• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL: How much do you want to see a "contained" nuclear skirmish in Korea?

StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Yes, an awful question, but as with post 9/11 and all those who were frothing at the mouth to see the middle east "turned to glass", I have to wonder with this bluster from NK and the "We will crush them" responses here, I wonder if with anonymity people can be honest with themselves. Just post from the heart. It's ok to say you want to see one and wish you didn't but can't lie. Let's see what we come up with.

In any case, here is a link, with NK saying it would potentially use nukes in an offensive, not just defensive manner: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525501,00.html">Link</a>
 
any type of nuke usage can get out of hand fast.

One should never plan for a "limited" - it will easily escalate
 
If NK used nukes in a first strike against a strategic partner like SK (not to mention our own forces there) we would be compelled to respond in kind. The entire concept of deterrence and billions of other lives would be at risk if we did not.

I by no means want to see it but we would have to have throw down if NK up and nuked Seoul.
 
As long as nothing happens to SK or Japan, fuck 'em. But currently that's not an option, so no.
 
I couldn't be more against it simply because it's not the populace's fault its government is a sack of shit. The millions shouldn't have to suffer just so we can topple a few people.
 
Admittedly, it would be kind of cool to watch a full-scale war occur somewhere far, far away from me.

I mean, maybe the North Koreans will pull some crazy shit and ride out on giant elephants, or sandworms or something like that, you know? Sixty years of training like crazy for a war the rest of us don't really care to start must have led to some really original shit.
 
I want to see all nuclear weapons dismantled and the warhead material converted for use in nuclear power plants.
 
Originally posted by: SammyJr
I want to see all nuclear weapons dismantled and the warhead material converted for use in nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

If we're living in a fantasy world, I'm absolutely okay with that. Unfortunately, in practical terms, never gonna happen.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
Not at all. We do not need nukes to obliterate NK.
Click to expand...

We've allowed them to exist as a blight for so long, that now they are the ones with the nuclear option. They cannot be obliterated without causing them to detonate nuclear weapons. Such a move would force us to respond in kind.

Thus, either they will surrender their hostilities on their own, or one day they will escalate these tensions into nuclear war.

I want to see the problem solved, I want to see a hostile dictatorship that is killing its people destroyed. I do not want to see a nuclear war. Those interests are in conflict here.
 
Originally posted by: nkgreen
As long as nothing happens to SK or Japan, fuck 'em. But currently that's not an option, so no.
Click to expand...

because there are no innocents in NK who have been oppresed by a shitty regime for 50 years. way to think into things


i would rather have a conventional war to take out the regime though, nuclear is bad.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
Not at all. We do not need nukes to obliterate NK.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But if they did attack with a nuke I'd say obliterate the entire country, without nukes if possible, but do what needs to be done.
 
What we need is somebody to get "rid" of NK's leadership. His antics are really getting to be "old hat". You would think that even the North Koreans are getting tired of his shit.
 
Although I believe nuclear weapons have currently saved more lives than they have destroyed (Both in WWII and preventing an all-out war between the USSR and the USA), I have a feeling that balance will be tipped in the next 100 years.


Nuclear weapons are horrible things, and I wouldn't wish nuclear war on anyone.
 
Crap. Skimmed the Poll too fast and voted for the wrong one. I never want to see it happen. Would prefer some surprise surgical strikes taking out not only the Nuclear capability, but also the Artillery placements.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Crap. Skimmed the Poll too fast and voted for the wrong one. I never want to see it happen. Would prefer some surprise surgical strikes taking out not only the Nuclear capability, but also the Artillery placements.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment, but ~50 years has probably built up literally tens of thousands of artillery emplacements, with tens of thousands more mobile artillery vehicles. Starting a military conflict would inevitably lead to their immediate widespread usage against SK.

I think the only relatively bloodless way to end it would be an internal political decapitation, perhaps led by NK Army, or by a Chinese Special Forces infiltration. Either way you'd have to have the NK Army on board and promise their leadership a place at the table for a new government to form.

Without bringing the NK Army into the fold, it would almost certainly mean hundreds of thousands of people would die within hours, perhaps more. I rather doubt the probability of NK being able to successfully fire and deliver their somewhat weak nuclear technology upon a target, but have no doubts whatsoever about their ability to blanket an unacceptably high number of targets with heavy conventional munitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top