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

I would totally support nuking Arkansas.

Los Angeles could use a new paint job.

But look our hands are tied. We can not be the first to use a nuke in this situation.

You guys know that the United States IIRC has never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons.

If the worst happens, I'm just hoping Secretary Mattis comes flying across the desk with a fist to the throat asking Donnie just what is, or isn't, going through that pea-brain of his.

Yep.

But we just will not use them first in this situation.

It's one thing to tell the Russians "If you guys even look like you're about to launch we will just launch first" and another thing to nuke North Korea.

Unless you plan on bathing all of North Korea in nuclear fireballs the response from North Korea will possibly kill hundreds of thousands if not over a million people as North Korea retaliates against South Korea, Japan (American bases) and anywhere else it can reach American targets.

The United States will be instantly blamed for starting a nuclear war. By everyone. Doesn't matter what the fucktard in North Korea says. The moment we hit him with a nuke first is the moment we lose on the political front.

We are really in a fucked up position.

The only way out is if someone in North Korea pushes that fat fuck out a window and into a pit of dogs that hasn't eaten in ten days. Just to be sure.

Trump is not going to use nukes in a first strike. Stop sounding like the idiot left.

And Dayton3.

As I pointed out the goal of the 50 or so strategic nuclear warheads and the 50 or so tactical nuclear warheads would be to PREVENT the North Koreans from doing anything. Firing anything at the U.S., South Korea, or Japan.

THAT WILL JUST MAKE IT WORSE FOR AMERICA!

Holy hell, could you imagine the worlds outrage if we hit North Korea with 50 strategic warheads and 50 tactical warheads in a preemptive strike?

Oh you can't because you're a FUCKING IDIOT.

Talk about fucking overkill.

There probably even isn't 100 targets in North Korea worthy of a nuke anyway.

IIRC from what I've read about the targeting of nuclear weapons, standard doctrine is to target two nuclear warheads on every enemy nuclear target.

So 50 warheads would be targeted on 25 nuclear weapons or ballistic missile sites. There are probably that many.

As for the 50 small warheads (5 kilotons) targeted on the artillery and conventional missile sites near the DMZ.

Given that North Korea has around 6,000 artillery pieces that can hit Seoul it would appear there are plenty of possible targets. Even if every small nuclear weapon knocked out 20 or 30 emplacements each.

You would literally put nuclear fireballs on the border with South Korea.

You're a monster. Really.

You need to be locked up.

I wouldn't support a first strike against North Korea, but if they successfully nuke Arkansas, I would support a second strike against Arkansas.

Low yield air bursts. Minimal fallout anywhere.

Would you prefer the alternative of tens of thousands of shells raining down on Seoul and its 20 million people including 100,000 American civilians?

Do you hate America so much that you can accept 100,000 American CIVILIANS being killed by the North Korean regime when we have the power to prevent that?

What's so ennobling about that?

Can we nuke Arkansas too? Or only North Korea can do it?

I'm just asking.... for a friend.....

Hey, let's at ease the bullshit about nuking Arkansas.

You have more faith than I do. He's the first President since Reagan that I thought may actually use them in a first strike role.

No, it should not.

No, it should not.

Y'ever wonder what Jim Bakker got up to after he got out of prison?

https://store.jimbakkershow.com/product-category/food/entrees/buckets/




totally coincidentally...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-nuke-north-korea_us_598a62b3e4b0449ed5066531

Jeffress isn't a noted fruit loop like Bakker or Pat Robertson - he's pastor of one of the 15 biggest SBC congregations in the country.

RE the OP

Long read, too much to quote but, no - don't attack.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

We got through the cold war with a LOT more dangerous opponent. The best reaction to Kim is "Oh? You gotcha some nukes? Cool. Cool cool. Now what?"

Trump filed to run for re-election on January 20, 2017 and all his big rallies are arranged under his campaign committee. He never stopped running for president.

]

Did you really just equate an American (and @Zombie is actually thinking this out quite rationally) to hating America so much because they don't think a preemptive nuclear strike is a good idea?

Either this is your most brilliant troll thread or you're an even bigger idiot than we already know you are.

No-one ever starts a war they think they are going to lose.

That doesn't mean that the North Koreans would win. In the event of a one on one fight the US would turn North Korea into dust.

If you don't get all their missiles in that first strike though...congratulations, you have just guaranteed that North Korea launches anything they have at the US. As millions of refugees pour into China from the radioactive wasteland on their border you can guarantee China isn't going to be siding with the US. As South Koreans count their dead they aren't going to be looking at the US with fond eyes.

You are literally insane if you think it's a good idea.

Using 100 nukes on North Korea in a first-strike would literally count as a war crime. It would be the one time I'd support the administration being rounded up and shot. I say administration because it doesn't matter whose in the White House as POTUS. Either party.

Yes in the future things might get to a point where we nuke targets in North Korea but it could only be in retaliation for a North Korean nuclear strike. Even than the odds of us slapping that little almost 100% backwards country with 100 nukes is very low.

Given the volume (and credibility) of threats issued in general, it would perhaps make more sense to talk about a pre-emptive strike against the US.

Except of course that anyone seriously suggesting nuclear war ought to be sectioned.

especially when they border China & Russia two countries that have no problem with sticking it to the US out of spite or dick-waving if nothing else.

wow - that Jim Bakker clip - the news woman looks like she's thinking that she "sold her soul" in having to listen to this hypocritical coot ramble. Is he pitching "food in a bucket?" Sorry Jim, we have Costco and Sam's Club now. Why doesn't Jim build a Christian amusement park in NK and pack it with rusty dangerous rides? That will whittle down their population!

No, I'm not interested in having dozens of personal friends in Seoul die or suffer economic devastation because Trump and Dayton need to compensate for their small penises.

Look on the bright side. When the dust settles we get warp drive.

Oh really?

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes?