North Korea Threatens pre-emptive nuclear strike.

[Nathan F]

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.

Very well put, tharkun. You are 100% correct, we must follow through with nuclear deterrence or it will be rendered ineffective.

[CmdrWilkens]

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".

1) Civil War, if you think that Sumter was the only point of conflict between 1861 and the 1864 sack of Atlanta and the march to the sea then I really feel sorry for you.

2) Pearl Harbor, I won't mention the attacks on civilian facilities OR the subsequent total debasement of anything resembling civility during the Japanese campaign in the Phillipenes.

3) Vietnam, I'm sure that the constant terror bombing of civilian targets in Saigon, the torture of villagers, and the impressement of cvilians into service by the Viet Cong made them a force which attacked purely military targets.

[weemadando]

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.

How will it be his fault?

It would be the US invading, most likely without UN backing. And it would be the US forces entering the city in an effort to capture him. It will be armies fighting in a city due to an initiative of Mr. G. W. Bush. How again is the blood on Saddam's hands?

[MKSheppard]

How again is the blood on Saddam's hands?

He could have played nice and not shot at our planes, and not attempted to
develop chemical weapons...

[CmdrWilkens]

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.

How will it be his fault?

Refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

[Shinova]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I live in California, near LA. I take this NK business seriously.

[LT.Hit-Man]

There is one sure way to end all this damm war shit.
Everyone across the world rises up take there leaders put them all to the wall shoot them and start over sending a message to the ones who would take there place that the people are only going to stand for so much bullshit from there leaders then it's lights out for said leaders I think that would be a very good reminder for them to keep the people's best intrests at heart and not there own.
Well why not if this world is going to hell what dif would it make if that happend?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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.

Ahhh, but we have B-52s. We could carpet-bomb (with strictly conventional weapons) them back to the Stone Ages if they nuked us. No nukes needed.

[CmdrWilkens]

There is one sure way to end all this damm war shit.
Everyone across the world rises up take there leaders put them all to the wall shoot them and start over sending a message to the ones who would take there place that the people are only going to stand for so much bullshit from there leaders then it's lights out for said leaders I think that would be a very good reminder for them to keep the people's best intrests at heart and not there own.
Well why not if this world is going to hell what dif would it make if that happend?

Personally one of my goals in life is to avoid being shot by th Secret Service.

[weemadando]

How again is the blood on Saddam's hands?

He could have played nice and not shot at our planes, and not attempted to
develop chemical weapons...

You guys could have not broken UN conventions and established the "no fly zones" which impede on Iraqi sovereign territory everyday.

Are you telling me that the US wouldn't try and shoot down Iraqi jets flying missions over US soil?

[Sokar]

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.

Believe him people, I and a few others of us on the board(Bear, Rob Wilson, others Im sure) are old enough to remember when Armageddon was just 30mins away. Despite the fact that no one wanted to think about it, it was this omni-present shadow that lurked just at the corner of your vision. As a child I knew that something was wrong when the news would be on and my folks would start talking in hushed tones and look scared because something was happening. I didn't know what it was ,but it made my Dad scared , and my Dad worked for US Steel on the hot strip line, and he didn't scare easily. Even today my blood runs cold every time I hear people bandying about the phrase 'first strike' and 'retaliation'. Nuclear weapons should never be taken for granted , for many of you the after effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are glossed over in school and since they are both healthy cties today , it seems to trivialize the risk in a way. However before you speak further I suggest you read "The Atomic Bomb:Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Kyoko Selden , it will have you in tears to read these survivors accounts. Modern bombs , even the ones the Koreans may have are 100 to 1,000 times as powerful as the crude bombs we dropped on Japan. Any city hit by one with an air or ground burst , DEAD for the next 100,000 years, every one for 50+ miles DEAD , wounded or BLIND from the flash and hundreds of thousands more rapidly dying of radiation poisioning. When Oppenheimer succeded in '45 , he let the most horrific Djinn ever out of the lamp, and we can't figure out how to put him back.
I pray its all saber rattling, and that faced with US power , Kim will be reasonable and back off, because after Sept 11 and now Columbia , I dont think my empathy and horror circuits could take seeing Seoul or Tokyo or Osaka a smoking necropolis.

