Would You Support A U.S. Nuclear First Strike Against North Korea?

Assuming the North Koreans show they are capable of hitting U.S. territory (not necessarily the mainland the U.S.) with a ballistic missile carrying a nuclear weapon.

Would you support the U.S. launching a preemptive nuclear strike?

I would assume that it would involve at least 100 nuclear weapon from the U.S. in total. About half in the hundreds of kiloton range in size to destroy North Korean nuclear weapons, delivery systems and facilities and the other have low kiloton range weapon (5 kilotons or so) use against artillery and missile sites in North Korea that threaten Seoul, SK. and its environs.

At another forum it was estimated that this would kill from 2-5 million North Koreans. A staggering number to be sure.

But is it worth losing a U.S. city to avoid it?

No.

Do you mind explaining why not?

Live look at Dayton's POV right now:

Any missile from North Korea shot towards the USA will either:
1) Be shot down
2) Fail and crash into the ocean

I'm more worried about Japan.

I thought everyone was claiming that there is no defense against an ICBM and that our ABM systems won't work.

I thought I was hearing positive things about the tests they've been doing?

We might be able to shoot a nuclear missile down.

But we would still have to retaliate with nuclear weapons anyway.

Well, if you'll volunteer to deliver it:

Well, yeah. Of course you would have to.

But the ability to shoot down missiles or the fact North Korea has a fucking awful track record when it comes to the reliability of their military hardware means that a preemptive strike that kills millions probably isn't all that necessary.

From the OP, I figured he would just go at it while dry handing it furiously.

1. Then it wouldn't be a first strike.

2. No we wouldn't.

Remember when we had a tough president who didn't bow down to communist thugs? Lol

Why did we embargo Cuba but not North Korea?

Has anyone thought how the "preppers" are taking this? I bet they are salivating over the idea that they can eat their over-priced "survival rations" and watch their neighbors shit themselves trying to get into their shelters!

Because we can't embargo a peninsula.

All this is starting to make me lean a little more prepper.

Are you talking about the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba that lasted (basically still) for decades or are you talking about the naval blockade (referred to by the Kennedy Admin. as a 'quarantine' because a blockade is an act of war) during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I wouldn't support a first strike on any country.

What we have is two unstable heads of state spewing out nonsense in an effort to stay in power through fear.

President Trump is not unstable. He is just a foolish man. And I doubt he is thinking of another election at this point

Okay...I think he just died. Our Wordforge nightmare is over.

There is no way the Donald could possibly think through decent alternatives and arrive at a well thought out plan and need for a nuclear strike. So given the lack of mental capabilities of our president I cannot support such a decision. Nuclear weapons should be taken off the toddler table while he is president.

Trade embargo.

In the name of sanity, what the fuck is wrong with you?!?

The answer is no. We have to literally let North Korea nuke someone before we can use nukes.

Maybe. I would not count on it. We still have a long way to go. And in a swarm attack? Forget it. We just can't do it.

They are getting better. It's only a matter of time.

Look at America. We had a shit lot of rocket failures in the 1950's but once we got it figured out things worked pretty well. Even with the occasional fuck-up.

Once they can get something that works it's not going to be a pretty world to live in.

You would prefer an American city (or city of an ally) die?

Or Andersen Air Base in Guam?