http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/05/2009527195524608822.html

Quote :

"Saying that the US had drawn South Korea into the PSI [Proliferation Security Initiative], the North Korean statement said it would also "no longer be bound" by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. Without a binding ceasefire "the Korean peninsula will go back to a state of war", a North Korean military representative was quoted as saying, adding that the North's troops would take "corresponding military action". "The US imperialists and the traitor Lee Myung-Bak's group have driven the situation on the Korean peninsula into a state of war," the statement said."

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/05/27/Obama-faces-North-Korean-war-threat/UPI-38061243436131/

Quote :

"The South Korean government of President Lee Myung-bak responded Tuesday to North Korea's second nuclear test by joining the United States in the Proliferation Security Initiative to share intelligence and attempt to search ships carrying nuclear technology to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. But the response from North Korea was swift: Pyongyang came close to issuing its own declaration of war against South Korea and, by extension, even the United States. The North Korean government stated that if South Korea joined the United States in an effort to search ships for nuclear weapons, it is declaring war. The North would attack the South if any of its ships were searched. It also said it was no longer tied to the 1953 truce that served as a shaky end to the three-year Korean War. The North also test-fired three short-range ballistic missiles off its east coast Tuesday and told other nations to avoid the area Wednesday as well, indicating they might fire more."

This does not look good. There's another article out there which I think should be taken down for scaremongering, but I'll post it here anyway for TWWers' thoughts and opinions.

http://turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/north-korea-to-be-attacked-us-nuclear.html

Quote :

"North Korea yesterday withdrew from the Armistice that halted the Korean War. Today, official Washington is abuzz with not so secret "Top Secret" plans for the United States to make a limited nuclear first strike to wipe out the North Korean threat in one fell swoop. Russia has been alerted to "make plans" for radiation fallout in its eastern border area. In consultations with China, the U.S. Ambassador to Beijing was said to be stunned when he was told by the Chinese government "Kim Jung Il is out of control and dangerous. He has become a serious liability for China. Do what must be done, but please do it in a manner that minimizes risk to China." China was then briefed about US plans and asked to prepare its southern population areas for radiation fallout. It is expected that prevailing weather patterns will disperse fallout over the sea, causing it to thin out dramatically before moving over land. Worst development since World War 2 Our source in the State Department explained today why this situation got so bad, so fast. "The Korean War legally never ended." he said. "There is no peace treaty, there is only an Armistice, a formal cease-fire. When North Korea officially withdrew from the Armistice yesterday, it automatically brought us back into a hot war. "he continued. Speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media, the high ranking state department source told Turner Radio Network (TRN): "Of all the scenarios involving North Korea, withdrawing from the Armistice was the one thing we thought they never would do. Since the War, everyone has known that withdrawing from the Armistice means the cease-fire is over. Today, that cease fire is over; we are back at war with North Korea and this time, the outcome will not be negotiated. Withdrawing from the Armistice was the last mistake North Korea will ever make. Their leadership must surrender now or they are nothing more than dead men walking. It's over for them" he finished."

That's not the full article from any of those links, but it gets the point across. Thoughts/concerns/opinions?

I don't think Obama would sign off on nuclear warfare unless the North actually attacked the South, but I could be wrong. He's changed his mind on a couple of things so far and, if the military officials are persuasive enough that NK is a threat to the whole world, maybe this would be something that could happen.

5/27/2009 7:18:33 PM

I don't think we would nuke NK. Japan probably wouldn't dig being irradiated for a third time in less than 65 years. I'm just saying... it would take some pretty big shit to happen for the entire world to be on board with a nuking of NK

5/27/2009 7:44:30 PM

Did you really use Hal Turner's blog as a source? He predicts nuclear war once a week and often just makes up details and always contributes it to a "high ranking anonymous source."

Quote :

"The decision to use a nuclear first strike serves another purpose as well: sending a clear message to countries like Pakistan, India and Iran about what they can expect if they continue traveling down the nuclear road."

wat

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 7:50:51 PM

AT LEAST GEORGE DUBYA GOT SADDAM!

5/27/2009 7:55:30 PM

No matter what happens. NK does not have the capability or the amount of fisible material to warrent attacking them with a Nuke. Conventional warfare would suffice

5/27/2009 7:55:35 PM

this is most excellent news

5/27/2009 7:58:25 PM

fisible?

