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

There's nothing rational about wanting millions of Korean civilians to die. As Lanzman said, what the fuck is wrong with you?

And why are you avoiding the fact that saber-rattling is what NK does all the time, except on Tuesdays?

Those were my own words, you moron.
Cold and detached analysis is never more relevant than when lives are at stake from idiotic leaders threatening each other with nukes.

I don't "want" millions of Korean civilians to die from a U.S. attack.

Just as I didn't "want" millions of Koreans civilians to die through direct or indirect actions of their own government over the last few decades.

Just because "saber-rattling" is frequent doesn't make the "sabre's" any less dangerous.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes. And no RickDeckard I don't want to waste time talking about it with you. Go read a old thread on the subject where you were beat down on the subject.

You're so far left that you call anything a war crime. Patton farting on the Germans would probably be a war crime in your book.

IIRC, Patton did urinate in the Rhine River when the 3rd Army crossed into Germany.

Of course so did thousands of American and British soldiers.

But Patton had himself photographed doing it.

Stop agreeing with me you mass murdering wannabe war criminal.

What about the nonnuclear strike option I suggested?

The repeated flyovers by the B-1B bombers suggest that this has been considered.

Yes, you do. You fantasize about mass murder all the time, and usually inflict your fantasies on the RR. You'd be better off playing some violent video games in order to vent the evil in your soul in a way that harms no one else.

I don't fantasize about mass murder.

In general I dislike violence. I simply understand it to be part of the human condition and as an educator I wish to understand it.

I do play A Naval Battle.

Does that count?

http://www.canopian.com/fullscreengames/a-naval-battle.html

As Jamie Lannister once said never make a threat you are not prepared to carry out other wise you look like a fool and no one will believe you the next time you make a threat. Trump is too stupid to understand this.

I just wish every time a Democrat president leaves office he didn't give our enemies nuclear weapons.

While history may repeat itself, it's not open to recreation by experimentation. Opinions will have to suffice unless you're Hari Seldon.

Opinions are a varying degree of good and bad depending on supporting arguments.

I'm not qualified to have an opinion, but one such opinion might be that dropping the bombs was not necessary, especially with information that was learned after the bombing. This doesn't make the decision used in 1945 wrong. They may have had bad/incomplete data.

I will weigh opinions by others based on their reasoning and backgrounds.

What's your opinion on dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Firebombing Tokyo, Hamburg or Dresden?

This thread....

Dayton: Hmmmm....


Dayton: Preemptively nuking people!


Wordforge: Um, no that's a bad idea

Dayton: Disagree, you're all wrong


Wordforge: Yeah no, that's a really bad idea Dayton

Dayton: Think of how awesome it would be you guys! All those dead Koreans!


Wordforge: You're a monster

Dayton: Monster you say?


Wordforge: Seriously, what's wrong with you?

Dayton: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA


NUUUUKES


Wordfroge: Jesus Christ Dayton

Dayton: Case Closed

At this point can't we just give Dennis rodman a poison injector ring and send him back in

You're forgetting about China. It's not in their economic or geopolitical interests for an exchange of nukes between North Korea and the United States.

If things really do start to go beyond the bullshit sabre-rattling, I expect they'll take care of business.

Would I support a nuclear first strike against North Korea? No.

Would I support the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea if they attacked first with nuclear weapons? Yes, but limited only to military/strategic targets.

It ain't Kimmy by himself I worry about.

He's a fucktard, but I'm sure he's aware that the minute he blows up a nuke, we will retaliate and his life as king of North Korea is over. OTOH, I have no such faith in Trump not to light up the place because someone mocked his tiny hands. As Elwood said, we've got General Matthis at the helm, which is one more voice of reason than NK has, and I hope that if Trump tried to push an unauthorized strike that he would be....taken care of swiftly.

And you'll instruct the radiation not to extend beyond the military/strategic targets.

You can minimize any radioactive contamination by using air bursts in the attack.

Remember that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were left as radioactive wastelands despite being attacked with primitive "dirty" fission bombs.

No, but I'd consider populations downwind in selecting targets.

Violence is only one part of war, however. Do you remember the scene in the novel ('cause it wasn't really in the film) Starship Troopers where one of the grunts asks why they're bothering sneaking around trying to assassinate someone when they could simply drop a nuke on them? And the instructor explains that by assassinating one person they're sending a very specific message to certain people? Do you remember that? Why waste a nuke (or hundreds of nukes) when simply whacking one guy will solve the problem, for far less money?