[tharkûn]

1) Civil War, if you think that Sumter was the only point of conflict between 1861 and the 1864 sack of Atlanta and the march to the sea then I really feel sorry for you.
No, but the North knew they going to get a bloodbath when they responded. The North knew full well that Sherman was pissing on civillian property the whole way down. They simply didn't care because the other guys started first.

2) Pearl Harbor, I won't mention the attacks on civilian facilities OR the subsequent total debasement of anything resembling civility during the Japanese campaign in the Phillipenes.
And yet the Americans had no trouble sanctioning the Doolittle raid which was nothing more than a terror bombing.

3) Vietnam, I'm sure that the constant terror bombing of civilian targets in Saigon, the torture of villagers, and the impressement of cvilians into service by the Viet Cong made them a force which attacked purely military targets.
Hell no the VC deserved to be lined up against the wall and shot. The point is what sold the yanks on war? The atrocities committed by the VC (including documented assassinations) or the fact that US forces were attacked. I have NO problems with the yanks going to Vietnam, and frankly I think the moronic way in which the fight wasn't quickly trasnferred to NV territory is the biggest mistake of the war.

The point in all of this is Americans tend to view attacks on their soldiers as sufficient cause to screw enemy civillians. The Day of Infamy doesn't refer to Nanking, the Holocaust nor Bhutaan. If you asked your average soldier in WWII if Tokyo deserved to be bombed the justification would most certainly revolve around Pearl Harbor.

Do you honestly doubt that a NK nuclear attack on the Yanks (purely military target) would not illicit cries of vegeance on NK and civillian casualties be damned?

[Master of Ossus]

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?

Actually, that is an interesting question. Since warships almost always carry some civilians on board, I doubt that there would be huge difficulty claiming civilian casualties, and the use of WoMD in a pre-emptive strike is considered a crime against humanity by the UN, so I don't see how the distinction would be particularly important. That being said, the warships of smaller nations like Taiwan do not generally carry civilians, and it would be difficult but not particularly important for them to claim civilian casualties.

[Lord Poe]

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.

I remember not taking nuclear war seriously at all until I saw "The Day After" I had nightmares for days afterward. Recently, my fiancee was watching some George Clooney movie that had a nuclear blast in it, which consumed two people who were watching the wall of flame coming at them. I was rivited to the TV.

Strangely, the nuke hit in T2 didn't bother me in the least.

[LT.Hit-Man]

[quote="
Personally one of my goals in life is to avoid being shot by th Secret Service.[/quote]

I can understand that but if for what ever reason you did decied to join the mob that was out to bring the gov down one thing you should keep in mind, the Secret Service can stop quite a few members of such a mob but they can stop them all I guess what it boils down to is do you fell lucky enough to take your chances with such a mob becuase things are getting so out of hand that something has to be done about it

[tharkûn]

I can understand that but if for what ever reason you did decied to join the mob that was out to bring the gov down one thing you should keep in mind, the Secret Service can stop quite a few members of such a mob but they can stop them all I guess what it boils down to is do you fell lucky enough to take your chances with such a mob becuase things are getting so out of hand that something has to be done about it
How long do mobs last against machine guns again? How long before the Secret Service whisks leaders into armored cars (planes, APC's, etc.) and busts out the heavy weapons?

If you plan on storming the whitehouse ... get real. Machine gunners will rip you to shreads. A hoard of civillian riflemen might make it through, but I seriously doubt your mob will get anywhere close before machine guns open fire.

[Sokar]

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?

Actually, that is an interesting question. Since warships almost always carry some civilians on board, I doubt that there would be huge difficulty claiming civilian casualties, and the use of WoMD in a pre-emptive strike is considered a crime against humanity by the UN, so I don't see how the distinction would be particularly important. That being said, the warships of smaller nations like Taiwan do not generally carry civilians, and it would be difficult but not particularly important for them to claim civilian casualties.

The issue in that scenario is not he civilians, but the use of a nuke/WMD in the first place. When that happens , all the rules go right out the window and its down to the discretion of the CinC as to our response. No one has ever hammered out a protocol of 'proper response' to a nuclear attack, it was always assumed that in the event of war in Europe it would go nuclear in hours with a full ICBM and SLBM exchange followng shortly after that. The idea with nukes was always Mutually Assured Destruction rendering their use moot. North Korea is playing an amazingly brazen game of chicken......and I , and I doubt the President or his advisiors know just what to do, I sure as hell don't have any good answers

[Sonnenburg]

Since we're floating to the Iraqi topic, here's the opinion of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Denmark:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994

Most noteable is the following remark.
"The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with [Saddam Hussein]."

