwait, Kosovo, etc).  And with an increasing effort put into minimizing civilian casualties.  

Obviously, there have been plenty of downright terrible moves there (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and Iraq II, among others), but yanno, omitting the stated intent and skipping right to the civilian deaths paints a grossly misleading picture.

-Unites States produces nuclear weapons, but DICTATES only a club it approves has the right to do the same, under the conditions only it approves.

Lest they fall into the hands of countries that would actually use them.  Limiting nuclear proliferation has actually been one of the US's more admirable efforts, imho.

-United States basically has used/ and still uses every kind of offensive policy in every level against any country which refuses to obey its own benefit.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean so I'll leave it alone.

[Nonsensei]

Get ready to read some adjectives son.

[SilentFutility]

*offtopic, but google maps is surprisingly detailed on NK despite its notorious secrecy. They've even got the 'non-existent' gulags labeled...chilling stuff (I read nonsensei's early link).

There's not a lot North Korea can really do about a satellite taking pictures of it, and a lot of people are really interested in looking at North Korea.

I'm sure US military intelligence has absolutely vast amounts of satellite imagery of the country. A lot of knowledge of their armed forces comes from satellite imaging.

I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?

Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."

In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.

Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?

I'm not sure really.

On one hand, a North Korea with weaponry that could kill tens of thousands of innocent civillians is not a nice thought at all, on the other, is it really okay to just attack them?

What would you suggest as a strategy for dealing with them? If you don't have an alternative and are just throwing ideas out there that's fine, just wondering if you did have an alternative in mind.

So basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.

Its not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.

No more than it's "their fault" that people were born in the US

Fucking. Double. Standard.

Why is saying that when attacking a country whose peasant population is brutally oppressed by a tyrannical dictator with a personality cult who runs a police state where if you don't eat your grass and sing his praises like the rest of them you get sent to be worked to death or just tortured and killed, care should be taken to kill as few of them as possible a bad thing?

If they need to be dealt with because they're threatening to kill civillians, it is not an appropriate response to simply kill millions of civillians in their country just because they're not American civillians. That doesn't make them less human, nor does it make their lives worth any less.

[Jmpty]

But, they really only feel sorry for us.
http://now.msn.com/north-korean-report- ... e-homeless

[SilentFutility]

But, they really only feel sorry for us.
http://now.msn.com/north-korean-report- ... e-homeless

Laughed all the way through that, even though in reality NK is anything but funny.

Someone, somewhere knows that they are just making up the biggest load of bullshit ever though.

[Nonsensei]

I'm not sure really.

On one hand, a North Korea with weaponry that could kill tens of thousands of innocent civillians is not a nice thought at all, on the other, is it really okay to just attack them?

What would you suggest as a strategy for dealing with them? If you don't have an alternative and are just throwing ideas out there that's fine, just wondering if you did have an alternative in mind.

Its too late for a clean takedown. No scenario of war with NK does not result in nuclear bombs exploding somewhere. We can either bite the bullet now or pay worse later. A government that regularly threatens war and nuclear strikes is something the world can do without.