Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A people can lose it's will to fight, offer aid and info to the enemy, and become resistance/inflitrators and informants, and guides and scouts. Soldiers can defect. Winning the hearts of the people is more important than winning the war, look at Iraq.

All thats irrelevant if they shoot off a nuke, or threaten to shoot off a nuke.

Ignore them like you would a child throwing a fit. If SK wants, sell them a surplus boomer. Same for Japan. Lets make this a profit making venture baby.

But if NK fires one missile that goes over US territory, even "accidentally," even just a non-nuke test, mirv them with 200 warheads. Then send the satellite pics to Iran with a hand written note "threaten us and you're next, hugs and kisses, Obama."

No more of this 'send a message' crap.

And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

There are no innocents if they threaten my family em. Seriously.

NK civilians? SK moves forces into NK. The NK survivors are freed from generations of oppression. Korea is united in democracy.

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice...

Frazzled wrote:There are no innocents if they threaten my family em. Seriously.

NK civilians? SK moves forces into NK. The NK survivors are freed from generations of oppression. Korea is united in democracy.

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice...

You'd be surprised at how entrenched in their beliefs the minds of Koreans can be (speaking from the perspective of a Korean-American).

That being said, I highly doubt that I'll see a unified Korea in my life-time.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

What? They're innocent people who've done nothing to anyone. The majority of them are living in poverty. They have every right to live. How would you feel if it was 23 million Americans who were in danger?

You can't blame a nation for their leader's faults. You say they practically worship Kim, but that's what they've been indoctrinated to do. The average NK civilian probably doesn't know much about the outside world.

Eh, I wouldn't argue with them, they live by the age old saying: Do it to them before they do it to you.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Gone...and I wont lose a wink of sleep.

What? They're innocent people who've done nothing to anyone. The majority of them are living in poverty. They have every right to live. How would you feel if it was 23 million Americans who were in danger?

You can't blame a nation for their leader's faults. You say they practically worship Kim, but that's what they've been indoctrinated to do. The average NK civilian probably doesn't know much about the outside world.

Wait I thought the US was hated across the world because of George Bush. But we can't blame NK because its leader is threatening to nuke everyone and really really throwing a fit? You're sending mixed messages Cheesey!

Eh, I wouldn't argue with them, they live by the age old saying: Do it to them before they do it to you.

Remember its not the US re-declaring war every few days, throwing missiles and threatening to nuke everyone. I'm saying leave them alone, which you should support. Don't threaten don't this, don't that but use the big stick if needed.

No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I mean, with the superior air force America has, couldn't you just bomb the hell out of their parliament building and effectively decapitate the nation, allowing foreign governments to help the country back into a stable condition?

OK, allow me to be clearer. I think a pre-emptive military strike against government and military targets would put and end to this nuclear war nonsense, but nuking the country is going over the top. No need to make the civilians suffer for the government's screw-ups.

Pre-emptive strikes only work against a nation when you can find the targets. NK has developed a whole network of underground tunnels, caverns and even airbases (only the runways are outside, and those are camouflaged). Certainly all the nuke research stuff is buried deep in the northern mountains.

This is one of the reasons that NK is still a threat, even though most military analysts agree that past the likely carnage and mass slaughter of roughly the first 7 to 10 days, NK would fall like wet tissue paper. They're pretty impossible to knock out with air power like we did in Iraq. Heck, just look at Afghanistan for a lesson in the limitations of bombing!

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I mean, with the superior air force America has, couldn't you just bomb the hell out of their parliament building and effectively decapitate the nation, allowing foreign governments to help the country back into a stable condition?

OK, allow me to be clearer. I think a pre-emptive military strike against government and military targets would put and end to this nuclear war nonsense, but nuking the country is going over the top. No need to make the civilians suffer for the government's screw-ups.

If they attack the US they should die. What part of that is difficult to understand? What part fo that is wrong. It is the fundemantal duty of any government to protect its people from attack. Everything else is secondary.

NK can avoid that by not attacking us. Most other countries manage to do that. See how easy it is?

Not to mention the fall out that would effect friendly nations in the area. America's goal is to bring freedom to people, not free them from their mortal coil. We'd slaughter them, and become a real life version of Khorn Berserkers and Nightlords. Show them that their god is false, or better, Americans have to power to kill gods. Rip Kim down off of his golden throne and bring in the four dark american gods of Greed, Lust, Gluttony, and Pride. Death to the false god, let the galaxy burn.