[LT.Hit-Man]

[quote="tharkûn
How long do mobs last against machine guns again? How long before the Secret Service whisks leaders into armored cars (planes, APC's, etc.) and busts out the heavy weapons?

If you plan on storming the whitehouse ... get real. Machine gunners will rip you to shreads. A hoard of civillian riflemen might make it through, but I seriously doubt your mob will get anywhere close before machine guns open fire.[/quote]

You do have a point there but think about this if you where one of the persons behind the MG and you saw say about a 100,00+ of your fellow countymen who are sick and tired of all the bullshit that is coming down the line becuase the gov is leanding it's people into a war that should not be would you open fire on them becuase they belive that there gov is more of a threat to them then any other nation overseas and they want a better life then the one they have now and that they see no other way of bring about such a change?

[RedImperator]

You know, from what I know of Bush the man, I don't think he'd drop a nuclear bomb on civilians unless he had no other choice. A nuclear attack on an American carrier, I think, would draw a nuclear counterattack against N. Korean military assets (in perparation for an all-out invasion and war of conquest against the North), but I just don't think he could bring himself to level Pyongyang in retaliation for the loss of a carrier. Now, if Seoul, Tokyo or Honolulu were nuked, it might be a different story.

[0.1]

There are exactly two parties that would consider it a good thing for NK to launch a preemptive strike.

Saddam, because then the war for Iraq gets put off, while the world pounds on NK. And that buys him a little more time.

And in a very secret way, the administration. An NK pre-emptive strike could seriously hurt a part of Asia, but unless NK has a trump card that no one has seen before, there isn't as much a threat to the U.S. as a whole. The reason why the administration wouldn't mind if NK did something that crazy is because it'll galvanize the world, and there would be no doubt that Iraq would fall soon after NK did if such a silly thing actually happened.

Of course, as been pointed out over and over, it is just very unlikely to have a preemptive NK strike unless their entire high command want to sign a suicide pact. So, nothing happens there. Other possible scenario but not likely, is NK does something during the coming conflict in Iraq. Possible, but not likely.

As far as the threat of nuclear war is concerned, I would think that the situation today is actually far more dangerous now than it was before. In the Soviet era from the 70s onward, the odds of having WWIII kick off was fairly low. Practically because both side had a good idea of what the other would do, capabilities were known and there was always a sense of balance. The most dangerous period was during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but one could argue Russia now is much less stable than the Soviet Union was back in the 70s.

[Enforcer Talen]

who would the u.s. fight that could handle a ww3? there arent many superpowers around.

and, civilians are going to get hurt in a war. I doubt there's been one war where they havent hurt. it's going to get worse, too, since our weapons are getting soo good.

[RedImperator]

How again is the blood on Saddam's hands?

He could have played nice and not shot at our planes, and not attempted to
develop chemical weapons...

You guys could have not broken UN conventions and established the "no fly zones" which impede on Iraqi sovereign territory everyday.

Are you telling me that the US wouldn't try and shoot down Iraqi jets flying missions over US soil?

When we invade Canada, get crushed by an international coalition, and have a no-fly zone imposed over California because president Bush tried to bomb all the longhairs, then we can compare how the United States would react to foreign overflights and how Iraq has been acting. And he could have not attacked his own people in the first place. At any rate, that's irrevelant. The reason we're going to war now so we don't have a repeat of this debacle in North Korea in the Middle East. Hussein invaded a sovereign nation in 1991, got his ass kicked, signed a cease fire in exhange for staying in power, and has been in violation of that cease fire almost since day one. All he had to do was dismantle his WMD programs, make like Qadaffi and keep his head low for a few years, and he wouldn't be in this mess today. Hell, all he has to do now is quit--round up his family and hop on a private jet to Khartoum, and this ends without a shot being fired.

[Enforcer Talen]

dont forget nervegassing the arkansasans.

[Alferd Packer]

Just a question: Is there any evidence that the Korea has the capability to actually land a nuke on U.S. soil? Do they have a nuclear sub, or perhaps an ICBM? I seem to recall hearing that they have IRBMs, but the best they could hope for with those is hit the Aleutians.