5/27/2009 8:05:04 PM

Hal Turner is a lunatic, though, as I understand it "conventional wisdom" about the possibility of nuclear strikes on NK have been pretty consistently based on a certain series of events:

1) NK, with little or no warning, begins hostilities. Enormous numbers of artillery emplacements north of the DMZ do catastrophic damage to Seoul
2) NK forces move across the DMZ; despite substantial static defense emplacements (bunkers, mines), the NK forces are simply much, much larger than the combined US and SK troop presence in the country.
3) In order to prevent total takeover of the South, the United States launches limited nuclear attacks on the North.

Presumably we would also retaliate in kind for any NK nuclear launch on anybody in the area other than China, since China can presumably handle things on its own. Of course, since the Chinese leadership isn't certifiably insane, it's entirely possible that they would move against the North at the start of hostilities, to prevent possible nuclear war, maintain stability, avoid damaging relations with the west and avoid a major American military operation in their backyard.

Of course, if the NK troops are the starving, terrified midgets we've been told that they are, it's possible that even overwhelming numbers won't get them far across the border. And although substantial damage to Seoul is probably unavoidable, the American and allied airpower in the region is vastly superior to the North's defense, and would probably be able to wreak havoc on the artillery and other key sites early in the conflict.

The news I've heard in the past few months suggests a growing discontent with Kim Jong Il among his high-ranking military leaders, who are more likely than the average citizen to know that he's full of shit and their country sucks. A suicidal move like a reboot of hostilities might just lead to a military coup or civil war.

The one thing Hal Turner is right about is the fact that, if the North Korean leadership starts some shit, the North Korean leadership will cease to exist. Maybe they won't be radioactive ashes, but they'll damn sure be dead.

5/27/2009 8:05:16 PM

this might get bad. and when Israel bombs Iran as well

5/27/2009 8:13:19 PM

I have no idea who Hal Turner is. I stopped paying attention to modern commercialized politics probably after the 2004 election (i.e. blogs, talk radio, etc). Unfortunately that's the top news link that pops up under google news' area for stuff about north korea (it was when I made the thread anyway).

The original subject of the thread and such are still pretty significant and more or less amounts to an extremely stupid move by North Korea (though they blamed it on the South).

Quote :

"1) NK, with little or no warning, begins hostilities. Enormous numbers of artillery emplacements north of the DMZ do catastrophic damage to Seoul 2) NK forces move across the DMZ; despite substantial static defense emplacements (bunkers, mines), the NK forces are simply much, much larger than the combined US and SK troop presence in the country. 3) In order to prevent total takeover of the South, the United States launches limited nuclear attacks on the North."

Yeah numbers 1 and 2 are more or less why I was thinking that a nuclear strike is suddenly becoming eerily more possible with each provocation by NK. Mostly the destruction to Seoul and the cost to the civilian population was what I was thinking about, but I don't see how we could deploy nukes without such a situation being lose-lose (wouldn't folks in Seoul have to move away from the border for a couple hundred years?).

5/27/2009 8:14:13 PM

Can't we just bribe Kim Jong Il's PHA (Personal Hygiene Assistant) to swap Kim's tube of toothpaste with a poisoned one?

5/27/2009 8:14:18 PM

^ He still has batshit insane children, ya know. That guy is gonna need to swap out many tubes of toothpaste to wipe out the whole line, as far as I know.

5/27/2009 8:15:41 PM

Quote :

"3) In order to prevent total takeover of the South, the United States launches limited nuclear attacks on the North."

Highly unlikely. Even assuming the North Koreans had the fuel to move its mechanized forces to the other end of the peninsula, South Korea alone has sufficient qualitative conventional superiority in just about every category from aircraft to armor to artillery sufficient to defeat the North in a conventional battle. The question is not whether South Korea would lose but how much of the country would be left when the fighting ceases.

Because of this, I highly doubt that the conflict will go nuclear. MAYBE if we saw the missiles fueling on the pads and conventional air strikes failed to destroy it, Obama would hit the big red button. Otherwise, there's just no need to take the tremendous risks of a nuclear strike to neutralize the North Korean threat.

The interesting factoid about the 1953 Armistice is that it was between the United Nations, the North Koreans and their PLA friends. By withdrawing from the armistice, I suppose that Kim Jong Il is technically resuming hostilities with the global community.

I'm still trying to figure out what is motivating the North. Right now, I tend to lean toward the theories that the most recent tests are part of the internal succession struggle with people posturing and looking tough in preparation for a leadership transition. I would hardly call the North insane or irrational either; from a security policy standpoint, North Korea has played its crappy hand beautifully, playing the various powers off of each other, steadily milking aid from all parties, and keeping everyone in the dark on what its next moves will be.

