North Korea...what if?

[DarkFury]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

How many innocents burned alive will be acceptable to you before korea is stopped?

How many innocents will be burned alive if NoKo is NOT stopped?

Oh two million in a month. Maybe one million more over a year. Harsh but true.

 

[DarkFury]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

 

[forkup]

....In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

Disagreed. Sure, some here are beating war drums, but I strongly doubt a single one of them is in the military or is willing to lead the first wave on the beach.

American leadership is concerned about this, but they're also putting a lot of pressure on China to fix it.

So you do not believe that there is some point in NoKo nuke development that the U.S. can not allow and would have to attack?

Effectively, you're saying that we should try all diplomatic means, but if that fails we should take no military action and allow NoKo to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Consequences?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

 

[forkup]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

 

[DarkFury]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

 

[tycho1572]

 

[forkup]

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

 

[tycho1572]

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

Are you suggesting we wait until they hit the US with a nuke?

 

[DarkFury]

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

 

[forkup]

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

Are you suggesting we wait until they hit the US with a nuke?

The world has lived with nuclear weapons since 1945. The US has had nuclear capable adversaries since 1949. Other countries have developed them and none have used them despite sometimes open hostility. The reason for that is that every country knows that using them is pushing a self destruct button. N-Korea can't attack the US without causing their own destruction. They know it, the US knows it. Mutual Assured Destruction has been a cornerstone of nuclear strategy during almost the entire cold war, only in the case of N-Korea the destruction wouldn't even be mutual, why would they nuke the US?

 

[forkup]

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

 

[DarkFury]

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

The leader of NoKo has shown no honesty humanity or reason. And he might be just dumb enough to think he would survive.

 

[Richard-H]

....In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

Disagreed. Sure, some here are beating war drums, but I strongly doubt a single one of them is in the military or is willing to lead the first wave on the beach.

American leadership is concerned about this, but they're also putting a lot of pressure on China to fix it.

So you do not believe that there is some point in NoKo nuke development that the U.S. can not allow and would have to attack?

Effectively, you're saying that we should try all diplomatic means, but if that fails we should take no military action and allow NoKo to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Consequences?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

So far Kim Jung Un seems to be hell bent on pushing everything as far as he can He seems to be secure in believing that we will not strike because he can destroy Seoul. What would stop him from a single nuclear strike against a city in Japan to get what he wants? He'd still hold Seoul hostage against any U.S. response.

Peace at any price does NOT work. There's no reason to believe that Un would behave.

 

[Richard-H]

So far the anti-war people seem to believe that letting NoKo develop a Nuclear arsenal will not have a significant consequences - they're happy to let Noko fully develop the ability to incinerate the U.S.

Wouldn't Russia and China just love that situation? NoKo & the U.S. can destroy each other while they sit and watch - no consequences for them.

 

[forkup]

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

The leader of NoKo has shown no honesty humanity or reason. And he might be just dumb enough to think he would survive.

Want me to post some of the rhetoric Reagan spouted? The USSR went broke because they believed he would attack them. He didn't and he was neither insane nor stupid. Convincing the other side you will not hesitate using nukes has been a tactic used by Kennedy, Brezhnev, Reagan and others. At the moment you have simply fear, and you are willing to risk millions of lives to alleviate it.

 

[12icer]

So far the anti-war people seem to believe that letting NoKo develop a Nuclear arsenal will not have a significant consequences - they're happy to let Noko fully develop the ability to incinerate the U.S.

Wouldn't Russia and China just love that situation? NoKo & the U.S. can destroy each other while they sit and watch - no consequences for them.

Wasted space, a person needs to know about something before they post. BZZZZZZZZZZZZ. liberal lost in space and going further away.

 

[DarkFury]

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

The leader of NoKo has shown no honesty humanity or reason. And he might be just dumb enough to think he would survive.

Want me to post some of the rhetoric Reagan spouted? The USSR went broke because they believed he would attack them. He didn't and he was neither insane nor stupid. Convincing the other side you will not hesitate using nukes has been a tactic used by Kennedy, Brezhnev, Reagan and others. At the moment you have simply fear, and you are willing to risk millions of lives to alleviate it.

There Soviets went broke over star wars. Oh and Truman wanted to use the bomb on NoKo himself!

 

[forkup]

....In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

Disagreed. Sure, some here are beating war drums, but I strongly doubt a single one of them is in the military or is willing to lead the first wave on the beach.

American leadership is concerned about this, but they're also putting a lot of pressure on China to fix it.

So you do not believe that there is some point in NoKo nuke development that the U.S. can not allow and would have to attack?

Effectively, you're saying that we should try all diplomatic means, but if that fails we should take no military action and allow NoKo to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Consequences?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

So far Kim Jung Un seems to be hell bent on pushing everything as far as he can He seems to be secure in believing that we will not strike because he can destroy Seoul. What would stop him from a single nuclear strike against a city in Japan to get what he wants? He'd still hold Seoul hostage against any U.S. response.

Peace at any price does NOT work. There's no reason to believe that Un would behave.

Yes there is a reason to believe they would behave. Certainty of death usually focuses the mind wonderfully.. As to him striking Japan with a single nuclear weapon. What happens you think when someone attacks a member of NATO with nukes? That nations lifespan is measured in minutes, that simple. Thinking anything else is silly.

 

[Richard-H]

Once it's launched even if it's a dud do you ignore it? I say no.

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

Here's my reasoning:

1. NoKo sells arms to the highest bidder. They're no reason to believe they would not sell nukes to terrorists.

2. NoKo is determined to united all of Korea. They're ability to nuke Japan and the U.S. gives them the leverage to force the U.S. out of Korea and SoKo into submission.

3. NoKo can use the threat of nukes to get anything they want as long as the U.S. does not take action.

4. If the U.S. is forced to take action in the future, after NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal, the consequences will be far worse than if the U.S. takes action now.

 

[Clementine]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

With that pudgy little tyrant in power, you simply cannot trust them. He has always made threats, long before Trump even ran for president. It's something we got used to. The fact that they are building nukes just makes those threats more of a concern. I'd hope little Bowl Cut Jr. realizes that his country could be wiped off the map if he fires a single nuke at us or our allies.

Having a strong military and nuclear program of our own is the best deterrent. Of course, the left wanted to let someone else take on the role of super power. I'd rather keep that because the threat of retaliation is what keeps us safe. Take that away and it's the equivalent of sitting in a gun-free zone. You go from being feared by those who would kill you to being an easy target.