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

This problem is well known since a very long time now.

1!=1
2!=1*2
3!=1*2*3
4!=1*2*3*4
5!=1*2*3*4*5
...

Left number are the states with nukes - right side are the number of possible interactions between this states. An interaction is also able to be a very serious problem. So the number of nations with nukes has to be at the lowest possible level. Germany shows by the way very well: no nation needs nukes and is able to be successful - although wars and dictators from the left and right political spectrum made the life in Germany once not very comfortable.

I hope the big nations USA, China and Russia - Europe too and Southamerica, Arabian and African states not to forget - are able to find good ways what to do with Kim Jong-un. He's a criminal who terrorizes all neighbors and likes to terrorize the whole world, if he can do so - that's very clear.

Germany shows by the way also that a reunification without violence is possible. Korea needs a Korean way - but there's a lot of hope that such a way - however this way will be in the end - can be successful without only one shot.

 

Germany has been successful because Germany is a western democracy and Europe has been at peace since 1945.
Both of these things are true because America has nuclear weapons.
Germany needs the US to have nuclear weapons.

 

No first strikes with nukes. I am fine with a preemptive strike on the capital city though since only the most loyal party members are allowed to live there.

 

It's a stupid question. Bush said the same thing before we destroyed Iraq and destabilized the Middle East. And the CIA spread the same lies about WMD then. And there was the same foaming at the mouth and paranoia by the same chickenhawks and media who are foaming at the mouth now. Now Trump is threatening to destroy North Korea and indirectly kill American servicemen stationed nearby in South Korea. The biggest threat to world peace are American warmongers who have killed millions since WW2. The people of North Korea know about this since the US killed 1.5 civilians, which is 1.5 more than American civilians who have been killed by North Korea. The is no shortage of endless propaganda generated by war pigs and no shortage of stupid American cowards who buy it.

 

No. Its a question you don't want to address because you know an honest answer negates the statement you made.
So, I ask again:
Why should the US government wait until nuclear weapons detonate over US (or Japanese or South Korean) territory before it acts?

 

Your are an US-American - what qualifies you in the English speaking world to known much more about Germany than a German - but let me tell you in the foreign language English: France has nukes. England has nukes. Russia has nukes. Germany has no nukes - and it needs no nukes. Same with Korea - Korea needs no nukes. Germany is by the way per se one of the most important roots of the western world - of the occident - in the followership of the Roman Empire. And I would say the USA is since World war 1 the leading nation of the western world.

After world war 2 a big part of Europe was sold to Stalin from the western allies and disappeared behind the iron curtain. More than 50% of the world were some years later dominated from the Soviets - what was the reason for the war in Korea. Sure you are able to call the cold war "peace" - in West-Germany it was indeed a wonderful time - but why not to call it "cold war"? West-Germany was not a sovereign nation in this time (3 occupation zones) and the East of Germany was under control of the Soviets (Soviet-Zone) - in this part of Germany was the dictatorship of the party barons. The reunion of Germany was in 1989/90. In this process became Germany an independent sovereign nation - about 45 years after world war 2. It was a very little Germany compared with the Germany which had existed once before world war 1, when we met the USA the first time in the battle fields. But much more important: The iron curtain broke and lots of nations came free. Very young democracies now. Very instable sometimes. Poland is a problem child, Hungary much more. The democracy in Turkey (An evolving democracy since world war 1) broke down under Erdogan. Democracy and human rights have really lots of problem worldwide now - also in the USA and also because of bad examples of the USA as the concentration camp Guantanamo. Whatever. What I like to say is this:

I'm sure I speak for much more than 95 % of all Germans if I say: No German had accepted the use of nukes for the reunion of Germany. Not in West-Germany and not in East-Germany. It's wrong to say the reunion of Germany was a result of nukes. For some time existed some rationality in the politics of the western and the eastern world - unfortunately this time was short. Germany was lucky to be able to use this little smiling window of history for the reunion - with the help of god and the help of lots of people of good will of many nations. I hope the best for Korea - whether it will be a reunion or any other good solution. But for sure nukes are a problem and not a solution.

 

Are you not bargaining with the lives of people North Korea threatens with their nukes?

 

Why not to wait thousand years? Are you in hurry?

 

Did Iraq invade US? or US invaded Iraq?
Did Vietnam invade US? or US invaded Vietnam?
Did North Korea invade US? or US invaded North Korea?