Frazzled wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I mean, with the superior air force America has, couldn't you just bomb the hell out of their parliament building and effectively decapitate the nation, allowing foreign governments to help the country back into a stable condition?

OK, allow me to be clearer. I think a pre-emptive military strike against government and military targets would put and end to this nuclear war nonsense, but nuking the country is going over the top. No need to make the civilians suffer for the government's screw-ups.

If they attack the US they should die. What part of that is difficult to understand? What part fo that is wrong. It is the fundemantal duty of any government to protect its people from attack. Everything else is secondary.

NK can avoid that by not attacking us. Most other countries manage to do that. See how easy it is?

I said civilians. Over 23 million innocent people who have no chance of a life if the U.S. goes and butchers them all. At least you have evacuation plans in place, and plenty of space to go...

And nuclear fallout is a big problem. It would drift over into SK and possibly China and Japan if they're unlucky.

Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

Not even George W. Cheney would launch nukes if NK launched one in aggression (much less Obama); the fallout factor is simply too high when we're talking about the Korea peninsula. Our allies wouldn't want us too either.

If NK launched a surprise attack via conventional warfare it will be the bloodiest conflict since the last Korean War however eventually American and allied forces will topple the NK war machine. With our air superiority and well established counter attack plans we can fly in over a thousand different bombing missions per night and it'd requite this kind of effort due to the Korean terrain and size of the NK military.

If NK put a nuke smack in the middle of the continental U.S. today, you can bet your sweet _____ that tomorrow, there would be NO N. Korea, but a parking lot where they used to be.

I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
I said civilians. Over 23 million innocent people who have no chance of a life if the U.S. goes and butchers them all. At least you have evacuation plans in place, and plenty of space to go...

Evac plans? I must've missed that meeting. If we were getting nuked, our government wouldnt warn the populace before hand...what would be the point. If you're at ground zero, you could run, but you'd prolly just die tired.

And nuclear fallout is a big problem. It would drift over into SK and possibly China and Japan if they're unlucky.

Yea, sorry about that...at least we took care of SK actually getting NUKED instead of having to simply deal with radiation instead. We'll do what we can for you otherwise.

Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

Pointless attack? If I remember correctly it saved thousands of American lives, lives that would've been spent on a long and bloody invasion of the mainland Japan.

You have no clue man.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

I hate to derail this thread, but you're wrong. Japan had been pushed back to the main island. Estimates were that 1,000,000 (that's one million) American servicemen would die in the invasion, and that Japan would lose many times that in military and civilian casualties. Plus, after (iirc) Saipan, the concern was the Japanese civilians would commit mass suicide rather than surrender to the Allies. The Japanese believed the Emperor was a divine being, and he (basically) told them that they would not go to heaven if they surrendered.

As the grandson to a US Marine stationed in the Pacific, I'm glad they dropped the bombs. The number of deaths was significantly less than if the Allies had tried to invade the home island. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic, but it certainly saved lives. What else was the US to do? Blockade the island for 20 years? Let the civilian population starve and not have raw materials for manufacturing? Let the Japanese fly sorties against the blockade?

You need to pay more attention in history class.

I am sure the Chinese will fully support a launch of US nuclear missiles at north-east Asia.

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, what you suggested was nuke the place if they test-fire anywhere near U.S. soil.

I believe that if any sort of nuclear weapon is launched over American Territory it is considered an immediate Act of War. As it should be.



Here is my big question: Why do you all care about the impoverished North Korean "innocents?" Does their existence actually matter to you? Personally, I don't think the world would miss 23 million people. It is a rounding error in the world population.

Kim Jong-il is threatening to toss around nukes for no reason other than he wants people to think he is powerful and mighty. Someone who would do that should be put down like a dog, and buried in an unmarked grave. There is no compromise when it comes to nuclear weapons. They have a finality that no other power on this planet has. Nuclear attack is not something that should be an idle threat, or even a serious one execpt in the most dire of circumstances. They are a last resort weapon for a reason.

I fully support blowing the total and complet $#!7 out of North Korea if even a test missile travels over our territory.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

So I suppose if they hit our country with a nuke we should just ask them "why?" and "please dont do it again."

Call me kooky but something about that doesnt really sit well.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

Last time someone attacked the US, there was pretty good support for the invasion of Afghanistan. The time before that, there was a lot of support to go to war with Japan.

Mind you, I'm not advocating the pointless slaughter of the population of North Korea. However, if they all die in a US counter-attack, it'll be tragic, but I won't complain about it either.

