Should the US Nuke North Korea?

af_thefragile wrote: »

^You do defend Palestine quite strongly... So it stands out a bit i guess!

Yeah, and plenty of people on the other side do exactly the same thing. The only difference is that I don't know when to stop .

Anyway, best to talk about the actually thread at hand.

So, yeah the suggestion is completely bat **** insane. For crying out loud, to murder millions of people, for the actions of there bat **** insane government, especially when those same people have so much crap heaped on them by there nutty government. Honestly, I really do hope that the OP was taking the piss, and people don't truly believe murdering millions of people is defending democracy. Honestly, being a democracy, doesn't mean you get to go around and murder millions of people and claim your better than the other guy, because your a democracy. Seriously the moment you kill all those people, you can't claim to be better than no one.

b12mearse wrote: »

Yea! The western world including us!

We cannot initiate it.
They have to make the first attack.
And they won't do anything stupid like that cuz they know the consequences of such a thing is only gonna be bad for them!

sorry guys, I have to answer to horsefleshs post, there will be no further mention of the ME (unless it's relevant to the nuclear proliferation issue) after this.

horseflesh wrote: »

Rubbish.
You're trying to make out that the rockets fired on Israel are nothing more than bouqets of flowers.

yeah, very dangerous bouqets of flowers, granted, i mean you can see that from the thousands of people they've killed.

horseflesh wrote: »

There's nothing debatable about it.

which sums up perfectly israels attitude to any kind of debate/discourse/negotiation

horseflesh wrote: »

Did anyone say that?

let's just say it was inferred

horseflesh wrote: »

TBH, I'd say Israel do have nuclear capability, I just haven't done a stocktake like you have.
And would you blame them??

but the point, which you missed, is not whether they have them or not, it's how they were aquired, in secret, the fact that they have not signed any non proliferation treaty, and the fact that UN attempts to inspect Dimona were hampered and obstructed, in exactly the same way Saadam Hussain tried to obstruct UN inspections. We all know what happened Saadam, don't we?

Iran + nukes (or believed to be developing nukes) = bad,
NK+ nukes (or testing nukes) = bad,
Israel + 150 nukes (developed in secret in Dimona behind the UNs back) = OK

which all equals Double Standards, See?

horseflesh wrote: »

Don't be silly.
At what stage did the government of the Republic of Ireland declare war on the UK?
When did they state that they wished to wipe Britain off the map?

How much of the 70s & 80s do you remember ? In the early 70's it came close to war. Prominent republican figures urged the Irish Government to order the Irish Army to invade the North, in an alliance with the IRA, to protect the republican population in NI, not quite war, but bloody close enough.
In the 80s the IRA were operating from across the republics borders, with help from prominent IRA supporters in the south, and the brits openly protested this fact with our government many many many times.
In 1984 the IRA came very close to blowing the entire british cabinet to bits, with the Brighton bomb, and they had another go in 1990 when they lobbed a mortar shell into the gardens of the cabinet rooms in Westminster.

Now, if you use the Israeli model? there's 3, out of hundreds of good reasons to kill all Catholics, and blow the Irish Republic off the map right there?

horseflesh wrote: »

Two completely different situations..

No, you see that's where you're wrong, the ME conflict is no different to any other conflict of it's kind, anywhere in the world. It will be fought until one side annihilates the other, OR they can go to the table and discuss the 2 state solution, which has been sanctioned by the UN for years.
It's one or the other, and all this stuff about the ME conflict being 'unique' or 'too complexed' or 'routed in ancient hatreds' is a load of bollocks, frankly.

horseflesh wrote: »

To compare and claim they are/were the same thing is either disingenuous or thick.

temper temper, you didn't quite say it, but anyone would know what was inferred here

horseflesh wrote: »

Anyway, you've clearly marked yourself out as a stalwart of the anti-US, anti-Israel brigade, so I expect you'll continue coming out with similar "right-on" left-wing rhetoric.

CONGRATULATIONS!! WRONG on all counts!! I'm neither left or right on the issue, I assume the position of a satirist, the most dangerous politician of them all.

FYI being Anti-George Bush, and his past policies, does not make you Anti-American, otherwise anyone in the US who voted for Obama, would, using your logic, be Anti-American.

