StarDestroyer.Net BBS

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:Yeah, if Seattle is ashed NK will be glassed.

Though if he misses and hits Redmond instead, there may be some celebration after North Korea is bombed back into the Stone Ages...

Kidding . . . kidding . . .

What makes you think the US people wouldnt send NK as much booze as they could drink for that miss? hell I would.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:Yeah, if Seattle is ashed NK will be glassed.

Though if he misses and hits Redmond instead, there may be some celebration after North Korea is bombed back into the Stone Ages...

Kidding . . . kidding . . .

Waitaminute.....isn't Nintendo's US offices located in Redmond?

NOOOOOOOO!

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: And I bet other nations will be real happy with the fallout
And when you have finished turning NK into airborne particles I am sure the rest of the world will be happy to have Bush up for the genocide of how many innocent civvies?.

You destroy a city with an airburst. Airbursts give almost no fallout, as fallout is created by ground material being sucked into the fireball and attached to unused bomb material. With a city busting airburst that doesnt happen because the fireball doesnt touch the ground. And a modern bomb its self doesnt leave much material unused.

Ahh, I see.
However that does not negate the fact that in doing so that the US government would have committed mass murder. I do hope that you can see what is wrong with mass murder.

I dislike the idea because it doesn't accomplish anything, the north cities aren't worth the cost of the nuke needed to flatten them. A bunch of obsolete and inactive heavy industrial plants are of no concern. I favor attacks on military targets because they are worth it. They however require dirty ground bursts. Though the high efficiency designs the US uses will still greatly limit fallout.

The US never really went for city busting past the 1940's and early 50's. Nukes might be aimed to destroy a factory complex within a city, but overall you'd see few if any attack that where busted just to kill people.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Shinova wrote:Or the anti-war nuts go "NOOO!!! NOO WAARRR!!!!" while millions are toasted to nuclear ash (Seattle).

so, NK toasts a US city, so then its ok for the US to do the same to NK?

How is the US supposed to respond, if NK used a nuclear weapon on an American city?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: You destroy a city with an airburst. Airbursts give almost no fallout, as fallout is created by ground material being sucked into the fireball and attached to unused bomb material. With a city busting airburst that doesnt happen because the fireball doesnt touch the ground. And a modern bomb its self doesnt leave much material unused.

Ahh, I see.
However that does not negate the fact that in doing so that the US government would have committed mass murder. I do hope that you can see what is wrong with mass murder.

I dislike the idea because it doesn't accomplish anything, the north cities aren't worth the cost of the nuke needed to flatten them. A bunch of obsolete and inactive heavy industrial plants are of no concern. I favor attacks on military targets because they are worth it. They however require dirty ground bursts. Though the high efficiency designs the US uses will still greatly limit fallout.

The US never really went for city busting past the 1940's and early 50's. Nukes might be aimed to destroy a factory complex within a city, but overall you'd see few if any attack that where busted just to kill people.

If you wanted to destroy a industrial plant a few conventional bombs should do the trick. To be honest, in this day and age I just dont see the need to use a nuke. If NK does use one, NK will be invaded and its regime toppled anyway, so why bother with a nuke?

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Shinova wrote:Or the anti-war nuts go "NOOO!!! NOO WAARRR!!!!" while millions are toasted to nuclear ash (Seattle).

so, NK toasts a US city, so then its ok for the US to do the same to NK?

How is the US supposed to respond, if NK used a nuclear weapon on an American city?

Topple the NK regime via an invtaion? but what you said above is tantamount to approving of mass murder, two wrongs nevermake a right.

One would think that just the mutual threat of nuclear war would stop this situation fro escalating just as it did during the Cold War, just goes to show you can never negotiate with a mad man.

As for the question, how should the US act if NK used nukes on the mainland?

My mind says the US has the right to retaliate in kind (use of nukes), but my heart hopes that strong, but limited conventional attacks on strategic sites would be enough, although I doubt it would.

Stuart, By your thinking, If a US city is nuked then we should not retaliate in kind. In my opinion, world approval would not be a factor. This would be a gut reaction from the american people. I think they would settle for nothing less than a total response. It would take his head on a pole in Washington to make this right.

theski wrote:Stuart, By your thinking, If a US city is nuked then we should not retaliate in kind. In my opinion, world approval would not be a factor. This would be a gut reaction from the american people. I think they would settle for nothing less than a total response. It would take his head on a pole in Washington to make this right.

Well, I completely agree on the gut instinct issue. If a NATO city got nuked, I'd want the offending country to die in nuclear hellfire. But gut reactions are not always the better, and we don't always follow them.

Nuclear hellfire would mean death of a desperate innocent population, counting in millions, and have vastly negative consequences in the region.

