1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Response To North Korean Nuclear Attack

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by nc-1701, Feb 12, 2007.

?

What Is Your Response?

  1. Complete strategic nuclear retaliation level eveything including civillian targets

    31.3%
  2. Immediate nuclear retaliation against military targets folowed by an invasion

    31.3%
  3. Immediate conventional strike folowed by invasion

    20.5%
  4. Wait 24-48 hours while you gather a coalition to launch a combined conventional invasion

    7.2%
  5. Go to the UN and request a resolution condemning their action folowed by UN sanctioned regime change

    1.2%
  6. Heed Kim's warning and leave him alone

    8.4%
  1. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    Here's the scenario...

    It's spring 2009 you have just been elected president of the United States. US forces are tied down in Iraq with 200,000 troops there now, but on the brightside the tide is starting to turn against the insurgency.
    The CIA tells you that they believe North Korea now has between 10-20 nuclear devices at their disposal.

    A missile launch is detected in North Korea NORAD tracks the launch. Missile interceptors are launched, but miss the missile. The missile hits downtown Seattle. Estimated yield 10kilotons. Inteligence reports possible military contact between DPRK & ROK. A message from Kim Jung Il arives saying that any attempt to retaliate or assist ROK will result in additional missiles being targeted at Los Angelas & San Francisco.

    What would your response be?

    Wait for the poll...
     
  2. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia

    Our missles would be in the air before Kimmy's nuke hit Seattle, and our yields aren't measured in kilotons. :evil: :nuke:
     
  3. Theige

    Theige American Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,935
    Location:
    New York
    Dismantle NK's ability to launch another nuke (with nukes of course)

    Invade, unite NK and SK under one gov't, Seoul as capital.

    This should be done as quickly as possible.
     
  4. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
    Easy. B2s out of Whiteman AFB to do a conventional strike against the missile silos, which are already probably under close observation.

    And just because we missed one, that doesn't mean we'd miss the others.

    That would be a waste of good nukes.
     
  5. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    We don't maintain the nuclear triad anymore?

    We'll just use the old ones, so we don't have to maintain them anymore.
     
  6. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
    I don't know whether we do or don't, but honestly NK is not the kind of place that needs a nuclear response. No matter what muntions they have.
     
  7. Masquerouge

    Masquerouge Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    17,790
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    Actually what I see as a good decision would be immediate conventionnal strike, gathering a coalition to invade and get UN approval. No reason why you should go one route only. And I can guarantee that the US would find a lot more allies in this case than for the Iraq war.
     
  8. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    50,119
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    Turn off the movie I was watching and go to sleep.
     
  9. ShannonCT

    ShannonCT Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3,456
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I'm confident that the United States will perfect the technology of intercepting ballistic missles long before a backwater like North Korea figures out how to hit Seattle. So there would be no point for Kim to attack. It would just mean One-Side Assured Destruction.
     
  10. Theige

    Theige American Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,935
    Location:
    New York
    The US military without a doubt would make sure NK cannot launch another nuke, immediately.

    Conventional strikes do not give a good enough probability to accomplish this, I'm fairly certain.

    If the president were to order only conventional strikes, and then we got nuked again, his head would ****ing roll, and then we'd nuke them anyway.
     
  11. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    Yes we do.

    Well, I'm unsure of whether a nuclear response would be warranted. That's why I created this thread. On one hand we see that a complete retaliation would make an excellent example sort of a "don't ever mess with us" type thing. On the other hand it wuld cost us alot in regards to international opinion and cause potentially negative enviromental impacts.
     
  12. Riffraff

    Riffraff Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Munich
    How bout it would cost many million innocent lives?
     
  13. Fugitive Sisyphus

    Fugitive Sisyphus Escape Artist

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    Location:
    Florida
    I think even the UN would be forced to take action if this happened and the United States would get support from the rest of the world including South Korea and China. Even if we didn't, we should invade, depose dictator, and remove\bomb entire nuclear arsenal even if it requires a draft.

    What is done after this is the hard part. It is obvious that the American people cannot stomach even minor wars. Though maybe if the US got nuked we would show some resolve.
     
  14. Nuka-sama

    Nuka-sama See ya! It has been a fun decade!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,461
    Gender:
    Male
    North Korea wouldn't exist after the second I was elected President...
     
  15. Gogf

    Gogf Indescribable

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,163
    Location:
    Plane Of Fish Sticks
    I would agree with this.

    If, however, North Korea somehow managed to set off a nuclear device in Seattle while I was president, I would take that as a declaration of nuclear war.
     
  16. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    nuclear annihilation.

    Already the official response of the United States. Same with state sponsored terrorist attacks.
     
  17. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    Right, but would you intentionaly use nuclear weapons on civillians. I mean most evyone would launch a tactical nuclear strike in order to decimate there army/nuclear facilities. The real question is would you also intentionaly target their civillians with nuclear weapons?
     
  18. thetrooper

    thetrooper Schweinhund

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,306
    Location:
    Hinter feindlichen Linien!
    Tell you to stop reading Tom Clancy novels.
     
  19. Gogf

    Gogf Indescribable

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,163
    Location:
    Plane Of Fish Sticks
    Nuclear weapons aren't smart bombs. You cannot use a 10-megaton bomb to take out the North Korean military headquarters without turning the rest of Pyongyang into glass as well.
     
  20. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    Actualy thats incorrect we have tactical 0.5-500kiloton bombs that will hit within a few meters of where we want them. It's entirely possible to destroy North Koreas military with no more than a few-hundred thousend civillian deaths. On the otherhand we could intentionally target population centers with high yield weapons to maximize civilian deaths.
     

Share This Page