5/27/2009 9:56:21 PM

Quote :

"wouldn't folks in Seoul have to move away from the border for a couple hundred years?"

Most likely, no. Hiroshima was pretty much completely rebuilt and populated in short order. Radioactive fallout doesn't really contaminate areas for that long, and can generally be cleaned up fairly easily when you still have substantial resources.

Quote :

"He still has batshit insane children, ya know."

True, but Kim Jong Il's sudden death opens a window of opportunity for other forces to oust that regime. Every person in the line that dies dramatically increases the odds of someone else stepping in and taking control.

Quote :

"Even assuming the North Koreans had the fuel to move its mechanized forces to the other end of the peninsula, South Korea alone has sufficient qualitative conventional superiority in just about every category from aircraft to armor to artillery sufficient to defeat the North in a conventional battle."

Of course, this depends on a variety of other factors as well. One is surprise. If the North got the jump on the South, they might be able to move fairly quickly as far as their fuel would take them. There's also the question of resolve. On the one hand, maybe the commies are sufficiently brainwashed as to have an unflappable will to "liberate" their southern neighbors. On the other, maybe they're poor and starving and as soon as they see how the South lives they'll turn their guns on their masters and say, "Fuck this shit." Other side of the border, the South Korean forces are largely untested and follow a leadership with historically dubious competence.

Overall, though, I tend to agree with your assessment. The North would more likely enjoy initial territorial gains at massive personnel and material losses, then be stalled until they can be pressed back. As I said, the nuclear option really only follows a certain series of events, one of these being a probable takeover of the south.

Quote :

"Right now, I tend to lean toward the theories that the most recent tests are part of the internal succession struggle with people posturing and looking tough in preparation for a leadership transition."

From my understanding, there's an element of this coupled with a generally growing discontent among high-ranking officials with Kim and his inner circle. Supposedly the succession issue was resolved with Kim picking one of his sons, but of course it's hard to say how much that actually fixed. Ultimately, the takeaway point is that the cult of personality is showing some cracks.

Quote :

"I would hardly call the North insane or irrational either; from a security policy standpoint, North Korea has played its crappy hand beautifully, playing the various powers off of each other, steadily milking aid from all parties, and keeping everyone in the dark on what its next moves will be."

I disagree on certain key points. While some of the North may be sane and rational, the evidence seems to indicate that the "dear leader" has long since departed Earth orbit (if he was ever there at all). Even if he is a rationally thinking person, he's so insulated from actual facts about the outside world that his decisions follow from ludicrous premises. His aid from sources other than China has been minimal, the international community is steadily more aligned against him, and one of the reasons we're in the dark about NK's motives is that Kim Jong Il is crazy and you can't predict what crazy people will do.

5/27/2009 10:49:20 PM

Quote :

"you can't predict what crazy people will do"

false. crazy people will do crazy shit

5/27/2009 11:23:47 PM

Quote :

"True, but Kim Jong Il's sudden death opens a window of opportunity for other forces to oust that regime. Every person in the line that dies dramatically increases the odds of someone else stepping in and taking control."

Also very true, but I have a feeling the military leaders in NK are firmly in control of its government. If Kim died, they could just push his son into his old position and give him the appearance of being a strong leader from the country. They could then go ahead with pushing forward all the stuff Kim wouldn't sign off on and likely succeed due to his son's ignorance on matters.

I dunno, maybe I'm being presumptuous when I say that his son is ignorant. He might be just as shrewd and calculating as his dad used to be (I'd say it's fairly obvious at this point that the North's actions are becoming less rational nowadays, given that tuesday's action more or less invites the UN to flatten North Korea).

If this is positioning to prevent outside interference, it's an extremely risky way to do it. Just about everything shy of breaking with the truce would've been somewhat within reason to deter outside influence for a shakeup of leadership inside the north. As it is I'd be very concerned about Kim possibly having decided that he's not going to die without having at least tried to reunify the two koreas by force. It is the end of his life and what has he got to lose? He's probably just carrying out some extreme posturing moves and trying to get the other nations to grant them a bunch of concessions to get them to resign the truce and return to the negotiating table, but the other possibility just seems to have become a great deal more likely. I don't even think the government of Iran, if in a similar situation, would have the balls to more or less test a nuke, fire ballistic missiles, threaten military action against its neighbor, and withdraw from a ceasefire treaty and effectively reclassify the war with its neighbor as a hot war all over again. Doesn't matter what the concessions would be, it's far too risky a move.

