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

Assuming the North Koreans show they are capable of hitting U.S. territory (not necessarily the mainland the U.S.) with a ballistic missile carrying a nuclear weapon.

Would you support the U.S. launching a preemptive nuclear strike?

I would assume that it would involve at least 100 nuclear weapon from the U.S. in total. About half in the hundreds of kiloton range in size to destroy North Korean nuclear weapons, delivery systems and facilities and the other have low kiloton range weapon (5 kilotons or so) use against artillery and missile sites in North Korea that threaten Seoul, SK. and its environs.

It has been estimated that this would kill from 2-5 million North Koreans. A staggering number to be sure.

But is it worth losing a U.S. city to avoid it?

 

Russia had nukes since 1949. China since the 60s.

For some reason we never started a nuclear war over that

 

No. A first strike using nukes, would likely cause a reaction in which tens of millions of people would needlessly be killed. The consequences would be far reaching and unpredictable. It would be universally condemned. It could cause and economic calamity. It could create a horrible precedent. Are Russia and China going to wait around knowing they might be the next targets of a first strike? It would likely cause and internationally nuclear arms race, reversing the progress made in the past several decades.

The president making these threats is a terrible mistake. That's what you get when you put an inexperienced child in charge of our nukes.

 

Yes I would.

At this point I'd support ending the north Koreans as a people....

The survivors can join the south.

 

There won't BE much "South" after that

 

Not as long as we could crush them conventionally but I would respond in kind if they go nuclear first.

 

Take out fat boy and his entourage

 

Why? An attack with 100 nuclear devices as I've outlined would leave South Korea untouched and no longer vulnerable to NK WMDs and conventional artillery.

 

Depends if the belligerent was ready, willing and able to act on a threat to kill millions. If so, then yes.

 

Sorry we're not going to spend the rest of our lives living in fear of what this potbelly dictator piece of **** might do.

Real men are in charge now.

 

We almost did in 1962.

 

I'll pretty much support America in any military action they engage in. Not that I can imagine them making a nuclear strike. But I could imagine a strike.

But this isn't a good idea from my perspective. And if my Mrs gets caught in your moronic crossfire, it's utterly done between us.
We won't be friends no more. I'll be happy to see you burn in hell too.

In all honesty, I think you have zero allies in this.
None.

None for the use of nukes, none for an invasion of Korea and not even any for a cruise missile attack.
Except maybe us and Anzacs perhaps. But even us, maybe not.
No one gives **** if NK has nukes. War is over. Move on.

Just another country too hard for you to beat. Let it go.
This whole master race routine you guys do, give it up already. It ends up badly for you.
This planet will gang up and take you out. So chill Winston.
Take a happy pill instead.

 

No and hell no. I cannot believe the question is even being asked, but as long as we have Hair Trigger Trump at the helm.... This is when the people around Trump take charge, take his little button away and lock him in a room with a bunch of his own newsclippings and TV coverage of his inauguration day so he can bathe in his ego-sweat until he calms down.

 

What do you think the fallout from 100 nuclear devices would be like?

If they nuke the artillery emplacements surrounding Seoul...Seoul gets nuked. If they don't that artillery levels Seoul

 

Almost is the keyword there

 

It would also leave that entire peninsula and surrounding areas uninhabitable.

 

Don't be ridiculous.

People still live on Nova Zemyla and hundreds of MEGATONS of nuclear weapons in an area half the size of Florida.

nuclear weapons that are airburst cause minimal nuclear contamination. The only ground weapons that would need to be used would be against hardened nuclear sites in the far north.

Good lord most of you don't know jack about nuclear weapons and radiation.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't stay radioactive for any length of time. And the nuclear weapons used against North Korean artillery would be smaller and cleaner than the crude weapons used against those cities.

 

Stupid post showing no knowledge of nuclear weapons and radiation.

 

disgusting right-wing call for genocide.

 

No. And I doubt china. Japan. Or s Korea would like it either.

 

China needs to go into NK, depose Kim, and install a puppet regime.

Then disable the nukes.

Problem solved.

To China? It's All You.

 

yeah, real men like Tillerson, McMasters and Kelly.

 

Because there wasn't a credible threat of thier intention to use atomic weapons aggressively. Ready, willing and able. No doubt the Russians were able, but it's questionable whether Russia was ready and their willingness was seriously doubted. The Cuban Crisis Changed these assumptions. They were now ready and able their willingness was now almost certain. Even with this room to manouver we came very very close to the brink, with rhetoric at a fever pitch. We moved to defcon 2, armed, loaded, aggressively positioned and aimed at targets.

We quarantined Cuba with nuclear armed ships. The initial line was to be kept by 12 destroyers from the Second Fleet’s Task Force 136, a task force established specifically to implement the quarantine. In addition, the aircraft carrier USS Essex formed the foundation of an anti-submarine warfare carrier group, supplemented by aerial anti-submarine warfare squadrons based in Bermuda and Puerto Rico. By the time the quarantine was finally lifted, the quarantine line had involved an aircraft carrier, two cruisers, 22 destroyers, and two guided missile frigates. Furthe stationed Navy Ships, fully armed and combat ready on the edges of Russian terratorial waters around the world.

We flew continuous "Chrome Dome or Reflex Missions" durring this time keeping 75 loaded B-52's on airborne alert circling the Arctic on 24 hour missions. 133 KC-135's, air refueling aircraft were kept aloft at all times. 184 B-47's were on ready alert scattered a airports around Russia.

We didn't unleash hell in those month but we came close, the deterrent at that time, both Russia and the United States saw the forces arrayed and the power they represented. It took us 13 days to come to this conclusion

Kim Jr has been running this brinksmanship and unilaterally threatening neighbors for a decade. Now he wants to threaten the entire world. Kim has steadily progressed NK nuclear weapons as well as amassing a large conventional force with 6,445,000 military personnel in uniform. Kim has nearly 1,000 military combat aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 4700 armored vehicles and 8,000 artillery pieces. His Navy has 76 subs, 11 Frigates, 2 Corvettes.


Kim's people live in absolute poverty, he kills political adversaries with AA guns and his loved one's by sharks and other land carnivores.

The man is by all measure, unbalanced.

 

Killing a few million North Koreans is not genocide.

 

Agree with all the points made.
In addition, the fallout would poison S. Korea and Japan.
I know Trumpers only care about American lives, well there are 39,000 US Troops in Japan, 23,500 in S. Korea, and they would all be at risk from N Korean retaliation and fallout.