Korea

[Col. Crackpot]

be sure to back your answer up with some reasoning.

[Col. Crackpot]

oops.

my vote is for at least a tactical nuclear strike on the NK nuke production plants/labs. it minimized civilian casualties and maintains the policy of "if you nuke me i will nuke the shit out of you"

[Shinova]

Small nuke strikes on launch sites. Doesn't turn the country into a crater, a few points to lessen political and diplomatic fallout. At the same time, shows the world the US remains serious about its willingness to use nukes when properly provoked.

[Colonel Olrik]

Small nuke strikes on launch sites. Doesn't turn the country into a crater, a few points to lessen political and diplomatic fallout. At the same time, shows the world the US remains serious about its willingness to use nukes when properly provoked.

In this case, it's not a provocation, it's a open act of war using nuclear weapons on a NATO city. There's little to do other than to nuke the culprit severely. It's the only way to ensure others that making war on NATO is equivalent to their destruction.

Of course, if the US were to attack first, the scenario would be different.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Nuclear launch on military targets in North Korea, with a subsequent conventional bombing campaign to keep them off balance until we can stage a conventional invasion and put them out of power.

[RedImperator]

I'd be reluctant to nuke N. Korean civilian centers for something their leadership did that they had no control over. Besides, the military failities are much more valuable to the N. Korean leadership than their civilian population. Full tactical strikes on all North Korean troop and equipment concentrations, and strategic strikes on all known and suspected N. Korean nuclear facilties, as well as critical rail and highway nodes and bridges away from population centers. Conventional strikes only on leadership and government targets within population centers, as well as tactical and strategic targets where collateral damage from a nuclear strike would be unacceptably high. Follow up with conventional strikes in support of a South Korean counterinvasion (a N. Korean nuclear strike on the U.S. would almost certainly be a prelude to an invasion of the South, an invasion that wouldn't get very far even without nuclear-tipped tomahawks disrupting their formations and supply lines). The objective of the NATO/S. Korean invasion of the North would be the total conquest and annexation of that country into South Korea and the capture of all surviving Communist party officials and army high command officers. Any nation found harboring those officials would be considered at war with the United States. Those officials would be tried, convicted, and executed.

This would accomplish three objectives: first, it would eliminate the threat posed by North Korea to the stability and peace of East Asia and the world in general forever. Second, it would demonstrate to the rest of the world that the price of an unprovoked nuclear strike on the United States is the total destruction of the aggressor nation's armed forces, the destruction of the regime, and the PERSONAL death of everyone responsible for the decision (a greater deterrent, IMO, to dictators more concerned with their own survival and advancement than the welfare of their poeple). Finally, it would leave much of North Korea's industry and population intact and alive, stave off an even bigger human catastrophe, show the North Koreans that their enemies are merciful even in the face of unprecedented barbarism, and show the world that the United States really does give a shit about people in other countries.

[Howedar]

Glass Pyongyang and all military bases and factories and such.

[kojikun]

I cannot believe people are suggesting nuclear weapons be used. You're insane. The best course of action would be to have China initiate hostilities, but if we must go against north korea then conventional weapons much be used, because nuclear strikes will anger Beijing and thats not wise. Its insane to even consider nuclear strikes as an initial strike option, especially if China isnt the one dropping the bomb.

[Colonel Olrik]

I cannot believe people are suggesting nuclear weapons be used. You're insane. The best course of action would be to have China initiate hostilities, but if we must go against north korea then conventional weapons much be used, because nuclear strikes will anger Beijing and thats not wise. Its insane to even consider nuclear strikes as an initial strike option, especially if China isnt the one dropping the bomb.

NATO's douctrine is clear about the issue. An attack with WMD in NATO's soil will have a nuclear reply, regardless of the country who did it. The only question is the amount of force to be used, and if glassing their cities is necessary. If China doesn't like it, tough luck for them. But after seeing a city destroyed by NK I think that either they wouldn't move, or would launch an invasion of NK first, to prevent a future NATO holdout in the former NK.

It is harsh, but this is why worst case scenarios exist, and the purpose of MAD. Beligerent countries MUST know we're willing to use nukes on them, if they use them on us.

[kojikun]

NATO's douctrine is clear about the issue. An attack with WMD in NATO's soil will have a nuclear reply, regardless of the country who did it. The only question is the amount of force to be used, and if glassing their cities is necessary. If China doesn't like it, tough luck for them. But after seeing a city destroyed by NK I think that either they wouldn't move, or would launch an invasion of NK first, to prevent a future NATO holdout in the former NK.

It is harsh, but this is why worst case scenarios exist, and the purpose of MAD. Beligerent countries MUST know we're willing to use nukes on them, if they use them on us.

Youre suggesting a nuclear first strike! Thats madness and as you said WOULD GUARANTEE a nuclear response! And the problem is, China might not side with us. If there is a nuclear attack, it must be China who carriers it out, otherwise allied nations will pay a dire price, one they cannot afford to pay. China can risk a few cities, South Korea and Japan cannot, because they ARE those few cities. A nuclear first strike is out of the question, and use of nuclear weapons is best if only launched against launch facilities. It would just be better to hit launch sites with conventional weapons. Nuclear strikes are simply not an option.

[Colonel Olrik]

Youre suggesting a nuclear first strike!

WTF? Read the title of the thread! NK launches an unprovoked attack and uses nukes on an American city, they attack first.

In that instance, the harm is done and NATO's at total war. We must go in and go in fast and hard, because after they start nuking the U.S you can be sure Japan and SK will follow shortly (together, obviously, with more nukes launched towards the US).

[kojikun]

WTF? Read the title of the thread! NK launches an unprovoked attack and uses nukes on an American city, they attack first.

Poll title. Sorry, nevermind, didn't notice the poll title.

In that instance, the harm is done and NATO's at total war. We must go in and go in fast and hard, because after they start nuking the U.S you can be sure Japan and SK will follow shortly (together, obviously, with more nukes launched towards the US).

That considered, then a nuclear response is not only appropriate but required. Expedience is a must.

Appologies for the mistake, I didn't see the poll title.

[Sea Skimmer]

A nuclear attack must be met with a nuclear attack

[0.1]

Pay them off so they don't launch further nuclear strikes.

Or I suppose if their weapon could reach Berkeley, pay them off to hit that.

[Howedar]

Pay them off? LOL!

[Colonel Olrik]

Pay them off so they don't launch further nuclear strikes.

I hope you're joking, because if not that's a very stupid thing to say.

[phongn]

Nuclear strikes, but even hits on military facilities will likely cause huge noncombatant deaths from fallout (since I have no doubt that there would be a lot of groundburst strikes against their hardened facilities)

It wouldn't be a joint nuclear counterstrike (why would the UK drop nukes on the DPRK?) though.

[0.1]

You did read the second line right?

To be honest, I think if anything, you wouldn't do a nuclear strike, you'd invade and take their government down completely.

There are all sorts of problems with coordination and so forth on that score, but even a limited nuke strike would cause a lot of casualties on the part of civilian population, not to mention this whole stygmatism involved with using nukes on real targets and the nasty after effects.

So, even if you invade with conventional means and have even more casualties, that might be the only real way to go. Because with nukes, it gets a little more indiscriminant on the after effects.

But heck, paying them off is an option. Sort of like tributes to the Mongols and hoping that rewarding bad behavior works.

[RedImperator]

But heck, paying them off is an option. Sort of like tributes to the Mongols and hoping that rewarding bad behavior works.

While we're at it, maybe we could paint an enormous radiation logo on the ground somewhere, maybe in Kansas or some other flat place, and the words "Blackmail Me!", just in case the rest of the world doesn't get the message.

[Colonel Olrik]

It wouldn't be a joint nuclear counterstrike (why would the UK drop nukes on the DPRK?) though.

If requested, they would do it and would have to do it. So would France. This is what NATO exists for. The allied problems only arise in attack first scenarios, like Iraq (note that NATO was united against Afeghanistan, the The Gaulle was there launching fighters, for example).

[TheDarkling]

But heck, paying them off is an option. Sort of like tributes to the Mongols and hoping that rewarding bad behavior works.

Yeah that is a great idea, any third world madman looking for a larger house will nuke the US in order to get some cash in return.

[Howedar]

There are all sorts of problems with coordination and so forth on that score, but even a limited nuke strike would cause a lot of casualties on the part of civilian population, not to mention this whole stygmatism involved with using nukes on real targets and the nasty after effects.

And what of the dead US civilians? Are we just going to say, "Oh well, thats too bad"?

So, even if you invade with conventional means and have even more casualties, that might be the only real way to go. Because with nukes, it gets a little more indiscriminant on the after effects.

Thats the whole idea.

But heck, paying them off is an option. Sort of like tributes to the Mongols and hoping that rewarding bad behavior works.

Um...

[Sea Skimmer]

It wouldn't be a joint nuclear counterstrike (why would the UK drop nukes on the DPRK?) though.

If requested, they would do it and would have to do it. So would France. This is what NATO exists for. The allied problems only arise in attack first scenarios, like Iraq (note that NATO was united against Afeghanistan, the The Gaulle was there launching fighters, for example).

While they might be perfectly willing to do so, I doubt the US would take them up on it. We'd almost certainly counter attack with bombers and cruise missiles only, while France and the UK would have no choice but to use SLBM's. Ballistic trajectories passing over Russia and near China= bad. Neither nations early warning system works very well.

[Wicked Pilot]

Roll across the DMZ, kill everything red.

[0.1]

My goodness, it's like talking to a bunch of childern sometimes, I'm kidding, committing suicide is an option too, but you don't see me advocating that. Appeasing people who just nuked you is not something you'd do, I'd have figured the Berkeley comment would've made that obvious. But let me spell it out for those who still don't get it (or did get it, but replied anyway): I do NOT advocate appeasement or payment.

And what of the dead US civilians? Are we just going to say, "Oh well, thats too bad"?

The reason for not nuking them back is because in some way the U.S. has to be held to a higher standard. (before the normal bunch of idiots chime in, let me just say that this relates in no way to the situation in Iraq where I think the prudent standards have been more than met)

Using nukes mean indiscriminate slaughter of civilians without regards for control. Conventional forces would at least allow some latitude in controlling who you hit. Civilian casualties is unavoidable in any conflict, but people should at least make an effort to control the number of casualties. This is one point I think most people don't understand about conflict and appearances.

I see stupid people whine and bitch about civilians been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but realistically, no military in history has gone more out of the way to avoid civilian casualties, if for nothing else but political reasons.

Let's not kid ourselves, if the U.S. wanted to, there was the ability to turn all of Iraq into one massive parking lot that's very quiet. There were good reasons why that was never done.