My guess is when the fighting starts NK troops and leaders start throwing down their weapons and let the south and US forces take over. As brainwashed as they may appear to be I think they realize fighting is suicide.

As far as what weapons to use against them, whatever results in the least amount of deaths is the correct one. The US used nukes against Japan and as awful as that was it was the correct decision.

It took the actual use if nukes against Japan to convince them to stop fighting. The firebombing of Tokyo, the near total leveling of Okinawa, none of this was even close to achieving the result you are suggesting. The Korean people have similar sensibilities as the Japanese.

Also, the PDRK people have almost no knowledge about the outside world. Their propoganda will have them convinced that victory is at hand.

History is replete with examples of oppressed peoples who fight to the death to defend their oppressive masters.

I do not agree. There is an underground economy in the north where DVDs and movies and TV shows and other forms of media is very quietly passed around. Also, from repots of defectors there are many people who act like they believe in everything the leadership spoon feeds them but secretly believes the world outside is much better.

I do not agree it is the same as the situation with Japan 80 years ago. Of course, there's no way to be sure what they believe because everything is so muddled and we don't have any type of opinion polls. The south has actively wages a propoganda campaign to inform as many people as they can that life there is not optimal.

We shall see. There is no telling what their military leaders are willing to do. I would hope when fighting starts they do the right thing and put a bullet in that fat prick's head and save themselves. Many of us have been praying for his death the moment he stepped into power. What he's done to his people is monstrous as far as we are concerned, and we have no desire to kill our own people more than necessary.

I pray for the day we pour over that border and end this once and for all.

no country/culture is similar to japan in ww2, which other country can throw 21k men at the US at iwo jima and only have 216 become POWs

using them as an example is terrible

Never said I was irate, but I certainly didn't understand how you weren't accounting for it and seemed to completely dismiss the civilian population's plight.

Unpleasant was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that loss of life and casualties are an unfortunate, but necessary byproduct of war.

I think/hope you vastly underestimate US capabilities, intelligence, surveillance, superior technology, and military might. Yes. They might get off a couple of missiles tipped with biological weaponry, but I would think our stealth and air power would shut them down pretty quick. And even if you're right, it's all the more reason to act now before they're capable of doing more damage imo.

It was my understanding that we DO have tactical nukes. I'll have to look into that further. But I agree with Wil that like with the decision that led to nuking Japan, it might actually be the best way to minimize the loss of lives of both sides in the long run. We do not want to get into a protracted war with NK.

No. That's insane.

I suspect a lot of the pro-nukers are merely abysmal overgrown schoolboys who want to watch a distant firework display on TV started by their USA#1 POTUS#1.

It's a shame that otherwise great discussion gets interrupted by this nonsense.

Yeah morongi, what we need is more rational objectivity like this::

What exactly is insane about it? The Japanese were ready to defend the mainland with a full civilian resistance. Total war that would have cost millions of lives. I am unsure of the estimates but it was in the multiple millions.

What would have been better? To lose a million or more American men and countless innocent Japanese due to their fanaticism, or show them the war was pointless and end it with much lower casualties and dropping the bomb?

Remember, they were the original fanatics. They got nuked and STILL didn't surrender. We have to drop a second one!

Nuking Japan was the best of a bad number of options. There should be no guilt, as it resulted in the least number of lives lost. Terrible that it had to come to that but as bad as it was it could have been a lot worse.

Remember, the Russians lost 26 million people during the war. Do not underestimate what people are willing to do to defend their homeland.

It's a mute point anyway.

US policy is to use nuclear weapons only as retaliation for the use if WMDs, that is nuclear or chemical or biological attack.

Zero chance that changes with Trump.

Zero chance that nuclear weapons would be used preemptively by the US.

Once someone else goes NBC, then the rules of the game will change, certainly.

E.g., suppose Israel again launches a conventional strike against Iran to take out what is believed to be nuclear weapons site, Iran could choose to retaliate against Israel using a PDRK made tactical nuclear missile (unclear to me what type of nuclear weapon device PDRK is working on -- tactical seems to make the most sense from an arms trade perspective).

This is one example of a scenario where the US chooses to come after PDRK with nuclear weapons without being directly attached first. (This is presuming that the US somehow quickly came up with a tactical nuclear capability, which does not currently exist.)

We would not use nukes or even tactical nukes because of the proximity of Seoul. If your read about how much artillery they have and how close it is to Seoul id say any war would be over a million dead even with conventional arms. If they have found a way to put nukes on short range missiles, which is not known, then it could be much more including hitting Japan.