You should take a serious look at yourself living like a zombie in this country.

At least I am alert.

 

Here. I'll show you how that ignore function works.

 

That's foolish.

A nation doesn't have to "invade" you to be a threat. Just as a person can threaten you or your interests and never set foot in your house or on your property.

Iraq, Vietnam, and North Korea all attacked U.S. allies or U.S. interests or in the case of North Korea killed American military personnel (since 1953)

 

None of this nullifies a thing I said.
Germany would not be free or successful today if America did not have nuclear weapons.
Germany needs the US to have nuclear weapons.

 

That was in response to Anobistar--not you.

How did you imagine otherwise?

 

I quite understand what you are saying (despite your rather strange spelling of invisible).

But kowtowing to Dear Leader is hardly what I would describe as a "good deed"--regardless of the upside of doing so.

You are certainly correct here.

But I would strongly suggest--as I did on another board--that we not make any attempt at "de-escalation."

Either Kim Jong-un should back down--without some reciprocal response by President Trump--or we should go to war with the DPRK.

If I truly thought that this were possible, I would expand my list of possibilities, and make this Number One. But I believe this to be no more than wishful thinking.

 

I am guessing that these are not the real reasons that you are opposed to nuclear weapons. (Reasons Number One and Two, for instance, could be obviated by our constantly upgrading our nuclear arsenal.)

Picky, picky, picky. (I am unaware of anyone who speaks of "nuclear fission weapons" and "nuclear fusion weapons.")

What you are apparently referring to was the 1970s principle of Mutual Assured Destruction (known, appropriately enough, by the acronym, "MAD").

And the invention of the nuclear bomb, to replace conventional bombs, is no more of an advancement in warfare than, say, the invention of the long rifle to replace the crossbow...

You appear to believe that the world, and its future, belong to the equivalent of 1960s-style Flower Children.

But flowers really do not work so well against modern weapons.

And the thought that most people will turn into Flower Children, and thereby make modern weaponry a thing of the past, is incredibly simplistic--and naïve...

 

As Wikipedia puts it : "The Japanese were forewarned by the Dutch of Perry’s voyage, but were unwilling to change their 220-year-old policy of "national seclusion."

In any case, it seems to me that America is an ally of both Japan and Germany, in 2017; and that it has been for a very long time now.

But you would take us back to the 1940s--or even to "1853"...

 

So you think North Korea has been threatening US probably because the newspaper or TV was telling you so.

I think its completely the other direction.

If we bring this case to a judge, you probably have a hard time proving your case, because the US is the one who is on the soils of the other, destroying, and killing people there.

 

So you think we should just accept it and live at the whim of North Korea. There were legitimate reasons for the wars in those countries weather you accept them or not.

 

We have no troops on North Korean soil.

 

no comment

 

Do you know what the nuclear strategy of France is? In case the Russians will attack Germany France will wipe out Germany with nukes and will create a nuclear hell, where Germany once was, so no one is able to pass this region with an army. Afterwards they will call Washington and will be very sad to have to tell you: "Sorry for the collateral damage. We did not like to kill your soldiers - but we had no other chance." By the way: We love France. Really we do. We only don't speak normally about such problems. Why should we speak about?
Whatever: We don't need the nukes of Russia, we don't need the nukes of France, we don't need the nukes of England - and we also do not need the nukes of the US-army in Germany. Also friendly nukes are able to explode and to kill. Would be good all this dirty dangerous scrap would not exist at all. The only reason why nukes are existing are nukes ... and psychologically sick human beings.

 

I wrote "invisible" - an english program told me his is wrong and it should be "invisibel". Makes sense: The people say invisib-l or invisib-el; never I heard someone say invisib-le. That's normally a French form. Perhaps the people spoke it in former times with a french color.

Okay: You did not understand what I said about "the problem of the good deed" and why it's wrong to say "Appeasement is a wrong form of politics". Anyway "Appeasement politics of England" was not really existing. England lived in the fear to lose the rest of the own empire if it goes in war with Germany ... and this fear was correct: it lost the rest of the own empire. Besides is existing the logic of time. The most people don't understand the past, because they take only a partial view at this what had happened and became real - they don't see any longer the alternatives and other possibilities. The future is always open - was also in the past always open.

 

Haven't heard that one before.

 

NO. Only a war-monger would say Yes to this.

 

Depends. If we had invaded Germany before they went crazy how many lives would that have saved?