Certainly, I don’t see anything like the German unification happening here-there’ll have to be a decades long “Reconstruction” with the aid of the United States and other countries before any sort of real economic or political integration. But at the same time if North Korea’s dictatorship is ever to fall, it has to reunify-the Korean people have essentially been unified for the last millennia and a half, and an independent North Korea would be at the prey of China.
If North Korea launches a nuke at anyone, whether it’s successful or not, a nuclear response isn’t an option.
A nuclear response is obligatory.
To not respond to a nuclear attack in kind would be to send a message to everyone in the world with ill intentions against the US that you can nuke us without fear of retaliation.
Why do you hate the South Koreans? What has South Korea ever done to you?
I agree.
Plus, even if it’s a part of a multinational effort, sending troops on the ground will get Americans and our allies killed. Why risk that chance?
So, send a nuclear bomb and kill 200,000 innocent people. Great idea.
Why is there no mention of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the font of all Evil in our era, in this poll?
You’re a secret supporter of Emperor Franz Joseph 1, aren’t you, Skald the Rhymer?
Admit it! Confess!
How many innocent people get killed if we don’t drop a nuclear bomb, and thus Syria/Iran/insert rogue state here decides that if Pyongyang can do it, they can too?
No, not a great idea. Lousy idea, in fact. Doesn’t change the equation any, though. Better 200,00o North Koreans than one single American. They started it, we finish it. “Innocent” doesn’t enter into it.
Because of the actions of North Korea a lot of people are going to die no matter what. you cannot allow a country to even attempt to set off a nuclear weapon without consequences. Why add allied forces to the casualty lists?
I do not. A failed nuclear attack by a third-rate nation does not demand nuclear retaliation, it just demands retaliation. The idea that everybody from Gabon to Sweden will suddenly think we’re bunch of pants-wetting pussies begging to be smacked if we don’t is quite frankly silly. Nobody is that dumb, certainly not any of the nuclear powers.
Because that is what soldiers are paid to do.
Nuke them. I would say that civilian targets should be avoided, but I have no doubt the NK government is evil enough to use its own people as human shields.
I voted for non-nuclear (because we don’t really want to open up that can of worms again, regardless of the incentive), unilateral (because lets face it, China and possibly Russia isn’t going to untie the UNs hands if it means that the US gets to sweat for a bit. They just aren’t) immediate retaliation. I have no doubts that we could wipe the floor with them with our nuclear hand tied behind our backs.
However, there is a very large and totally immoral part of me that wants NK to be a glow-in-the-dark country REGARDLESS of how I voted, so there’s that also.
Wow. Just wow.
I don’t even know how to respond to that. So I won’t.
So, let me understand the logic here:
To retaliate in some non-nuclear way is to send a message that you can nuke us without fear of retaliation?
It sends a message that you’re so afraid of the bomb you’ll never use it, even to protect your own civilian population, even when your victory would be assured. Which makes your nuclear arsenal, and thus your nuclear deterrent, meaningless.
I recommend a hearty “Harumph.” Whatever they lob at Hawaii, it’s likely they only have one of them.
If Kim Jong-Un decides to start a nuclear war, then hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are going to die no matter what form the reprisal takes. That blood is on his hands, not ours.
The question therefore becomes, how many Americans, South Koreans, Japanese, and allied UNC forces are we willing to let die along with them?
I’d prefer for that number to be as small as possible.
Once you pull the trigger, it doesn’t matter whether your gun jams. In this situation, DPRK has demonstrated its willingness to start a nuclear war and kill millions, and even if the bomb fails to deploy they’ve presumably showered some region of the Pacific Ocean with weapons-grade plutuonium, and that’s gonna ruin someone’s day.
The only fitting response to that kind of provocation is immediate and overwhelming reprisal in kind, both to neutralize the regime and to enforce the peace.
“Thats an NK nuke. And you’ve had your 60 Megatons.”
Okay let me see if I understand this correctly - NK fires off a nuke at Hawaii - misses it entirely and no one gets hurt, the US isn’t endangered in any way - they lose alllllll that money spent in developing and firing it in the process, when they don’t have much money to begin with (I think?) - and they’ve just shown the entire world how bad a shot they are.
Hmmm… I think a round of really loud laughter would do nicely. 
I prefer a nice baked egg custard. Though it is really nice with a dollop of lemon curd on top.
Once you get past several generations of brainwashing.
I can’t see where merging the 2 land areas and the population would be anything like Germany - there is so little [in a manner of speaking] population in North Korea, it can probably be easily absorbed into the south. Which I think would actually be a decent idea.
Get rid of the ruling populations both civilian and military, and remove the now internal border control. Offer each family currently in the camps the option of moving back to a city or town or onto an empty patch of farmland. If you can sort out their original residence and business or family farm, all for the better. They are already accustomed to some sort of educational system so they are all more or less literate, so encouraging the movement of industry there to provide jobs, and using humanitarian aid groups like Red Cross to disburse supplies until a more regular supply system [stores and resellers] can take over instead of using the military to hand out aid.