North Korea Threatens pre-emptive nuclear strike.

[Alex Moon]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?0cv=CB10

Feb. 6 — North Korea could launch pre-emptive strikes against U.S. forces rather than wait for a U.S. attack after a war with Iraq, a spokesman for the nation told a British daily newspaper Thursday. While the White House responded by saying the United States was ready to deal with “any contingencies,” defense officials told NBC News that the decision has been made to send an aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, to within a few hundred miles of the Korean coast.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Ugh, just what we all need, more nukes flying around. A song comes to mind. Monty Python's I Like Chinese:

"The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why..."

I think those guys were actually predicted this event....

[Darth Wong]

That's an interesting scenario (not that I think it's plausible; they're just sabre-rattling). But just for the sake of argument, if someone used a nuke against a warship at sea, thus causing no civilian casualties, would the victim nation be able to legitimately claim the right to retaliate against the attacker's civilian population?

[Ted]

US carriers have McDonalds on them, if the McD staff was civies, the US would probably claim civie casualties.

[Exonerate]

That's an interesting scenario (not that I think it's plausible; they're just sabre-rattling). But just for the sake of argument, if someone used a nuke against a warship at sea, thus causing no civilian casualties, would the victim nation be able to legitimately claim the right to retaliate against the attacker's civilian population?

Even if they did hit our civilian population, we wouldn't be able to retaliate with nukes and still expect international support.

I think you're right though - they're just saber-rattling. Anybody who threatens go to nuclear against a world power either has balls of steel or brains of cheese.

[TrailerParkJawa]

That's an interesting scenario (not that I think it's plausible; they're just sabre-rattling). But just for the sake of argument, if someone used a nuke against a warship at sea, thus causing no civilian casualties, would the victim nation be able to legitimately claim the right to retaliate against the attacker's civilian population?

Interesting question, Im not sure. Specifically targeting a civilian city for obliteration is different that nuking a Navy base ( a small nuke ) and killing innocent civilians nearby. At least I think it is.

Another question is, if the US does not retaliate with a nuke of its own, does that send the message to other nations you can get away with it.

Even if they did hit our civilian population, we wouldn't be able to retaliate with nukes and still expect international support

Im not sure I agreee. Sure there would be others who would criticize us, but I dont think it would be any of the other nuclear powers.

[Enforcer Talen]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?0cv=CB10

Feb. 6 — North Korea could launch pre-emptive strikes against U.S. forces rather than wait for a U.S. attack after a war with Iraq, a spokesman for the nation told a British daily newspaper Thursday. While the White House responded by saying the United States was ready to deal with “any contingencies,” defense officials told NBC News that the decision has been made to send an aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, to within a few hundred miles of the Korean coast.

their bluffing. usa would turn em into a crystal feild inside a day.

[Joe]

Bluffing. North Korea is such a worthless, shitty little country.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

I have a morbid fear of nuclear war and even I think they're bluffing.

[Nathan F]

That's an interesting scenario (not that I think it's plausible; they're just sabre-rattling). But just for the sake of argument, if someone used a nuke against a warship at sea, thus causing no civilian casualties, would the victim nation be able to legitimately claim the right to retaliate against the attacker's civilian population?

Even if they did hit our civilian population, we wouldn't be able to retaliate with nukes and still expect international support.

I think you're right though - they're just saber-rattling. Anybody who threatens go to nuclear against a world power either has balls of steel or brains of cheese.

Brains of cheese, in this case. Kim Jong II is mentally incompetent, he lacks full mental health, seriously.

[Enforcer Talen]

any bets bush would hesitate in carpet-nuclear-bombing?

[Darth Wong]

We tend joke about this because most of us don't remember the fear.

When I grew up, the fear of nuclear war hung over our heads all the time. The parry and thrust of the delicate game played out between the world's two opposing superpowers was something that was explained to us children in terms that our parents hoped we wouldn't quite understand.

All we knew was the fear, that the world would be engulfed in flames and death over some ridiculous clash of ideologies.

Today, we make light of it. But it is no laughing matter; many people remain afraid in the world today. Afraid for themselves and for their children. Making light of that is foolish. And flippant remarks about a war in Iraq are also foolish; like it or not, there will be small children crying out in agony while their grief-stricken mothers try to bandage their wounds and ask the heavens why their little baby had to be taken away. And a lot of snot-nosed American teenagers snorting that it's no big deal would make them homicidal if they could see you talking.

Is it necessary anyway? Maybe. But it's no laughing matter, that's for goddamned sure.

[CmdrWilkens]

That's an interesting scenario (not that I think it's plausible; they're just sabre-rattling). But just for the sake of argument, if someone used a nuke against a warship at sea, thus causing no civilian casualties, would the victim nation be able to legitimately claim the right to retaliate against the attacker's civilian population?

Its an interesting duality crisis for the US because if they DON'T nuke them back its sends the message that you can touch off nukes against teh US without true consequence. If we nuke a civilian populace then we've gone too far.

My guess would be a limited nuclear strike with SLBMs against every major military facility in N. Korea. However you can certianly bet dollars to donuts that they are already doing scenario workups for these very contingencies.

[MKSheppard]

All we knew was the fear, that the world would be engulfed in flames and death over some ridiculous clash of ideologies.

I grew up next to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and most of us kids
in the 80s didn't run around thinking of how the world would end one day..

[Nathan F]

War is never a laughing matter. Whenever I begin to think that, I just think, 'My grandfather was on the invasion force of Japan 65 years ago. If that had gone through and the war had continued, there is a good chance I wouldn't be here today.'

War is a necessary evil, though, at times.

As you said, Mike, It might be necessary, but it is never a laughing matter. Although, if Saddam decides to take the war to the streets of Baghdad, the blood will be on his hands.

