Really? I am a little bit disappointed then, I’ve been paying all these taxes and expected something
Ha!
Thanks, cckerberos. Those are exactly the two things I was thinking about!
Oh, I neglected to mention something else about the North Korean civil/military defense infrastructure: quite a lot of it is underground.
I’d just like to point out here that there is no evidence that North Korea has either nuclear weapons nor long-range missiles. They do apparently have nuclear bombs, but the smart money says that they’re very large and very crude devices that they couldn’t possibly deliver to a target. And they may say that they’re going to shoot a missile at Hawaii, but they say a lot of things: I’ll believe it when I see it.
Meanwhile, of course, there’s plenty of evidence that we have all sorts of fancy military toys, and ours are known to work.
So, we’ve seen NK test long range missiles and nuclear weapons (successfully enough to alarm us), which we really can’t stop unless we offer something they choose not to refuse. But clearly without an attack, there is not the will in the US to either invade or pre-emptively destroy the NK military sites.
So without an attack on us we won’t attack them, I don’t think.
But let’s say a nuclear weapon goes off in Chicago, and we can, to the entire world’s confidence, attribute the weapon to NK because of the radiation signature (or whatever other irrefutable evidence you choose).
The question is: does that require a nuclear response?
We make the case that NK is a dictatorship–if that’s the case the people should not pay unnecessarily, because they aren’t responsible. So I don’t want to penalize them by radiation.
We make the case to ourselves that we are not only just, we’re merciful. If that’s the case I don’t want to use force out of proportion.
As I said earlier, if we use nukes we become the only country in the world to use nukes twice. No matter what the context, the rest of the world will think less of us because of that. And that’s being generous to us.
We can accomplish any military goals we have in NK without nuclear weapons. To use them would not only be both militarily and ethically wrong-headed, it would also be flat wrong.
Hey, this is great debates. Wasn’t I provocative enough?
Blatantly obvious answers do not constitute a “debate”. :rolleyes:
Cite? Why should the world think less of America?
I don’t agree with you. I think there will be a collective crapping of pants in various places, mainly the Middle East, as people are reminded of the power of these weapons. And a nuclear response is pretty much mandated to avoid significant loss of life in SK.
A distinct possibility.
When was the last time America “sent a telescope toward Pluto”? What does this even mean? Do you mean something like the ESA’s XMM Newton space telescope, or perhaps the ESA’s Mars Express, or the British led Beagle 2 Mars rover (presumed lost in a crater), or the planned ESA ExoMars rover?
Shit yeah, what’s ever come out of Europe? Something called the World Wide Web springs to mind :rolleyes:
We soon figured how to shoot them down, though.
Bahhhh
Our friends might not like us as much, but BFD because they arent going to attack us anyway.
Some people might hate us more, but they hate us anyway.
Some tin pot dictators may realize they better not frack with us, less they end up radioactive charcoal, hanging from a noose like Sadam, or hiding in a cave on the run like Osama.
The really crazy frackers are going to be crazy no matter what you do…
While this isnt some equation with one right answer, you can at least make the argument that the proverbial boot up your ass approach to international affairs possibly has merit.
Ahh, the extaordinarily successful “George W Bush” approach to international relations…
I don’t think there are many times that the ‘“George W Bush” school of international relations’ is called for, but this would be one of them.
A nuclear attack on the United States? Are you kidding me. I don’t even think Obama, the kinder gentler guy that he is could resist the call to retaliate in kind. The uproar in the United States (or any European country save France) would be deafening. A case can be made that the U.S. plays too much in world affairs. I don’t think so but it’s a valid argument. But the most basic mission of the military is to protect the territory of it’s nation. A nuclear attack on that territory must be met rapidly and strongly.
The rest of the world would be watching for the reaction of the U.S. And it would have to be a reaction that would scare the crap out of the next guy thinking about doing the same thing.
I Agree, in the event of a Nuclear attack on the US, a response in kind would not be disproportionate, I was mostly responding to the tone of **billfish678 **'s post.
As to whether it would be wise to respond in kind, it’s another question, the hypothetical president would have to weight the dissuasion effects of a nuclear response against the long term negative PR effects, against the negative internal PR effects of NOT responding in kind, etc etc.
I wouldnt want to be in his shoes, thats for sure.
“that many” is a fuzzy term to be sure, but I’d say by any measure, the U.S. has “many” conventional weapons.
Osama was already hiding in a cave before 9/11. Might want to pick a better example.
How can you complain about my “tone” in one breath, then in the next basically announce that there is no easy answer and you personally don’t even know what it is? (which is basically what I said as well).
This:
Is the main reason of my “complain”.
Its the “we can act as dicks all we want because everybody who hates us cannot hate us more and nobody who’s lukewarm to us will start hating us if we do” philosophy.
I’d hope that’s not the prevailing thought in the military planning circles. In case you haven’t noticed yet, the North Korean capital city is just about one hundred miles away from Seoul. And let’s not forget about the winds blowing in a generally southern direction.
Also, while I don’t know how long the radiation would linger, I can’t imagine that it would be easy to clean up a recently nuked city. Although on the plus side it *would *get rid of that abomination.
Seoul will have more damage than if it were hit with a midsized nuke within 12 hours or so from the North Korean artillery bombardment.