The U.S does have the capability of achieving the desired results (destruction of the regime and the country's hability to do further harm) using only conventional weapons.

In some sense its your own fault for living in a totalitarian Dictatorship with Communist Tendancys.

Look at other countrys in the past, The Soviet Union, Kosovo, Iran, China, When they started cracking down and getting evil, lots of people ran for it, yet others stayed behind. Some because they could not run, or they would not

Ganhdi proved that massive non-violant protests can work, But few people are will to walk in a strait line, knowing at the end of it are people willing to beat you to death to enforce a law.

In some places its impossible to stage a massive non-violant protest(Iraq being the biggest Example that comes to mind, If 40% of the people marched in protest, Well that 40% is not long for this world, China's a better one, if you protest they make things increably painful for you in your day to day life, trying protesting after they yank your car, computer, mail service, and even residance)

But back the point, There are few "innocent" civilians in NK, Combine the 100% draft with the JW style Brainwashing and you have quite a few people who hate America for no good reason, If a Nuke is used by NK on anyone, I would not be suprised to see crowds cheering in the streets, if out of fear then anything else

But the main point I want to drive home is this
If we let a City of ours be reduced to rubble via Nuclear Weapons and we don't respond in kind, We set a dangerous example

But back the point, There are few "innocent" civilians in NK, Combine the 100% draft with the JW style Brainwashing and you have quite a few people who hate America for no good reason, If a Nuke is used by NK on anyone, I would not be suprised to see crowds cheering in the streets, if out of fear then anything else

Doing things out of fear is hardly motive to blame (people tend to be cowards when facing a gun, specially when the gun is pointed at their families). And the people who live in the city, the visible aspect of the regime, is hardly representative of the country at large, where the rural environment is predominant and people are starving to death and often trying to escape. Nuke Korea, and they'll suffer and die too, for years to come.

But the main point I want to drive home is this
If we let a City of ours be reduced to rubble via Nuclear Weapons and we don't respond in kind, We set a dangerous example

Not necessarily. It could give this message to them and others: Yes, we have nukes, lots of them, but you're not worth it. We can destroy you at ease with or without them.

Nukes, like all NBC weapons, have a very bad conotation (not necessarily always corresponding to the truth) in public eyes. By not using them, the US would appear always as the victim and a benevolent power, that refrained to use all the destructive potential at their disposal when less would suffice.

Have we not learned anything from history?? Dictators, despots, tyrants, and totalitarian govs respond only to strength. Weakness or lack of resolve only encourages others to act the same. Rule of the wildkingdom, never roll on your back and show your throat.

Not necessarily. It could give this message to them and others: Yes, we have nukes, lots of them, but you're not worth it. We can destroy you at ease with or without them.

Nukes, like all NBC weapons, have a very bad conotation (not necessarily always corresponding to the truth) in public eyes. By not using them, the US would appear always as the victim and a benevolent power, that refrained to use all the destructive potential at their disposal when less would suffice.

That would be fine and dandy if it worked in theory or pratice, but whatever is done by the US we can no appear as the benevolent power to much of the world in any case

Need I remind you how many countries bitched and whined when we went into Afgahanstan? Not until we had driven the Taliban into the ground and destroyed the vast Majority of their Forces did we hear anything diffrent, Not using Nukes when attacked with Nukes violates a 40 year long stratagy and for no good reason other than "we want to appear benovlant?

To put it another way
Say then launch a missle at us, say two, 100,000 People Die and we blow up the two city blocks where the missles where launched from as you as suggesting, Now how do you think that will be view by the America people?

Nevermind as I said before US Military Policy is as such that we don't

Wait to see how many the Ballsitic missle killed then decided what to do,
No we whap the button and send enough to reduce all possible further Launching Facilits to ash

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Nukes, like all NBC weapons, have a very bad conotation (not necessarily always corresponding to the truth) in public eyes. By not using them, the US would appear always as the victim and a benevolent power, that refrained to use all the destructive potential at their disposal when less would suffice.

That would possibly be the worst thing that could happen.

A credible threat of force is what has protected the United States for decades from various WMD armed enemies. No nuclear retaliation throws that right out the door and the world and US will get to enjoy a dozen more wars fought with them rather quickly.

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Nukes, like all NBC weapons, have a very bad conotation (not necessarily always corresponding to the truth) in public eyes. By not using them, the US would appear always as the victim and a benevolent power, that refrained to use all the destructive potential at their disposal when less would suffice.

So fucking what? International appearance doesn't mean shit in such a situation. If the US doesn't retaliate with nuclear weapons, it destroys the credible threat of nuclear force that has kept the nation safe from them for decades. Restraint will only bring more attacks and give the whole world far worse results.