[Enforcer Talen]

I think I prefer to laugh at the things that arent 'laughing matters' becuase I dont want to spend life brooding on how miserable it is or could be.

[LT.Hit-Man]

[quote="Darth Wong"]We tend joke about this because most of us don't remember the fear.

When I grew up, the fear of nuclear war hung over our heads all the time. The parry and thrust of the delicate game played out between the world's two opposing superpowers was something that was explained to us children in terms that our parents hoped we wouldn't quite understand.


I hear what your saying but the way I delt with that fear was not to worry about cuase at the time I was lving to a very rich for a nuke when the cold war was on, I'd be there one second and gone the next if WW3 took place so why worry about it

All in all this is horse shit, I say everyone around the world should take there leaders hostage lock them all in a room with nothing but bread and water untill they all settleld this happy horse shit

[Darth Wong]

All we knew was the fear, that the world would be engulfed in flames and death over some ridiculous clash of ideologies.

I grew up next to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and most of us kids
in the 80s didn't run around thinking of how the world would end one day..

That's because you have the emotional depth of a hamster, Shep. Might explain why you're still single.

[MKSheppard]

That's because you have the emotional depth of a hamster, Shep. Might explain why you're still single.

Our parents didn't go and tell us how the world would end any moment,
you know....

[Sonnenburg]

We tend joke about this because most of us don't remember the fear.

When I grew up, the fear of nuclear war hung over our heads all the time. The parry and thrust of the delicate game played out between the world's two opposing superpowers was something that was explained to us children in terms that our parents hoped we wouldn't quite understand.

All we knew was the fear, that the world would be engulfed in flames and death over some ridiculous clash of ideologies.

Today, we make light of it. But it is no laughing matter; many people remain afraid in the world today.

When I was a child I studied sharks, flying saucers, and nuclear weapons. I was also deathly afraid of sharks, flying saucers, and nuclear weapons. Kind of a primitive "know your enemy" reaction I think. Now we're told that sharks don't even really like our meat, all aliens are interested in is your rectum, and nuclear war is history.

I know it's saber-rattling, I know we have enough of a deterrent to stop any sane nation from trying it, and I know that even if they tried the N. Koreans couldn't make it this far anyway. But if you told me there was a shark in the pool I'd be out in a flash too. The boogie-man is a has been.

[tharkûn]

The US has historically treated attacks on its military as causus belli sufficient to attack anything which supports the enemy war effort (up to and including the civillian population). Some confederates fired on a PURELY military fort, the Union armies burned Atlanta. Pearl Harbor lead directly to terror bombing Tokyo. And we all know Vietnam. Wether it is justified or not is debateable, but using WMD's on US soldiers will illicit a response far stronger and the yank attitude towards collateral damage will be "so frikking what".

The big problem here is where do you intend to strike? You don't have a road map with every target on it (and as I remember NK has its military and civillian populations purposefully intermingled).

The big problem with going "soft" on nuclear retaliation is it utterly wastes the value of deterance. Nuclear deterance is based off the idea that regardless of what you acheive , what is done to you in response is so hideously worse it just doesn't work. Maintaining a credible threat of nuclear retaliation requires you to respond with horrifically worse consequences. How would the future tinpot despots see a limited response? As a sign of weakness? As an unwillingness to commit to full deterance.

I could be wrong but hasn't the US stated that nuclear attacks by NK will be met with a nuclear response? If this is so it is IMPERATIVE that the deterrant follow through. You cannot maintain the credible threat required if you don't follow through on your threats.

While one shouldn't target civillians for the sake of doing so, placing too high a value on not injuring and killing them will result in the dictators of the world using even more hideous human sheild concepts. We've already seen despots move their AA and other military assets into civillian areas. If the US rules out courses of action to protect civillians it means the next guy will just abuse the system.

Somewhere there is a happy middle ground between respecting civillian lives, maintaining an effective deterrant, and not providing an incentive to intermingle military and civillian targets (thus ultimately leading to more civillian deaths over the course of history). Damned if I know where it is and I'm glad I don't have to make the decision.

[TrailerParkJawa]

We tend joke about this because most of us don't remember the fear.

When I grew up, the fear of nuclear war hung over our heads all the time. The parry and thrust of the delicate game played out between the world's two opposing superpowers was something that was explained to us children in terms that our parents hoped we wouldn't quite understand.

All we knew was the fear, that the world would be engulfed in flames and death over some ridiculous clash of ideologies.


Is it necessary anyway? Maybe. But it's no laughing matter, that's for goddamned sure.

I grew up during those times and did not really believe there would be an all out nuclear exchange, but the threat was still there. See the building in my avatar, my dad works about half a mile to the right. That whole area was ground zero for a Soviet missile so at least I didnt worry about my dad having to suffer. I however, probably would have had to live through the rubble and famine to follow. That is a scary thought.

[Enforcer Talen]

the u.s. has a nice long tradition of regarding civilians as supporting the war effort. no civilians, no feeding of the war machine. a lot bloodier, but for less time. supposedly.

[Uraniun235]

Funny thing is, they've got the US by the balls; if they strike, we can't retaliate because they'll blow the shit out of Seoul. If they attack our military forces in the area with nukes, we can't nuke back because the world would get pissed at us.

Though we could probably have every city in the US nuked and still get lambasted in the UN were we to retaliate.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

That's an interesting scenario (not that I think it's plausible; they're just sabre-rattling). But just for the sake of argument, if someone used a nuke against a warship at sea, thus causing no civilian casualties, would the victim nation be able to legitimately claim the right to retaliate against the attacker's civilian population?

I think that Bush would retaliate with Nukes even if it was nothing but military casualities. Im also thinking that he would also do this just to get reelected, the American people aren't going to reelect someone who lets a nuking go "unpunished", regardless of how justified it may have been.