If any nation launches a weapon at the US, the reprisal will be swift and brutal and eliminate the potential for a second strike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it ironic that Cheese is bemoaning the deaths of North Koreans in a retaliatory strike, but not the deaths of American civilians in the first strike.

dietrich wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

Last time someone attacked the US, there was pretty good support for the invasion of Afghanistan. The time before that, there was a lot of support to go to war with Japan.

Mind you, I'm not advocating the pointless slaughter of the population of North Korea. However, if they all die in a US counter-attack, it'll be tragic, but I won't complain about it either.

If any nation launches a weapon at the US, the reprisal will be swift and brutal and eliminate the potential for a second strike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it ironic that Cheese is bemoaning the deaths of North Koreans in a retaliatory strike, but not the deaths of American civilians in the first strike.

Ironic isnt quite the word that I would've used.

To risk derailing the thread some more, the nukes were absolutely necessary against Japan. Why? Because it didn't take ONE nuke for the Japanese Empire to realize they would be slaughtered in a war they were destined to lose; it took TWO nukes for Japan to admit defeat showcasing a type of national mentality that belongs more in the medieval ages than in the 20th century.

As for nuking NK if they nuked us I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen especially since a NK attack on the contentinal US would likely be intercepted; NK nuke technology would also simply be outmatched by our conventional weapons which we'd send by the thousands over NK if they were dumb enough to do such a thing. Like the firebombings over Europe and Japan, our conventional weapons would exceed NK's nukes by an exponential factor in terms of destruction.

However this is all just more saber rattling; NK needs money and attention and they know no one is going to feth with them until they make the first strike.

Deadshane1 wrote:Ironic isnt quite the word that I would've used.

It was the first one that came to mind that wouldn't have resulted in a warning from a Mod.

I see it as this....

You're probably right (Cane) about the missle being intercepted....and in all honesty, if a single nuke hit the continental U.S., likely we would NOT hit them with Nuclear weapons.

What the U.S. WOULD probably do after a Nuclear strike (successful or not) on U.S. soil is spend every bit of conventional ordinance that we have on that country in a retalitory strike before a full-on invasion. Leveling it before our troops go in to wade thru the wreckage.

Anyway you slice it...NK would be DONE.

Whilst I am a liberal, I do sometimes wonder how far certain nations of the middle east and far east assume they can push the west before the indulgent parent finally loses it's temper with the abusing teen and strikes back. Posturing like this isn't it. But if a nuke was unleashed on an american city, the US would not be satiated until a very much larger returning fire was dropped all over NK, maybe not nukes but it would be monumental and would wipe clean most areas of population of that nation.

The West stays it's hand for the most part, I am thinking this isn't going to go on forever. And if I'm realistic and lost family in a nuke attack on GB, I'd be screaming for us to wipe the offending nation off the planet and send a clear message to anyone else.

But in that area, China would be the worry, that dragon must be left to sleep.

There is a point where war becomes genocide. I'm all for pounding them flat, but to wipe out the north for the sake of population control is just that. Not even the USA has the right to condemn a entire people to death because they are starving and impoverished. Break their backs destroy thier will to fight, crush all who stand before you, But don't wipe and innocent people out because thier leader is nuts. You are talking about murdering 23 million people because of one man. Women, children, the elderly, the infirm, honest hard working family men. The armies lives are forfiet. innocents will die, but whole sale genocide will only prove our enemies right

Why do you all care about the impoverished North Korean "innocents?" Does their existence actually matter to you? Personally, I don't think the world would miss 23 million people. It is a rounding error in the world population

You sir, are an black hearted, inhuman monster. You represent the mindset that Islamic terrorist claim all westerners have. "Your life doesn't matter because you are poor and far away." Too many others in our past have said that about one people or another, they were all well known monsters, and you deserve your place right alongside them.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I don't think you realise what obliterating NK would do to the world.

You butcher a nation, and nobody's going to support the U.S. any more.

If they hit the US with a nuke, we wouldn't give a good god about the rest of the world. Remember how the US went berserk when two buildings went down? I hate to tell you this, thats US policy-MAD. It kept the world safe for about fifty years. If you think otherwise you're delusional. I think NK is acting crazy but its crazy smart. Even they wouldn't try to throw a nuke at us, but they'd try everything just short of that.

NK would be radioactive in wat 35 seconds? I 'm sure there's at least one boomer parked off NK. It would be pretty much automatic.