Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    . . . When 10s of millions of people will certainly die if we do. This is a legit question to our hard right supporters here, or anyone who thinks a first strike is a viable option.

    From The Atlantic article posted here this past week:

    And with only a few of its worst weapons, North Korea could, probably within hours, kill millions. This means an American first strike would likely trigger one of the worst mass killings in human history. In 2005, Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who specialized in conducting war games at the National War College, estimated that the use of sarin gas alone would produce 1 million casualties. Gardiner now says, in light of what we have learned from gas attacks on civilians in Syria, that the number would likely be three to five times greater. And today North Korea has an even wider array of chemical and biological weapons than it did 12 years ago—the recent assassination of Kim’s half brother, Kim Jong Nam, demonstrated the potency of at least one compound, the nerve agent VX. The Kim regime is believed to have biological weapons including anthrax, botulism, hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid, and yellow fever. And it has missiles capable of reaching Tokyo, a metropolitan area of nearly 38 million. In other words, any effort to crush North Korea flirts not just with heavy losses, but with one of the greatest catastrophes in human history.
    And for those who think a "decapitation" scenario is a good idea"

    “If I am sitting in Pyongyang, and I think you are coming after me, I’ve got minutes to decide if this is an all-out attack, and if I wait, I lose,” Jim Walsh told me. “So it’s use nuclear weapons or lose them—which makes for an itchy trigger finger. The idea that the U.S. and South Korea are going to have a limited strike that the North Koreans are going to perceive as limited, and that they are willing to stand by and let happen, especially given the rhetorical context in which this has been playing out, complete with repeated, stupid statements about ‘decapitation’—I can’t see it happening.”
    Not to mention the massive concentration of artillery aimed a Seoul, it's been said that it would take about 3 hours for NK to hit every square foot of the city with an artillery shell. That's 10 million people in the city proper, add to that number in the metropolitan area, close to 60 million people.

    What do we become if we provoke such a massacre for a maybe?
    "Please be more specific or we'll choose to order a cheaper bilge-rat to replace you."

    ~seanz

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    42,892

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    The modern era record for nations that struck first is not at all good.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    5,649

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    We have already become it. We set in motion a disaster that killed 100s of thousands in Iraq.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by CK 17 View Post
    We have already become it. We set in motion a disaster that killed 100s of thousands in Iraq.
    Yes, we have. This would dwarf that number like an elephant to a flea. This is a point to reply with when confronted by the blood thirsty masses with shouts of war.
    "Please be more specific or we'll choose to order a cheaper bilge-rat to replace you."

    ~seanz

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    25,372

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Do we have a right? No.

    Do we have a duty? No.

    Whatever moral authority we had in the world was squandered by Dubya's Iraq fiasco.

    Incidentally, STRIKE can have multiple meanings. It need not solely be an avalanche of cruise missiles. It could be cyber. It could be economic. It could be a quarantine. I am all for tieing Fat Boy's hands via soft channels. The strategy of indirect approach is best.
    Gerard>
    Everett, WA

    Next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic, save the country.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,861

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    We can't strike at a civilian population first. We need to take the high road.

    The real question is, "Can we strike at all knowing that millions may die?"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    5,649

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    The real difference between Iraq and NK is our stature in the world. We were fresh off of 9/11 with the Iraq invasion. Don't look for a coalition, other SK who will be forced into this.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    42,076

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    What is unquestioned is that military action will result in a desired goal.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    11,161

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    I think the biggest bonus to Korea, for these cats, is they can just do what they want. That's what scares me.

    We're already AT war with Korea. It never ended. It's just on a break.

    Really.

    Peace,
    Robert

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    4,851

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    We do not have the right to strike first. That would be an act of war. China would most certainly get involved.

    Other countries have threatened us with no military response from us.

    Iraq was a miserable mistake, Vietnam was as well. In fact Korea was a mistake. These mistakes we will pay for, for a long time.

    Because you can destroy the Earth does not mean you threaten to do it repeatedly. I think our foreign policy has painted us into a corner, and we are collectively not smart enough to correct it. Worse, we elect fools that dig us deeper.

    Let numb nut do what he will, defend as best you can, at some point the justification will come or not.
    PaulF

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    Posts
    8,862

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    It was my understanding that we were still at war with North Korea as the states were under armistice until final agreement. How many American presidents kicked this can down the road. Our government after 1953 played war games based on perminate stalemate with hostilities escalating this holdout from the hostilities of Cold War politics. Although Trump does not have the facilities to deal with the entire complexity and the gamesmanship - something needs to be done to change and stop this highly dangerous state. At the moment NK has checkmated us in this round.

    It is only a matter of time that something bad is going to happen - an intentional or accidental release of biological, chemical or nuclear weapon will change everything and a response will come swiftly.
    Be wary of your critics, at peace with your decisions, and work hard to be a better man.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    11,161

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    There is a military cease fire, but no official political end to the war. It is still "on", as they say.