If you want some scenarios for taking care of Lil' Kim without slaughtering millions of people and lobbing nukes everywhere, I'll give them to you.

Have Chinese government officials "casually" say something to some of the North Korean generals along the lines of, "Boy, it must be rough being Lil' Kim. I mean, he's got to know that if somebody killed him, and then offered to turn over all of North Korea's weapons and missile programs to somebody like the US, they'd probably get billions of dollars in exchange." Ya think that one of Lil' Kim's generals isn't going to pick up on the idea that he could make a shit ton of money for a couple seconds worth of work, pushing his crazy boss out a window?

If you're worried that this may not work, that's okay, I've got another solution for you. Little more explodey, a number of people might die, but you still wouldn't find yourself mentioned in the same breath as certain other world leaders, like a guy who used to hang wallpaper for a living and a former editor of Pravda. It's a bit complicated, because it requires the cooperation of China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and the US, but it could be done.

While you're waiting to see if someone's going to shove Lil' Kim into an elevator shaft or something, you start building some specialized stealth aircraft, probably drones, because they'd have a much lower radar profile, and each one of them has to be capable of carrying a MOAB.

Then, the nations that I mentioned all have to agree to get really pissy over something insignificant in the area. Like China building fake islands or something. This enables all parties to start moving more forces into the area, without it looking like they're going for Lil' Kim's pretty head.

Then, when you're reasonably certain that Lil' Kim is at one of those giant pageants he seems to enjoy so much, you drop a MOAB on the place. As the MOAB's on it's way down, cruise missiles hit North Korea's air defense systems, launch facilities, some of the artillery batteries, and the outskirts of the concentration camps*. You follow this up almost immediately with planes dropping food and leaflets announcing Kim's death, demanding the surrender of the country within a short period of time, and offering safe passage out of the country to any military leaders who wish to get out of there.** Simultaneously, you drop paratroopers at every known North Korean nuclear facility.

If North Korea surrenders, the combined allied forces move in, and begin the process of turning the place into a first world nation. If the North Koreans decide they want to fight, the allied forces move in from the outside, as well as drop more equipment to their forces at the nuke facilities, so that they can link up with the main bodies of forces, and get that shit out the country. They continue to drop food and leaflets, while fighting the North Korean army (assuming they don't fold up like much of Saddam's army did when shit got real).


*You do this because it can potentially split the thinking processes of the people in charge of North Korea. If the folks in the concentration camps start running around, at least some of the generals are going to be worried about an internal threat, in addition to the external threats now moving against them. Divide and conquer, baby. Divide and conquer.

**Yeah, I know, the military leaders are probably just as bad as Lil' Kim, if slightly less crazy. Telling them that they've got a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, however, could discourage them from deciding to stand and fight. The newly reunited Republic of Korea can always go after them later. Guys probably won't be all that hard to find, I'm sure.

Why is he holding fundraisers already then? He is way beyond being a foolish man too.

It's a very small country. Can't see why a few bunker-busters wouldn't be "I shall avenge you" enough.

There are very good reasons that nations don't use assassination of other nations leaders as a primary tool of war.

It goes back to one of the (in)famous sackings of a major city (Rome IIRC).

The leader of the attacking army was killed in the final assault. With the army leaderless they mercilessly raped and plundered the city.

This concept of avoiding attacking the leader of an enemy nation has even more relevance in the nuclear age. Kill the leader of a nuclear power and all central control of the nuclear arsenal might well be lost. No one to order his forces to surrender or stand down.

IIRC from what I've read about nuclear targeting during the Cold War there were major debates in both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. about targeting each other capital cities because it was thought to be advantageous for the other sides military/political leaders to remain alive.

Though in the case of Moscow it didn't really matter as the British (whom the U.S. did not control) had a thing about their targeting to "make certain they nuked Moscow" assigning literally

When the game becomes nuclear, it isn't just about vengeance. It's about thoroughly erasing their ability to make war.

Those sites near population centers would be attacked with cruise missiles and, once air defenses were suppressed, with bombers.

If we know where their nukes are stored, special forces would be sent in to secure/destroy them.

Funny, we've done it, or attempted it a number of times in the not too distant past.

Completely unapplicable in this case.

In an ultra-centralized nightmare like North Korea, however, nobody has an incentive to fight if the leader is dead. It doesn't matter if there's a formal surrender if all the troops throw down their weapons and run away.

This ain't the Cold War, and we ain't going up against the Russians.