5/27/2009 11:36:57 PM

Quote :

"Also very true, but I have a feeling the military leaders in NK are firmly in control of its government."

This is possible, I suppose, and unfortunately all I have to base anything off of is the American government's understanding as it has been revealed to the media. And if this understanding is correct, any predominant power held by the NK military leadership over the government is something that was recently acquired. Up until the past month or two, the main thing I've been reading is that the military and parts of the political leadership have been upset with Kim, not in control of him.

Quote :

"They could then go ahead with pushing forward all the stuff Kim wouldn't sign off on and likely succeed due to his son's ignorance on matters."

Sure, that's what I meant by "window of opportunity." My assumption is that a group of people (such as the military leadership) can't be as collectively insane as one crazy person. That is, whatever they push on Kim's son will probably be less upsetting and bizarre than whatever Kim insisted upon.

As for Kim's son (I can't remember which one was "anointed" the next leader), it's possible that he's a smart, sane kid. But then again, he is the product of two generations of leaders who taught their kids that they were essentially gods. If Kim's crazy, it's less because of some brain issue and more because he was raised in a bizarro-land bubble where he could do no wrong.

Quote :

"I don't even think the government of Iran, if in a similar situation, would have the balls to more or less test a nuke, fire ballistic missiles, threaten military action against its neighbor, and withdraw from a ceasefire treaty and effectively reclassify the war with its neighbor as a hot war all over again."

The important thing here is that Iran seems to be pretty fucking rational, especially in comparison with Kim Jong Il. They act like an international badass because of nationalist tendencies that are far more deep-seated there than they are in N. Korea. Iran also has allies to carry out its work by proxy (Hezbollah springs to mind), which NK lacks. The best they've got is China, which isn't so much an ally as it is someone who will tolerate more of their bullshit than anybody else.

And so far Iran has done a good job of towing the "Saddam line," which is to say that they keep hinting that they might be able to make weapons while never actually getting all that close to doing so. That course of action gives the regime prestige and intimidation factor among certain key elements while never inviting annihilation. That is how you "play [a] crappy hand beautifully." Iran's leadership has a solid power base and a fairly distant threat of foreign intervention. Pressing this whole angle of "abandoning the armistice" or seeing "a SK declaration of war" one more iota puts the NK leadership squarely on the chopping block.

5/27/2009 11:51:28 PM

So I wonder if this is going to turn into the "Korean War of 2009" thread in about two weeks.

Luckily it looks like we (along with everybody else) are reacting fairly calmly to the North being a dick.

5/28/2009 12:00:13 AM

cue drive by media praising obama for being so cool/calm

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 12:02:37 AM

^^Because this is just another example of the North throwing a temper tantrum. I think it was Hillary who said early today that NK was just "looking for attention."

They constantly like to test the waters, and rarely go further than the initial inflammatory action/statement. What concerns me about this incident is that it follows so closely on the heels of missile launches and a second nuclear test. If they're trying to string a bunch of "fuck you's" together and this armistice thing isn't the last one, the next one may be just enough to cause irreparable damage if not outright war.

5/28/2009 12:09:13 AM

really? We should act cooly to a fucking insane leader testing nukes and fire missiles? really?

5/28/2009 12:09:45 AM

Like I say, he has a history of throwing fits and then calming down for a while, and never really doing anything to the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Kim Jong Il dead in the street like roadkill. The things he's done to his own people are unconscionable. But in terms of the actual threat he poses to others? Hard to say, but so far it's never amounted to much.

5/28/2009 12:16:26 AM

The US should invade North Korea and overthrow kim jong the second.

5/28/2009 12:33:03 AM

^^^ The alternative is the death of millions.

They should not seek appeasement, but they should seek to make them calm the fuck down and come back into the armistice treaty, to return to six way talks, and to top it off we should put a few more sanctions on the list of those already in place.

5/28/2009 12:50:27 AM

Six party talks are a waste of time.

Quote :

"really? We should act cooly to a fucking insane leader testing nukes and fire missiles? really?"

Yes, really. Kim Jong Il is like a message-board troll. He is trying to get a rise out of other nations. He derives his power from the threat of foreign invasion and the paranoia of the North Korean populace. Ignore him and he disappears.

