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. Shaihulud

    Shaihulud Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    3,685
    Location:
    Kingdom of Gore
    Conventional strike and invasion, I want Kim alive. Tortures new and terrible will be invented for our new enemies, i think that it will at least soothe the bloodthirst of the American public for the duration. NKorea will be in time subdued and added to the new America. Addition of territory and gaining a reputation for mercy is a good thing. Nukes is the simple solution, but its too boring.
     
  2. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    NK has apparently agreed to nuclear disarmament? And who is going to disarm? ;)
     
  3. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    Very logical and rational, but logic and rationality go out the window in the case of a nuclear attack. In that scenario, we're back in the jungle, and you have to quickly make clear to the rest of the troop that youre still the Alpha male and completely dominant, ruthless and merciless.
    Then as President, you might as well just dismantle our nuclear weapons and disband the whole program. You could use all of that money for other things.
     
  4. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    Yes, but you don't the rest of the troop to turn on you because you are so inhumane. Wiping out the entire military forces of another nation in under 24 hours seems to me at least to be a pretty massive show of force, as well as a show of restraint and compassion giving you a massive boost in both fear and friend points.

    No, I'de still use them on military targets. Or even on citys if the event of a full scale nuclear war, but in this case NK's entire military could be neutralized with a few hundred low-yield 5-50kiloton bombs so thir's no reason to waste thousends of strategic weapons, and cause potential enviromental damage in excess of what was necessary.
     
  5. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    I know where youre coming from, and I understand your reasoning, but youre thinking like nc-1701, not like the President of the United States. Naturally, nc-1701 wants to be known as compassionate, humane and possessing great restraint. Bozo wants those things too. However when youre the President of the US, your solemn duty is to protect the American people, by whatever means necessary. That is your primary concern. Not being loved by people in other countries. Your scenario states that a major city is attacked by one nuclear missile. How many Americans are now dead and or dying, a million? You have no way of knowing how many more missiles NK has. More could be launched at any moment. The clock is ticking...And you expect me to believe that as President, youd waste time launching a conventional attack, all because you want people around the world to think of you as humane? Not realistic NC. You say NKs military would be destroyed in 24 hours with a conventional attack. You just pulled that out of your hat. Regardless of what Dick Cheney says, no war is ever a 'cakewalk'.
     
  6. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America

    I never said conventional attack. I said I wanted Kim's nuclear/military sites targeted by tactical nuclear weapons hitting all majors bases reactor sites, and carpetting the DMZ. The only thing that would be spared my pinpoint nuclear retaliation would be citys and other urban areas. I believe in this method the war could easily be over the only limiting factor woiuld be howlong it took my B-2s to get there... The differance is that I would choose not to use strategic nuclear weapons to level citys. I would only target military targets with my nuclear weapons.
     
  7. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    Youre operating under the assumption that you know where all his nuclear sites are, and that none of them are located in or around cities. Again, your duty as the President is to ensure the safety of US cities and citizens, not North Korean cities. Thats the duty of the North Korean leader, a duty he would have failed miserably by foolishly launching a nuclear strike against the United States.
     
  8. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    The Americans have more than enough conventional weapons to destroy the NK army, with or without Nukes.
     
  9. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    How long does it take to destroy a nations military capability with a conventional attack? Completely unknown. How long would it take NK to launch another nuke at one of your cities? About ten minutes.
     
  10. thetrooper

    thetrooper Schweinhund

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,306
    Location:
    Hinter feindlichen Linien!
    Wait! Wait!

    There's a small wonder called SDI Defense (75% chance of intercepting ICBMs). Surely the US would have built that wonder before 2009?!?
     
  11. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    I'm quite sure that we do. As for the citys I'm not saying no civilians will die I'm just saying I won't go out of my way to kill extra ones:goodjob: I would retaliate against military arets only, because in such a short war bombing cities really won't do anything other than cost us PR points.
     
  12. thetrooper

    thetrooper Schweinhund

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    7,306
    Location:
    Hinter feindlichen Linien!
    That's a tasteless smiley to add to that statement!