Next you're going to try and tell me that The Israeli human rights organization, Bet Salem, as well as Amnesty International, The UN, Physicians for Human Rights (Israel) Professor Norman Finkelstien, Jimmy Carter, Gulie Ne'eman Arad, Saul Friedlander, Tony Judt and Peter Novik are all Anti Semites.

that is all

edit

Seaneh wrote: »

Nonody should nuke anybody!

Buy that man a Pint !!

Military action against Korea isnt as easy as youd think. Theres a thread in the military forum about it if you want to read up on the specifics.

I think it's good North Korea have Nukes because it keeps the status quo in check. With N.K having nukes, the odds of a nuclear war are actually slim because people will be afraid to launch nukes in fear of retalitation. Thus creating a stale mate, with neither side winning. Of course I'm just guessing and it isn't a fact but I still believe N.K having nukes will keep the status quo in order.

Riddle101 wrote: »

I think it's good North Korea have Nukes because it keeps the status quo in check. With N.K having nukes, the odds of a nuclear war are actually slim because people will be afraid to launch nukes in fear of retalitation. Thus creating a stale mate, with neither side winning. Of course I'm just guessing and it isn't a fact but I still believe N.K having nukes will keep the status quo in order.

Sort of agree with you here but I think N Korea are more likely than US to use them so I'd rather not let them have them. UK/Eu have nukes to go after US if needs be but the less people who have them the better and the sooner they are eradicated (nukes not n korea) by all the better.

they should sort it this way, Obama v Kim Jong-il, and stick it up on youtube

Keith186 wrote: »

Why couldn't you nuke them big time? Have South Korean soldiers form a border to handle the leftovers and a few more nukes for China just incase.

Wait, you are actually saying they should nuke China? Thats the kinda of crazy, I would expect from Ol'Kim Jong.

Keith186 wrote: »

Why couldn't you nuke them big time? Have South Korean soldiers form a border to handle the leftovers and a few more nukes for China just incase.

I'm not in the Military. There are a few posters here who are and they could break this down even better. But its not just a case of deciding to nuke them next tuesday. Lets ignore for a moment the devastating effects of nuclear fallout from dozens and/or hundreds of megatons worth of nuclear fuel. You're still talking about killing millions of mostly-brainwashed yet perfectly-innocent civilians. Whats more, you aren't even guaranteeing an overthrow of the regime with such a strike. The North Koreans are master tunnel builders by all accounts. Im sure theres a hundred other reasons why its a terrible idea, but those two stick out the most. Oh, and the open invitation to start WWIII. Thats always a kicker.

You might think the world is gone to **** already but you never know what could happen. If N. Korea get to the stage of launching nukes to Japan and co. and possibly longer range targets do you think they will stand by against such a hostile neighbour?

You mean will Japan and South Korea hold up to North Korea? I would think so. I would be very surprised if there wasn't already a very elaborate and heavilly modernised Anti Missile system along the DMZ which would at least include the Patriot Defense System if not our new-fangled lasers which Im geekishly fond of hearing about. I'm open to heavy correction but it seems to me like the threat of a successful nuclear missile strike from NK is close to zero. As for conventional warfare, NTM made a very strong case in the military forum about it, and from that I highly favor the UN's odds against a DPRK attack.

I know it's subjective to call them hostile but for the sake of the conversation and the likely reality (when they have these powers and possibly China as allies*) that they are/will be a hostile nation what do you think. I well acknowledge their right to be super nation if they have the power but the next generation of super powers will be the ones with the financial power to influence other nations not blow them up. If N. Korea want that game they should get what they deserve. With diplomacy and trade agreements they can make in-roads but with nuclear weapons they will get blown up in the end win or lose. I'd be weary of the Chinese using them for testing ground while they build the biggest economy and have the weapons too.

Im not sure they have the economy to support being a real superpower. Not to long ago (was it '07?) they were negotiating for UN food relief aid to halt their nuclear proliferation. These nukes are more bargaining chips than true strategic assets, imo.

As for China being their ally its true they have healthy trade relations but if im to beleve the media China has always criticized DPRKs nuclear program and at the moment are pushing for a peaceful solution. Fortunate thing that.