5/28/2009 1:51:00 AM

whoa, thats^ the exact opposite of bush policy

5/28/2009 2:07:26 AM

^^I'm with you halfway. I agree he's mostly just trying to maintain a constant threat of invasion to keep his own people in line. But it's quite likely that his successors will have to resort to the same tactics. It's hard to give up absolute power. In half a century, Castro has never done it. Now imagine what would happen if he tried to pull a Cuban missile crisis every few years -- or worse yet, had to top the crisis every few years.

Sooner or later, even if only to keep up appearances, Kim or his successor will have to do something risky that actually crosses a line. And then everything goes to shit.

I say blast the hell out of the country with every kind of propaganda we can without violating airspace or anything. Either it will cause the military/people to kick out the leadership and replace it with something a little more reasonable, or it will bait the sons of bitches into starting the fight so we can go ahead and get it over with. Whatever we're doing on that front isn't enough.

5/28/2009 2:39:38 AM

I think right now we're just banking on the old coot dying and something positive coming out of that. Either this or an uprising, which doesn't seem likely enough right now. I agree that we should do more to provoke change in NK, but I'm having a hard time seeing an outcome which doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of SK civilians getting killed.

Maybe that's just what is going to have to happen. Total war that ends with massive casualties.

I'm certainly thinking there's going to be some open combat along the DMZ in the coming weeks if the cease fire remains this way. Six party talks are also most certainly a waste of time but they at least kept dialogue going between the countries. All that's going on right now is NK throwing a temper tantrum and looking to get their ass permanently thrown in time out.

5/28/2009 3:42:35 AM

yes. we really should do more talks. and more sanctions. cause they have really worked so well in the past

5/28/2009 8:30:02 AM

Well then what the hell do you think we should do, Burro?

You just said that talks and sanctions don't work.

You don't want to nuke them (good to know that you're sane).

You acted incredulous to the thought of ignoring their antics a few posts up with this post:

Quote :

"really? We should act cooly to a fucking insane leader testing nukes and fire missiles? really?"

Lets hear your solution. Keep in mind that just about any aggressive act by us or South Korea at this point will be seen by Pyongyang as an act of war, and could easily turn into a nuclear stand-off.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : 2]

5/28/2009 8:39:58 AM

nuclear standoff? riiiiiight. they barely have a functioning missile delivery system, so it is doubtful they could even mount a warhead on a missile.

and we don't even have to be "aggressive" for them to see it as an act of war. We could go to the fucking bathroom and they would say that was an act of war.

tell me, though, at what point has NK committed an act of war? Firing missiles over Japan? Ignoring UN resolution after resolution?

I mean, this almost like us getting our panties in a tizzy for a year over "are we in a recession? Is there a recession coming? OMG!!!! are we in a recession?" instead of fucking DEALING WITH IT.

5/28/2009 8:51:20 AM

Wait, what?

You didn't answer my question.

Quote :

"I mean, this almost like us getting our panties in a tizzy for a year over "are we in a recession? Is there a recession coming? OMG!!!! are we in a recession?" instead of fucking DEALING WITH IT."

So how do we "DEAL WITH IT"?

5/28/2009 9:02:27 AM

nuke em.

5/28/2009 10:00:59 AM

NK's muta micro is shit. They might be able to fast expand with a rush, but they're going to be beat back pretty quickly once SK finishes siege mode.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Reason : also: there wont be nukes cause Boxer left the military]

5/28/2009 10:29:54 AM

starcraft jokes itt

5/28/2009 10:31:25 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_South_Korea

versus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Korea

NK claims to have 1.1 M active, whereas SK only has 300,000. But I'd say that SK is a bit better funded and more advanced. But... the USA has 1.4 M and an annual budget of $583 billion, which is about half of the entire GDP of the Korean peninsula.

Does anyone really think NK will launch a "powerful military attack" like they say?

5/28/2009 11:36:40 AM

one of the things I want to say is that I don't think the US should, nor probably would conduct a nuclear strike on Korea, no matter what they did

our nuclear strike capability's primary purpose is as a deterrent against a massive nuclear attack.

even if N Korea nuked Korea or Japan (I don't think they have the capability to hit us with any reliability) there are far too many options on the table to have to react with a tit for tat

they are a sad little psychotic country that needs to be coddled

better to coddle and contain them than the alternatives

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 11:43:25 AM

^

Quote :

"one of the things I want to say is that I don't think the US should, nor probably would conduct a nuclear strike on Korea, no matter what they did"

The bold part would be appeasement. And it has been understood for years that the United States would attack North Korea with nuclear weapons if it ever invades South Korea.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 11:49:55 AM

It wouldn't make sense to use nuclear weapons when conventional weapons would do the job better.