    Peace,
    Robert

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alameda, CA
    Posts
    8,862

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    The only chance is to have full diplomatic relations, open the borders, send them KFC, McDonald's, iPhones and internet in massive UN subsidies and Marshall plan cash. They would roll over and get fat, stupid and lazy in 5 years forgetting about war. Within 7 years, there would be one Korea.
    Be wary of your critics, at peace with your decisions, and work hard to be a better man.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    I totally agree with not striking first. Just be as prepared as possible to deal with them if they make the first move. I think that Kim wants to stay in power. It needs to be made crystal clear that he can have his "Hermit Kingdom" so long as he tops threatening others. Any foolish moves and he's out for good.


    It's sort of interesting how Trump said he wants to here from Kim directly, not through the KCNA but Kim isn't saying much. I like to think that Kim is like "oh crap!"


    https://youtu.be/Zt1dfrAMsnc
    Will

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio USA
    Posts
    8,588

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    If the US strikes first the number of people killed will depend on the size and location of the strike.
    It could easily be a limited strike designed to take out the Military hardware.

    So to assume that all military options will lead to 10s of millions dead is just wrong.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    8,654

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    China has vowed to support us IF NK attacks us first.
    They also vow to support NK if we attack first.

    Lil Kim had said he will fire 4 missiles at Guam, but they will target a location 14 miles offshore, presumably in international waters. These missiles will overfly Japan.

    Complicated huh?
    Fight Entropy, build a wooden boat!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,292

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by genglandoh View Post
    If the US strikes first the number of people killed will depend on the size and location of the strike.
    It could easily be a limited strike designed to take out the Military hardware.

    So to assume that all military options will lead to 10s of millions dead is just wrong.
    You're really a special kind of... "smart", aren't you? Have you heard nothing about North Korea's massive amounts of dug-in artillery within range of the fourth-largest metropolitan area on this planet?

    What are you doing about it?




  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    9,419

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by genglandoh View Post
    If the US strikes first the number of people killed will depend on the size and location of the strike.
    It could easily be a limited strike designed to take out the Military hardware.

    So to assume that all military options will lead to 10s of millions dead is just wrong.
    The second NK feels threatened, whether it feels it's nukes or the dynasty is in danger, it will strike. Read the article I linked and inform yourself of their capability and our limitations. Educate yourself instead of continually talking out of your rear.
    "Please be more specific or we'll choose to order a cheaper bilge-rat to replace you."

    ~seanz

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    We do not have the right to strike first. That would be an act of war. China would most certainly get involved.

    Other countries have threatened us with no military response from us.

    Iraq was a miserable mistake, Vietnam was as well. In fact Korea was a mistake. These mistakes we will pay for, for a long time.

    Because you can destroy the Earth does not mean you threaten to do it repeatedly. I think our foreign policy has painted us into a corner, and we are collectively not smart enough to correct it. Worse, we elect fools that dig us deeper.

    Let numb nut do what he will, defend as best you can, at some point the justification will come or not.
    Something else to think about, Afghanistan. That was supposed to be a quick incursion to get a limited number of terrorist cells under control, but how many years later is it now? Plane loads of US Soldiers coming home in boxes, how many civilian casualties? For the Afghani people the issue has morphed into a war to free their country from a foreign occupying force and every time an Afghani dies the whole tribe becomes the enemy of the occupying forces and use whatever methods are available to hit back, including action on enemy soil if they can do it. From their point of view they're no longer terrorists, they're fighting to free their country and they're getting better at it all the time. In spite of all the amazing technology, lives and money being poured in there, Afghanistan, poorly resourced, poorly trained, badly equipped and relatively few in numbers is unwinnable and is soaking up a lot of resources from the USA and its allies. And yes, NZs in there too.
    North Korea would be a much more difficult proposition, they've a huge and well resourced army, an air force that although outdated is capable of doing a lot of damage in the short term, a navy with submarines and a collection of artillery that is well dug in and ready.

    Think about it, Iraq/Isis, thats taking resources, Afghanistan, thats taking resources and will be for a long time to come, , there are threats being made against Iran and boy that would be a tough nut to crack, I see that the US President is talking about sending troops into Venezuela as well. I know that the USA military is as big as the next 6 nations combined but in spite of that its record since WW2 has not been one of clean victories. North Korea? China wants them left alone, they don't want huge numbers of refugees coming across the border, neither does South Korea, same with Russia and Japan. In my opinion NK is much better quietly ringfenced and left alone. War against them? Thats insanity.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ottawa, canada
    Posts
    3,323

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reynard38 View Post
    China has vowed to support us IF NK attacks us first.
    They also vow to support NK if we attack first.

    Lil Kim had said he will fire 4 missiles at Guam, but they will target a location 14 miles offshore, presumably in international waters. These missiles will overfly Japan.

