Korea

[freeatlast]

couple of things to note. 1) you have no idea what actions I have taken whether Charitable or not. 2) And being to the point, though commendable, is not a vitue when you suggest Nuking people.

The United States Maintains nuclear warheads and weapons to act as a deterant. The hope is never to use them. N. Korea has a tyranical government and is starving its own people to death. Nuclear weapons do not make a distinction between Tyrants, and innocents. S. Korea has a right to defend itself and can do that effectively without immediately using nukes.

That is certainly one opinion, however I have another. Nukes are not simply a deterrent, they are also a weapon and one that we hoipe we do not have to use, but that goes for any weapon. I was not seeking to show charity when I said to nuke them out of existence. In this case my charity is not nuking them until the time is needed to defend against their aggression. At that time it is no more about charity, but about survival. Charity is certainly commendable in the face of loosing your life and if I so decided to do that it would be my choice, but in the case of a leader I do not believe that they have the right to offer another's life for the purpose of their charity.
That includes you. If you want to offer them unconditional charity, even God does not do that, go ahead. But get first in line to offer it and be first in line to fall when you're charity is met with a bullet.
I need to go and bake some pies.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is certainly one opinion, however I have another. Nukes are not simply a deterrent, they are also a weapon and one that we hoipe we do not have to use, but that goes for any weapon. I was not seeking to show charity when I said to nuke them out of existence. In this case my charity is not nuking them until the time is needed to defend against their aggression. At that time it is no more about charity, but about survival. Charity is certainly commendable in the face of loosing your life and if I so decided to do that it would be my choice, but in the case of a leader I do not believe that they have the right to offer another's life for the purpose of their charity.
That includes you. If you want to offer them unconditional charity, even God does not do that, go ahead. But get first in line to offer it and be first in line to fall when you're charity is met with a bullet.
I need to go and bake some pies.

This may come as a suprise to you but S. Korea and the United States both have tactical weapons that are effective and efficient and precise which will destroy their military and leadership with minimal injury to the overall populace. We also can work to destabalize their government and allow an internal insurection which in this case is possible since many dream of reunification on both sides. All of this can be accomplished without nukes. Which would be disasterous for the world. I never suggested not using a military option. I just profer the thought that the use of nukes in this case is irrational.

 

[freeatlast]

This may come as a suprise to you but S. Korea and the United States both have tactical weapons that are effective and efficient and precise which will destroy their military and leadership with minimal injury to the overall populace. We also can work to destabalize their government and allow an internal insurection which in this case is possible since many dream of reunification on both sides. All of this can be accomplished without nukes. Which would be disasterous for the world. I never suggested not using a military option. I just profer the thought that the use of nukes in this case is irrational.

While you seek to destabilize their government (the North) they continue to kill your people. I don't want you as my leader and I would not follow you.. However Like I said you have your belief and I have mine. In my response it was with the idea that if war was needed because of the constant aggression of the North that the South should not announce their intentions so as to allow the other guy to be able to retaliate, DUH. You simply attack decisively and overwhelm them with a nuke attack wiping them out. End of problem. Then you have reunification but it comes from one side.
The problem here is that the US has about 25,000 troops in the South and to allow the North the upper hand to kill these people in part or the whole is not good leadership. And as long as the North is an allie we have a responsibility to them as well as to those troops and charity does not fit in that equation. it would be different if the South was the aggressor, but they are not.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

However Like I said you have your belief and I have mine. You simply attack decisively and overwhelm them with a nuke attack wiping them out. End of problem.

Seriously? Wow. Wipe out all N. Koreans leaving years of radiation to despoil the ground causing fall out on the south with innumerable cases of cancers and radiation sickness. Yeah, like thats a real solution.

 

[freeatlast]

Seriously? Wow. Wipe out all N. Koreans leaving years of radiation to despoil the ground causing fall out on the south with innumerable cases of cancers and radiation sickness. Yeah, like thats a real solution.

Yes it is a solution. It may not be one you like but it is a solution to bring the end of the North's aggression. By the way the South would not necessarily suffer radiation. During WW2 when the bomb was dropped they whole of Japan did not suffer radiation poisoning. Mostly just those in the area of the blasts. Still my solution would save more then yours in the South and that is what matters. Your call for charity for the enemy would kill thousands of your own.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes it is a solution. It may not be one you like but it is a solution to bring the end of the North's aggression. By the way the South would not necessarily suffer radiation. During WW2 when the bomb was dropped they whole of Japan did not suffer radiation poisoning. Mostly just those in the area of the blasts. Still my solution would save more then yours in the South and that is what matters. Your call for charity for the enemy would kill thousands of your own.