I really don't see the US ever using nuclear weapons again, unless hostile aliens from space invaded or something.

Not using nuclear weapons isn't appeasement either... hahaha you are really starting to show your age with that one.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2009 11:52:32 AM

In WWII we launched nuclear strikes to prevent the loss of 100s of thousands of American soldiers.

Today, we might have the choice between launching nuclear weapons and the leveling of SK. I'm not worried about the nuclear arsenal of NK doing any damage to us or even Japan, and I'm not all that worried about SK suffering a nuclear strike from NK. But what if NK has the capability to completely level Seoul? That city has a metro area of 24 million people.

NK might have enough firepower to do it, level all of Seoul, which isn't even prepared for that, we could effectively destroy NK's war making ability by basically leveling their side of the DMZ. But that could take a preemptive nuclear strike from us. (it might not, but it might)

So what say you? Was Truman's rationale for sending the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki archaic logic, or would it still apply today? Do we value keeping the world non-nuclear above ANY human cost?

Well do we?

5/28/2009 11:58:18 AM

^^ Please stop trolling. My comment concerning the "no matter what they did" statement clearly related to giving up something--such as South Korea.

Obama pledges U.S. support for South Korea's defense

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54P0EA20090526

And if you knew anything at all about military strategy and tactics, you'd know that you never take any options off the table in this type of scenario. And what about force strength?

And there's this:

U.S., South Korea Raise Military Alert on North

Quote :

"South Korea is preparing for a possible missile or artillery strikes near a disputed sea border off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, the Seoul-based daily Chosun Ilbo reported. The North said this week it would no longer respect that border, which has been the site of two naval skirmishes in the past decade."

http://tinyurl.com/qr8afu

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 11:58:40 AM

If they used Nuclear weapons, then I think it would be paramount that we respond in kind. Not doing so would send a pretty clear message that we will not use nuclear weapons when they are used against us, thus eliminating the point of having them (deterrence).

The best thing to do with NK is just ignore them. Why coddle them? Why be aggressive with them? Just fucking ignore them. Let them throw a temper tantrum, if they step out of bounds knock them down.

And for fucks sake, stop feeding them! That just keeps those in power in power. Yeah it sucks that people will starve, but no change will come unless it comes from within without serious bloodshed.

5/28/2009 12:06:03 PM

^^ do YOU personally think it would be reasonable to nuke a country? Do you realize what types of effects result from nuclear weapons? Warfare has changed a lot from the era you grew up in, we have computers and stuff now.

There's nothing we could achieve with a nuke that we couldn't achieve with better results using other weapons.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

5/28/2009 12:06:20 PM

Hasn't NK "nullified" the armistice 2 or 3 other times in the past 10 years?

5/28/2009 12:07:00 PM

^^ Incorrect. The psychological effect would be perhaps even more devastating than the physical devastation.

PS: Yes, under certain obviously limited circumstances, it is preferable to "nuke" a country when the only other options are even more undesirable. Liberals often get out ahead of themselves on this issue--just as Jon Stewart did when he called Truman a war criminal:

http://tinyurl.com/cg4ane






[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 12:12:46 PM

^ You realize you're talking about a reactive nuclear strike? Do you really think that a country that used nukes first isn't prepared to be nuked? Minimizing civilian casualties and irradiating the atmosphere, while destroying the military capability and then seizing control with ground troops would be the best course of actiog, dnt dropping a nuke, and hoping they don't have another one lined up.

I personally would rather our soldiers NOT have to fight in an area inundated by radiation, but you don't have to care about our soldiers' lives if you don't want to.

5/28/2009 12:20:36 PM

*Sigh* How many soldiers do you think it would take take to repel a North Korean invasion?

5/28/2009 12:23:03 PM

How many nukes would it take?

5/28/2009 12:23:54 PM

^ Answer the question.

5/28/2009 12:27:21 PM

Between our guys and SK's guys, we could probably handle it. We drastically out-gun them.

It's not really relevant at all though, because as GrumpyGOP has already pointed out, NK is just posturing.

And in the hypothetical event NK used a nuke and then invaded, us using a nuke would not stop the invasion. It would just make the clean up more dangerous for our guys.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ]

5/28/2009 12:38:43 PM