    :shake:
     
  13. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    No, we're going with Wall Street instead.
    Again with the PR:confused: Youre the President. Your country has just suffered an unprovoked nuclear strike. Maybe a million or more Americans are dead, millions more threatened, and can be struck at any moment. And your first concern is...public relations:lol: Ok NC. Thankfully, neither one of us will ever be President. I decided not to run in '08 ;)
     
  14. nc-1701

    nc-1701 bombombedum

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    4,025
    Location:
    America
    So you're saying that using nuclear weapons on citys for no-military gain would be the correct thing to do?
     
  15. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    Absolutely not. It would be the necessary thing to do. Remember, this isnt the end of WW2, when we were the ones who launched a surprise nuclear attack on civilians in another country. At that time we were the war criminals, and deserved to be retaliated against. In your scenario, we are the victims of a surprise nuclear strike, and have the absolute right to ensure that no such attack can possibly be repeated.
     
  16. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    I voted for the first option because I didn't like the necessary invasion required in the second, even though my idea for using nuclear weapons in this scenario is closer to the second option. We should immediately kill Kim Jong Il with a nuclear bomb, wherever he's hiding - in the mountains or in the middle of Pyongyang, then we use nuclear weapons to completely annihilate any base, silo or laboratory used in manufacturing nuclear weapons. Conventional and smaller nuclear weapons could be used to destroy the rest of NK's military. Then we tell China to stay out of NK 'cause we aren't in a good mood, and invite South Korea to "reunite" themselves with their formerly communist brethren to the North.

    No invasion. Just a instant, vicious nuclear response. It's the only sane response we could make.
     
  17. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
    Actually, any response would be a PR response. Simular to Bush in Sept/Oct 2001. Any action taken would have, in the background at least, a PR level that most if not all politians would be quite aware of.

    So now you have to figure out, do you go with a nuclear strike since that's what happened to us and show power, or do you show mercy by doing a conventional strike and limit your strike to military targets, where mostly the military is affected and the collateral damage is minimal.
     
  18. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,088
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    New, very oddly appropriate acronym: O-SAD. :lol:

    Point of information: We warned the Japanese, it wasn't a surprise attack. They didn't believe us. :nuke:

    That said...

    I would not melt North Korea, though I would use tactical nukes wherever necessary on military targets (without much regard for the civilian populace) and decimate anything approaching infrastructure (civilian or military). In other words, bomb them back to the Bronze Age, while asking China, Japan, Mongolia, and Russia for assistance. In the forthcoming speech about it, I'd note that the US reserves the right to glass a country that attacks us with nuclear weapons, but we are not compelled to do so and have not done so in this case out of deference to Japan downwind and in recognition of the oppression of the people of North Korea.
     
  19. Tank_Guy#3

    Tank_Guy#3 Lion of Lehistan

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,918
    Location:
    Vivat Sobieski!
    Quite so. There would be nothing left of North Korea, save some pretty glass that glows in the dark. Either that or send the Air Force and level every building in every city of North Korea. Bunker, Factory, Hospital, School, doesn't matter, they wiped out all of the above (and more) in Seattle.

    You do that and it would send a clear message to anyone thinking of attacking us with WMD's. Go ahead, wreak chem, bio, and nuclear havoc on the United States, as we won't do it to you in return.
     
  20. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    You're wrong. It wouldn't be necessary.

    Actually, even during the Cold War, enemy cities were not a primary target. Cities have no military value, so they were actually only tertiary targets.

    North Korean cities have even lesser military value than the soviet ones. North Korea doesn't have any advanced industries that could support its war machine. There is simply no need to obliterate them because of one crazy leader.

    Nuclear retaliation against military targets - missile silos, army bases, airfields, ports, troop formations, reinforced artillery positions, that would be enough to cripple North Korea.

    With wise use of nuclear weapons, civilian casaulties wouldn't exceed the US loses. The regime would collapse and the country would be liberated from its oppresive regime. It would be a victory and US wouldn't lose face.
     

Share This Page