WW2 was a different era and the nations involved were equally matched somewhat. This is a different age with much better tactical weapons we can defeat the Northern Korean army and tople the dictatorship without killing all the civilians and people trying to make it till tomorrow. Look at how many people american combitants died in Iraq or afghanistan. Compare that with the casualties of just June 6th 1944. Also compare the number of non combatant deaths to that of World War 2. We live in a much different time. You're solution would kill more people leave more sick and make much of the land useless. My solution would in the end kill less people. Yours might even lead to a WW3 senario as well as destroying the Korean Peninsula.

BTW the two bombs we dropped had a lot smaller yeild than our nuclear weapons of today. At that time they weren't even sure what the results would be. However both Nagasaki and Heroshima have had years of problems with radiation, birth defects, etc...

 

[Don]

Yes it is a solution. It may not be one you like but it is a solution to bring the end of the North's aggression. By the way the South would not necessarily suffer radiation. During WW2 when the bomb was dropped they whole of Japan did not suffer radiation poisoning. Mostly just those in the area of the blasts. Still my solution would save more then yours in the South and that is what matters. Your call for charity for the enemy would kill thousands of your own.

I was really hoping that at some point, you'd admit that you were just joking.

To compare the nuclear weapons of today with the ones used against Japan indicates a lack of understanding. It's like looking at the M-1 carbine and saying that today's M-16 or AK-47 is no different, although they're smaller, lighter, and shoot a lot more bullets in a lot less time.

In other words, same as in another thread where I said this to you: You don't fully understand the entire situation of what you're talking about.

 

[freeatlast]

WW2 was a different era and the nations involved were equally matched somewhat. This is a different age with much better tactical weapons we can defeat the Northern Korean army and tople the dictatorship without killing all the civilians and people trying to make it till tomorrow. Look at how many people american combitants died in Iraq or afghanistan. Compare that with the casualties of just June 6th 1944. Also compare the number of non combatant deaths to that of World War 2. We live in a much different time. You're solution would kill more people leave more sick and make much of the land useless. My solution would in the end kill less people. Yours might even lead to a WW3 senario as well as destroying the Korean Peninsula.

BTW the two bombs we dropped had a lot smaller yeild than our nuclear weapons of today. At that time they weren't even sure what the results would be. However both Nagasaki and Heroshima have had years of problems with radiation, birth defects, etc...

I am only speeking of North Korea. My thoughts on this are not absolute and do not necessarily apply to other countries. The nuke we have today are much more suffocated and do not have to offer yields that become to other countries. So because of the North's aggressive mind set and their unwillingness to stop aggression I would wipe them out using nukes instead of losing a large number of troops.

 

[freeatlast]

I was really hoping that at some point, you'd admit that you were just joking.

To compare the nuclear weapons of today with the ones used against Japan indicates a lack of understanding. It's like looking at the M-1 carbine and saying that today's M-16 or AK-47 is no different, although they're smaller, lighter, and shoot a lot more bullets in a lot less time.

In other words, same as in another thread where I said this to you: You don't fully understand the entire situation of what you're talking about.

I do understand. Listen to me. It is not about the size or ability of the weapon. The end result is death. In the case of war it should always be the last result and with the understanding that it is to be fought with the idea of ending it the fastest way that it can be done with the least number of our own casualties. You do not factor in the enemies casualities at your own expense!
If a person came into my home and threatened me and he only had a knife I would not pull out a knife of the same size or a knife at all. I would use the biggest gun I have to put a quick end to his attack and keep my family protected as well as myself. The fact that weapons have advanced does not mean that because you have a bigger gun then your neighbor who is the aggressor you put down your big gun or they cause greater damage you choose what he is using to spare him, or that you take mercy on his foolishness and get large numbers of your own troops killed when it is not necessary. That is foolishness! In this discussion there is a high probability that China would get involved if there was a drawn out war, the same as they did before when we lost and in the end only this time a high probability of WW3. To keep that at a minimum if war is needed I stand on the premise that a swift nuclear attack on the enemy wiping them out would leave China with no body to join in with and greatly lower the chance of a nuclear WW as well as spare our own troops lives. And on that I stand my ground. The stakes are simply too high in this arena with the North to do it any other way.