Topple the NK regime via an invtaion? but what you said above is tantamount to approving of mass murder, two wrongs never make a right.
_________________

Stewart,

Please explain the difference if the US kills 250,000 North Koreans in a single nuclear strike, or 250,000 in an invasion? Dead is dead, wether is is grenade shrapnel or a blinding flash of heat.

On retaliation for targeting of US forces, installations or civilian cities with WMD by a hostile nation, US policy is nuclear retaliation (regardless of the WMD used against the US). On the scale of such retaliation, it would be on the scale of the attack suffered or greater. However, targeting would focus on military and/or industrial facilites of said hostile nation. All such targets are likely, even now, picked.

As to the value of such retaliation, there must be zero doubt of how expensive an attack against the US with WMD would be. If any hostile nation cares to test our resolve, they'll get the opportunity to do so ... once...

Even if they do have 5 nukes, that isn't NEARLY enough to even BEGIN to destroy the US military. NK would no longer exist if they even began to pull something like that. We would have ICBMs and SSBNs on them before they could even start anything with the South.

theski wrote:Stuart, By your thinking, If a US city is nuked then we should not retaliate in kind. In my opinion, world approval would not be a factor. This would be a gut reaction from the american people. I think they would settle for nothing less than a total response. It would take his head on a pole in Washington to make this right.

So you support the idea of mass murder I see. Well done, feel free to join the ranks of Adolf anf your freind Saddam.

false analogy. responding to force and setting up extermination camps are two different things.

theski wrote:Have we not learned anything from history?? Dictators, despots, tyrants, and totalitarian govs respond only to strength. Weakness or lack of resolve only encourages others to act the same. Rule of the wildkingdom, never roll on your back and show your throat.

We have also learned from history, esp the nuremburg trials, that it is not acceptable to kill unarmed civillians, and those that do are guilty of murder.
There is no need to use nukes when conventional means are availible, that you are unable to disdinguish between murder and legiitimate self defence is disturbing.

unarmed civilians? lmao. if we actually cared about that, carpet bombing would never have occurred.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Topple the NK regime via an invtaion? but what you said above is tantamount to approving of mass murder, two wrongs never make a right.
_________________

Stewart,

Please explain the difference if the US kills 250,000 North Koreans in a single nuclear strike, or 250,000 in an invasion? Dead is dead, wether is is grenade shrapnel or a blinding flash of heat.

First. learn to read.The correct spelling of my name is splattered on the screen for the world to see, its not hard to get it right.
Second: Are you another person who is unable to grasp what genocide is? if NK were to nuke an American city that does not give you the right to do the same, what do you not get about this? an invasion of NK is not the same as the deliberate attack on a city who's inhabitants who are noncombatants, at least in an invasion you can attempt to not fire on civvies, you do not get that option with nukes, and civvies have the chance to leave a city befor a conventional attack.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Topple the NK regime via an invtaion? but what you said above is tantamount to approving of mass murder, two wrongs never make a right.
_________________

Stewart,

Please explain the difference if the US kills 250,000 North Koreans in a single nuclear strike, or 250,000 in an invasion? Dead is dead, wether is is grenade shrapnel or a blinding flash of heat.

First. learn to read.The correct spelling of my name is splattered on the screen for the world to see, its not hard to get it right.
Second: Are you another person who is unable to grasp what genocide is? if NK were to nuke an American city that does not give you the right to do the same, what do you not get about this? an invasion of NK is not the same as the deliberate attack on a city who's inhabitants who are noncombatants, at least in an invasion you can attempt to not fire on civvies, you do not get that option with nukes, and civvies have the chance to leave a city befor a conventional attack.

nonsense. when they've done an act of war, a nuke of a city, they are subject to the full might of the nation attacked. that's war. and war being what it is, that entails doing as much damage to the enemy as possible. and that very definitly includes civilians. as taxpayers, factory workers, and spear carriers, they are targets. why spend our troops when a mushroom cloud ends it much quicker and more finally?

I'm sure a few others here have already said this, Stuart, but if the US didn't respond to a NK nuclear attack promptly, terrorists and other dictatorial nations around the world would think, "Hey, look! They nuked a US city and the Americans aren't doing anything about it! Let's go attacking the Americans and lots of other people!!"

One reason why Hitler made such a mess out of Europe back in WW2 was because all the other nations kept on trying to appease him instead of opposing him. Many historians have said, IIRC, that if Britain and some other European nations had stood up against Hitler when he had made his first offensive move, WW2 may not even have had occurred. (This is what I remember).


Oh and what someone else said here: 250,000 dead by nuke or conventional methods. The end results are both the same.