This is not Iraq its a much bigger hornets nest.

What is insane? FDR's decision? Or ever using nukes to prevent a longer protracted war that could cost more lives?

I think it would be insane to use nukes against a country that can defend with MAD, but NK is nowhere near that yet, but they will be if they aren't stopped now. I get that the US is not yet in full danger, but it's only a matter of time.

So are you advocating for diplomacy and just waiting it out and letting them reach that point? Or do you think they should be stopped? Our military resources seem stretched so thin as it is. There is no way we want a ground war with NK (at least I don't think. I'm not pretending to be a general or know anything about how to conduct a war). But a conventional war with NK seems unthinkable to me given everything else we're involved in.

I was thinking about Iraq (first war) when I wrote that and realized NK is a much bigger hornet's nest. So what's the solution? Waiting until they are a fully capable nuclear superpower? Seems to me that puts the entire planet's lives at much higher risk. Not trying to be obtuse, but even millions dead seems better than a full scale nuclear war.

You are like the fat kid complaining during gym class when they have to run a lap.

Pro-nuke nutters also have to factor in the possibility of a nuke going astray and landing in China or Russia.

You are like the midget with an inferiority complex who pushes for other people to commit acts of violence that he is incapable of doing himself.

Oh sorry, I forgot you ARE the midget with an inferiority complex.

There are no good solutions. But there would be no full scale nuclear war unless we struck first. Like all big L leaders Kim Jong-un likes his power and knows he would lose it if he struck first. The issue is proliferation imo.

Is war wroth stopping that? I dont like the idea and i like it even less with the leadership we have.

I'm 5'9.

We should have never allowed it to get to this point. Repeat, we should not be in this ****ing situation in the first place. This situation should have been handled already.

Look at the situation from a logical perspective instead of your pussy ideological pansy bull**** worldview. If we wait 5 years and do absolutely nothing is the situation going to get better or worse?

This needs to be resolved, end of story. NK has no intentions of ending their weapons program, so if we need to fight, let's do it now when we are ready.

Any time you have a chance to take out your enemy when you have the advantage, you do it. History has taught us that waiting and hoping gets more people killed. This has been the general idea behind how we have handled problems since WW2. Keep fighting small and controlled. We want to avoid things spiraling out of control at all costs.

If we fight NK now we are assured victory, we are just unsure how many people will die. If we wait ten years we may face a situation where a victory will not be worth it.

Your ignorance is really shocking here.

NK can't be trusted with nukes. If we do actually enter a conflict the goal of the US military will be decapitation and total change. I would be surprised if there is anything less than total victory by the south and reunification to end the threat forever.

If Kim Jong Un is alive 2-5 years from now I'd be totally shocked. His days are numbered and I think even he realizes it.

They would not use nukes against us if they had ones that could hit us. Pushing the button would be Kim Jong-un suicide by cop and he knows this. They would sell them to the highest bidder so in that way you are right they cant be trusted.

Like Gulf War II? How would hoping and waiting have got more people killed than the hundreds of thousands that were actually killed by the USA/UK, ie more Iraqis than were killed under Saddam's regime?

History has clearly taught you nothing, but we knew that already because you're a closed-minded bigot incapable of learning anything.

Unfortunately Iraqi lives don't mean much to our government. All of this discussion is only in reference to western interests and lives.

How many people even know how many Vietnamese died in our war there? How many care? I'm well aware 64k Americans died, and so do many other Americans. Ask them how many Vietnamese died and you'll get a blank expression. It's because it doesn't matter.

Iraq 2 was a mistake going in and it was a mistake coming out. Once we went in, leaving made it worse. This is widely understood and discussed even now. A clear exit strategy is needed, which is exactly why Iraq 1 was the only conflict since WW2 we've clearly won.

You don't know jack **** about how the world works. Nothing. You sound like a child. Please do everyone a favor and shut the **** up.

We are still in Iraq one.

lolwil yet again getting shown up for the clueless fool he's famous for being.


Your 'strategy' of turning up here to try to gain respect and self-esteem always results in the same thing, which is making a total fool of yourself in your terrible posts, people laughing at you and you sulking off with your tail between your legs, feeling even worse about your terrible loljob with night shifts and horrendously long working weeks than you did before.

Rinse, repeat.

Pea-brained idiots like you never learn.