 

[Don]

Do you honestly believe that a nuclear strike on N.Korea would not have some form of retaliation by anyone else in the world? Especially China or Russia?

After our bombing of Japan in WWII, the *only* reason Japan's allies didn't respond in like manner was because they didn't have atomic bombs, and couldn't risk finding out whether we had any more to use on them in turn.

If you're going to nuke Korea, are you prepared to launch nukes against China the next--or same--day? With the knowledge that they'll be returning fire in exactly the same way?

Your understanding of warfare, and human nature, is limited.

 

[Don]

BTW: Are you paying attention to the hostilities between China and the U.S. over the last 6 months? Do you honestly believe that any such aggressive action towards an ally of China will not scare the Chinese into believing that they might be next, and therefore justified in initiating a pre-emptive strike?

 

[preachinjesus]

BTW: Are you paying attention to the hostilities between China and the U.S. over the last 6 months? Do you honestly believe that any such aggressive action towards an ally of China will not scare the Chinese into believing that they might be next, and therefore justified in initiating a pre-emptive strike?

This is a good point. The Chinese have been really flexing their muscles and there has been a lot of tension. I think it was over the summer that the commander of the Pacific fleet gave testimony citing their aggressive actions and urging vigilance.

One example was their sending half their naval fleet within a half mile or so of a major US military installation just for funnsies.

If you think the Middle East is unstable, try east Asia with a couple of loose cannons running around.

Tom Clancy wrote (a particularly horrible) novel about this...though he started with a land grab in Russia.

 

[freeatlast]

This is why any war with Korea has to be swift, and complete. If anyone is left then China would take up their cause. if there is no one left there would be no cause to take up.

 

[Don]

Dude, you're not listening. It won't be swift enough. Their launch detection systems are just as good as ours; they'll know when we launch anything. And even if it were swift enough, do you really, honestly believe that there won't be some fear among the Chinese that they might be next, and therefore be more willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against us?

Think.

 

[freeatlast]

Dude, you're not listening. It won't be swift enough. Their launch detection systems are just as good as ours; they'll know when we launch anything. And even if it were swift enough, do you really, honestly believe that there won't be some fear among the Chinese that they might be next, and therefore be more willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against us?

Think.

Dude I believe that they could be taken completely by surprise just like they did when they shelled the South the other day. The time to respond would be too short because of their proximity to one another to respond. Strategically launched nukes, and I mean MANY would put an end to the North's wild parties. It could all be over in less then 15 or 20 minutes with the first 5 to 10 minutes totally destroying any possible retaliation from the North.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Dude I believe that they could be taken completely by surprise just like they did when they shelled the South the other day. The time to respond would be too short because of their proximity to one another to respond. Strategically launched nukes, and I mean MANY would put an end to the North's wild parties. It could all be over in less then 15 or 20 minutes with the first 5 to 10 minutes totally destroying any possible retaliation from the North.

My friend, you are forgetting China. Do you believe China would sit by and do nothing? We do not live in a world where countries are isolated. N.K. may be isolated from much of the world, but not totally. It would not be over in 15 to 20 minutes.

Also, you are forgetting that launching ICBMs is not a one minute decision. It takes time to set up the final conditions to launch and that activity cannot be done in total secrecy.

I understand you sentiment. But sentiment is not enough and wishful thinking will not work either.

Cheers.

 

[HankD]

Unfortunately, freeatlast does offer a viable solution.

Though I think that NK would have to be a lot more provocative to justify such an action and we would have to secretly "test the waters" with China.

How about this, we could try the opposite approach.

President Obama could send Jimmy Carter back over to soft sell negotiate.
What could it hurt?

What, we don't have one silver-toungued individual to pow-wow with KJI?

At least give it a try?

HankD

 

[KenH]

Perhaps we should consider that maybe Russia and/or China are thinking maybe the United States will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea and decide that it is in their best interest to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike to wipe out all Americans before the United States can launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea.

 

[HankD]

Perhaps we should consider that maybe Russia and/or China are thinking maybe the United States will launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea and decide that it is in their best interest to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike to wipe out all Americans before the United States can launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea.

So are you saying we should pre-empt their pre-empt of our pre-empt?

HankD

 

[KenH]

Nah. Just pointing out that the United States is not the only country that can wipe out another country through a first strike with nuclear weapons. I really doubt that as long as the United States at least keeps the trappings of being a republic that it will be the first nation to use nuclear weapons in a war since World War II.