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

One could certainly argue that they qualify. The Geneva convention happened after WWII, so the definition of a war crime has changed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The fact that the U.S. has been flying B-1B bombers along the DMZ might give some indication as to what the Pentagon is thinking if it comes to military action against the North Koreans.

While B-1 can carry over 100,000 lbs. of ordnance their more typical maximum load out is IIRC about 48,000 lbs. of bombs. Or 24 Mk-84 2,000 pound weapons are their equivalent. Each more than adequate to destroy artillery in hardened emplacements.

More than 100,000 tons of ordnance are stored at Andersen Air Base on Guam. A single flight of 40 of the 67 B-1B bombers could thus destroy nearly 1,000 of the 6,000 artillery pieces threatening Seoul. So combined with short range U.S. and ROK warplanes in South Korea and aboard U.S. carriers it would with a single massive coordinated air strike be possible to decisively take out most of the weapons that are a direct threat to Seoul.

As for the nuclear facilities further north I would assume the U.S. would use a dozen or so of the B-2A Spirit bombers each carrying eight weapons each.

All of these are nonnuclear weapons of course.

Would anyone support a NONNUCLEAR preemptive attack on North Korea?

Of course they were.

Was the starvation naval blockade of Japan a war crime?

Was the firebombing of most Japanese cities a war crime?

If you say yes to both of those I'm really curious about how you think the U.S. should have fought the Japanese.

Yes Dayton. That one time we dropped 100 nukes on Japan while furiously jerking ourselves off was a war crime.

No nukes, please.

Remember that the main idea of a nuke is to guarantee the destruction of key targets within a large area without risking the crews of a whole squadron of bombers attempting precision bombing with standard unguided bombs. We had to saturate Tokyo with firebombs to make sure to get all the factories, docks and workers - 800 planes and 8,000 airmen at risk on one particular raid. Hiroshima only used 3 planes and 30 crew (1 to bomb, 1 to go ahead and check the weather, and one to observe). During the Cold War, we still needed area saturation to be sure to hit a target, so multi-megaton nukes were still the answer.

That strategy was sound until the development and widespread use of precision guided munitions - smart bombs and cruise missiles. In Desert Storm we used stealth and pinpoint smart bombs to take out Saddam's key control nodes without having to nuke Baghdad.

If we know where Little Kim's launch sites are, and that's the key of course, we can take them out from offshore with conventional sub-launched cruise missiles, or a single B-2 mission using JDAMs. And I'm pretty sure our satellite recon can find them well enough.

As for first strike, well, considering that the Korean War never actually ended and is technically still going on, would it even be a first strike if we sally forth and blow up his missiles?

In today's context, yes.

Then? It's debatable.

See sig.

We've had this discussion several times in great detail.

Again - firebomb raid on Tokyo: 800 B-29s, 8,000+ US servicemen at risk. 15 square miles of Tokyo gutted in one night, 150,000 Japanese killed.
Hiroshima: 3 planes, 30 crew risked (in fact, the Japanese assumed it was a recon flight and didn't even try to shoot them down). only 5 square miles destroyed, similar casualties.

So why was one a war crime and the other just plain ol' war? Both were horrific. Both were necessary.

Ask Rick Deckard. He claims we've discussed it all before and he has all the answers.

I'm not aware of anyone who takes the position that nuclear weapons were wrong but destruction of cities by fire was just fine.

@Dayton3: every time we discuss this you end up lying about it, pretending that I'm opposed to World War II being fought at all and other such nonsense. So what's the point?

Firebombing/carpet-bombing civilian populations today would be a war crime. As you've pointed out, things have changed.

Do you think Harry advocated ignoring history and not trying to learn from it?

One would hope we all want to learn from it. Doesn't change what DID happen and why. Opinions on Hiroshima and Nagasaki colored by today's sensibilities are just that - opinons. Then, it was the decision that was made, for reasons that were clear then.

In fact we did learn from it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been cited as a major reason WWIII never happened - the results of a nuclear attack were not hypothetical after that; world leaders know exactly what would happen, and all but the looniest want nothing to do with it. Without those two strikes, we may have been doomed to much worse later.

I'll freely admit that you were NOT opposed to World War Two being fought.

If you are willing to specify the weapons and tactics that you believe were justified in being used to fight it.

Isn't that a reasonable request?

If I recall correctly it was Confederate raider leader John Mosby who said openly that the only reason the South bothered to fight the Civil War was over slavery later said simply:

Every man deserves to be judged according to the time in which he lived.

How were those "first strikes"?

Not. Separate issue.

It's reasonable to ask the question. It's not reasonable to infer that since you don't agree with my answer that you have the right to lie about it. Nor is it reasonable to pretend every time this comes up that you've never heard any of the counter-arguments to your own position.

The answer is as always, banal and routine - a just war can be waged by a competent authority when peaceful methods are unavailable, targeting only military personnel, in a proportionate way with a defined and realistic goal that makes the situation better, and only when there's a realistic possibility of success.

IIRC Rick, you do not think I'm very smart.

can you please explain what that means?

If there are words in that sentence which you can't comprehend (or if you've never heard of just war theory before) then you're simply proving your stupidity.

You guys do realize that this whole dog&pony show is just an attempt to distract FOX viewers from the Mueller investigation.

I asked you to explain it because if you take what you posed literally, no military force that was severely outnumbered and outgunned would be allowed to fight back because they "didn't have a realistic possibility of success".

Also, what exactly is a "realistic goal that makes the situation better"? Better for which side? Obviously the losing side is very unlikely to end up "better" even if its all military personnel who die.

How do you gauge a "proportionate" military action? By most standards an attacking force is supposed to outnumber the defending force a minimum of 3 to 1? Is that proportionate? And what authority decides what is "proportionate" anyway?

And a "peaceful method" is always available. One side could surrender. There is nothing more peaceful than that. Saddam Hussein was offered that option prior to the U.S. led invasion in 2003. Wasn't he then obligated to take it as that was the "peaceful method"?

And finally, how do you define what exactly is "competent authority"? One could make a strong argument that Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the beginning of World War Two was not a "competent authority". He was a man with a history of what many considered warmongering rhetoric and politically repeatedly swapping parties to gain the maximum possible political advantage.

So surely you understand why you need to explain what you mean instead of simply reciting boilerplate.

Oh yeah. I'm sure Kim whomever other there is sabre rattling just to change what's being reported on FOX

Is it your impression that the Kims, father and son, have never done this before?

BTW, how many millions of Korean civilians would have to die for you to feel good about yourself?

I provided a summary of the usually agreed upon conditions for a just war. If you require an exhaustive analysis of all these conditions, there is an extensive literature available. I am shocked that you have not come across it during your reading, which you maintain is more extensive than just about anyone else here.

There is of course, a lot of debate about this stuff. Unfortunately it does not usually venture into the territory of whether annihilating an entire people in nuclear fire to the sound of FAP, FAP, FAP is justified, so maybe it can't help you.

What makes you think this has anything to do with how I feel? I don't take policy positions based on how they "make me feel".

Cold detached academic type analysis doesn't really strike me as relevant. Especially when lives are at stake in the real world.

If you're unable to actually articulate an argument of your own in your own words and think for yourself Rick just say so.

I won't hold it against you.

Not out loud anyway.