    Complicated huh?
    I thought China had said that they would be neutral if NK attacks first.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    45,195

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Yep, just allow the US to continue to waste it's blood and treasure as usual and eventually exhaust both.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,151

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Yep, just allow the US to continue to waste it's blood and treasure as usual and eventually exhaust both.
    US treasure is being wasted, true. 99% of the blood shed belonged to others.
    Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Australia and Tasmania
    Posts
    12,224

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    If I see someone on the street carrying a gun, is it OK if I shoot him, just in case he might become aggressive? You guys are bat**** fffing crazy.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    2,783

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reynard38 View Post
    China has vowed to support us IF NK attacks us first.
    They also vow to support NK if we attack first.

    Lil Kim had said he will fire 4 missiles at Guam, but they will target a location 14 miles offshore, presumably in international waters. These missiles will overfly Japan.

    Complicated huh?
    That is the dilemma, what if it isn't 14 miles? What would the reaction be, if the shoe was on the other foot? Don't worry Kim, trust us, those missiles aren't going to you, but they are going to come REAL close.
    He'be screaming US aggression. I just hope he winds his head in, AND Trump does something positive in acknowledgement. Not holding my breath, though.

    Pete
    Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    North West Arkansas
    Posts
    64,300

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    NK has already struck first with death threats
    The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
    Personal failures are too important to be trusted to others.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Sitka, AK
    Posts
    25,189

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    We've had multiple threads on the various scenarios. Everyone agrees they're all bad, mostly for the South Koreans.

    We've tried everything during the past 50 years, from peace, threats, sanctions, sending free fuel... none of it's worked.

    We do have an ally, at least in Japan for now.

    It's progressively gotten more serious as NK's technology has advanced, it has nothing to do with Trump. The only thing Trump can do wrong at this point is strike first. Other than that, any tactic he puts forward, from tough talk, to olive branches and doves, has been done before.

    Yet still here we are. It's typical American exceptionalism to think it's our fault, and that we can fix it.

    If it goes bad short of a first strike on our part, there's nothing we can do about it but try to defend, and then eliminate.
    "Simple minds discuss people, Average minds discuss things, and Great minds discuss ideas".

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    13,744

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Hoppe View Post
    The only chance is to have full diplomatic relations, open the borders, send them KFC, McDonald's, iPhones and internet in massive UN subsidies and Marshall plan cash. They would roll over and get fat, stupid and lazy in 5 years forgetting about war. Within 7 years, there would be one Korea.
    Tactical KFC strike?
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    2,783

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Allen View Post
    NK has already struck first with death threats
    NK hasn't struck anything yet, other than Trumps ego. So far, it is like two boxers trashtalking, before the bout. Nothing more, unless one of the two idiots in charge makes it so.

    Pete
    Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast Australia
    Posts
    2,015

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    His self inflated ego and his mouth would have to be a national embarrassment.
    i think it's high time the Justice system pulls out their fingers , or Republicans stop focusing on their hip pockets annalize the kaos in this administration and act decisively in finding a replacement.
    Regarding N Korea lets not forget it represents another failure by American policy makers and administration way back in 1950.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,506

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    Quote Originally Posted by genglandoh View Post
    If the US strikes first the number of people killed will depend on the size and location of the strike.
    It could easily be a limited strike designed to take out the Military hardware.

    So to assume that all military options will lead to 10s of millions dead is just wrong.
    And if one or two of the strategic strikes miss their target and say 3 million South Koreans die?

    Why is Genglandoh so unconcerned about the lives of US allies?

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Newburgh, NY USA
    Posts
    1,641

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    I think Trump is hoping that Kim Jong fires his missile towards the 14 mile plus Guam location to gain more support from Asian countries. Kim might just do it to test the US capability to intercept it. If the US doesn't intercept it, Kim will have the last laugh. Everyone already hates him in Asia anyway. The outcome of this episode will be a stronger collective of Japan, South Korea and China association. This economic powerhouse of a team will have more world political influence, reducing that of the US and Russia. So in almost any outcome the US loses, which isn't all bad. Even if the US misses the missile and it lands in the sea, and the US looses technological face and some political points, it would be the best possible outcome. Although negotiations with our tail between our legs will be worse than if we started talking without all the hyperbole, this scenario may be what it takes to get everyone to the table. WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    2,273

    Default Re: Do we have the right to strike NK first?

    What if we tore down the DMZ fence and started welcoming defectors instead of shooting them. The minefields are mapped: that's how infiltrators get through. We could eventually clear the DMZ, if Trump would support it.

    For all the bluster about NK's military strength, it's nothing compared to us. First of all, it's old school. A lot of those guns everybody's afraid of are antiques. They're dug into the hillside, alright: but they have to be rolled out on their railcars, loaded, aimed, and fired by hand. A 50cal could disable one. The other thing is their chain of command: if the officer gets taken out, the sergeant doesn't take over his job: he waits for another officer to tell him what to do. And they don't promote on competence, they promote on loyalty: that's why it's so difficult to attempt a mutiny. I don't want to see a war over there, but I don't think NK would get much going before it was over. They're corrupt from the inside out.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •