0.1 wrote:You clearly have no concept of deterrence and what is required for it to remain viable.
No Skimmer, you have no concept of deterrence, practically deterrence means the prevention on use by a state.
While the Great Leader will likely pillory you on his own later, this post is simply too stupid to be ignored.
Here is a the definition in case you need to look it up:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deterrence
Deterrence is a fine concept, and it works all the way up to the point when there is a mushroom cloud somewhere. Then the question becomes a matter of the level of response. You're not going to deter anyone if the bomb already went off.
Did you happen to consider, with that keen political mind of yours, that North Korea might not be the only country on Earth that has or could have nuclear weapons, a delivery system capable of hitting the continental US, and a grudge, and that they'll be taking notes during this hypothetical Korea incident? Deterrence is still in effect--in fact, a nuclear counterstrike would strengthen deterrence policies. It's one thing to tell a foreign government that we'll respond to a nuclear attack with a nuclear counterattack. It's another thing entirely to show them pictures of the mushroom clouds from orbit. YOUR solution, on the other hand, tells the world that the United States will not use nuclear weapons even when provoked. A retaliatory conventional invasion of North Korea is all well and good, until someone comes along who's convinced he can beat a conventional invasion.
It's perfectly acceptable for the government of the U.S. to say deterrence and responding in kind. But to put those words into action, it's not that simple. There is a difference between action and rhetoric.
If, when it comes time to back up your rhetoric with action, you don't do what you promised you'd do for 50 years, the entire world learns a valuable lesson: the United States is full of shit and will not use its nuclear arsenal in retaliation for a nuclear attack.
So, let's put this in a scenario:
Let us say that NK government slaughters some tens of thousands of U.S. citizens with a nuke,
Try "hudreds of thousands", Pythagoras, if it goes off over Anchorage, Honolulu, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or San Deigo.
are you saying that it is equally correct for us to go ahead and counter attack with nukes (even in a limited fashion) which may have fallout and effects that will cover not only the Korean peninsula but elsewhere as well? That is called action without thought of consequence.
And people like you are called sanctimonious idiots. It's not "correct" to launch nuclear weapons unprovoked at civilian populations in the first place, so it's impossible for a counterattack to be "equally correct". How is it "correct" to allow hundreds of thousands of your own civilians (who depend on and expect the government to protect them from foreign threats) to be slaughtered without retaliation, or to invite futher slaughter by showing the world that you can drop a nuclear bomb on an American city and not recieve nuclear retaliation in kind? What does this show to countries like Russia and China, which we could not conquer in a conventional campaign as punishment for an unprovoked nuclear attack, or deluded assholes like the (possibly) late and (mostly) unlamented Saddam Hussein, who think they can't be conquered in a conventional campaign?
On a side note, I like how you say the North Koreans will only kill tens of thousands of people with their attack, a feat the Sept. 11 hijackers could have achieved if they'd hit the WTC two hours later and 20 floors lower, while our counterattack would kill hundreds of thousands.
So, are you also saying that attacking a city such as Pyongyang (where the command authority of NK is likely located) with nukes is a viable option and even if it kill hundreds of thousands of people whose only mistake was to be born in a country like NK. And if you start talking about nukes, you're not very likely to be able to limit damage easily.
This is the only remotely valid point you make. Unfortunately, you seem to have created a false dilemma where the only choices are "do nothing" and "kill innocent Korean civilians by deliberately attacking major cities". I already argued that Pyongyang should only be attacked conventionally while nuclear strikes are reserved for military formations and Korean nuclear facilities. Not only is this the moral thing to do, it's strategically a better decision in my opinion. It destroys the N. Korean leadership's most prized assets while leaving them with their biggest liability: millions of their own citizens who would drag them through the streets chained to the back of their own tanks if they could, and now fear that they could be vaporized at any moment as long as the current government exists. No, such an attack won't eliminate civilian casualties, but how many do you think would die in a conventional campaign? Shit, how many are dying RIGHT NOW, of starvation, disease, and Communist "justice", just because they happened to be born in North Korea?
If the point you're making is it's ok to kill civilians for something that they had no choice over, then may be Wong is right about the inability of some people on this board to either think logically or distinguish fact from fantasy.
Did Wong ever mention anything about sanctimonious pricks who bandy about false dilemmas and lecture people who are far smarter than them about the meaning of deterrence?
It's all fine and well to talk about what you would do, but I took the question to literally mean taking action and not talking in rhetoric.
Thus my conclusion that you're an idiot who'd let any third world wanker with a warhead an ICBM blackmail the United States without fear of retaliation is valid.
TailerPark:
I actually live in Sunnyvale myself. That entire line was not serious, pay them off to stop attacking or pay them off to blow up Berkeley. Those are on such opposite tracks of thought that only people who can't add 2 and 2 together would assume that this is even remotely serious.
It's hard to tell when morons are joking.
I say glass em, but limit civvi casualties.
