25 Jul 10
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI don't recall saying "nothing should be done" IF North Korea used nukes in a preemptive strike. Of course, "something" should be done and I'd agree that that "something" should include military force. But the force used should be proportional to that used by the North Koreans and endanger as few civilians as possible. I'm not completely aware of their force deployment, but presumably they have some kind of corp or army level HQ somewhere near the DMZ. Perhaps that would be a good target for a retaliatory strike consisting of/and or including tactical nuclear weapons if those could be deployed without serious risk to civilians on both sides of the DMZ.
But they would be OK if North Korea used them and nothing was done?
25 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think anyone posses a nuke that is a precison weapon, especially if used on the DMZ, fallout would affect many people.
I don't recall saying "nothing should be done" IF North Korea used nukes in a preemptive strike. Of course, "something" should be done and I'd agree that that "something" should include military force. But the force used should be proportional to that used by the North Koreans and endanger as few civilians as possible. I'm not completely aware of their f ...[text shortened]... if those could be deployed without serious risk to civilians on both sides of the DMZ.
Convention stuff is better. The USA has such weapons.
They would be stupid to use a nuke so close to their own homeland wouldn't they?
But who gives this guy any credit for being rational?
We use drones all the time,, I wonder if there aren't a few flying around North korea right now?
25 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderUsing conventional forces against someone using nukes against you that's a helluva idea the war would be over in an hour with N Korea winning good thinking genius
I don't recall saying "nothing should be done" IF North Korea used nukes in a preemptive strike. Of course, "something" should be done and I'd agree that that "something" should include military force. But the force used should be proportional to that used by the North Koreans and endanger as few civilians as possible. I'm not completely aware of their f ...[text shortened]... if those could be deployed without serious risk to civilians on both sides of the DMZ.
25 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou should really actually read someone's posts rather than assume what they are going to say. From my prior post:
Using conventional forces against someone using nukes against you that's a helluva idea the war would be over in an hour with N Korea winning good thinking genius
I'm not completely aware of their force deployment, but presumably they have some kind of corp or army level HQ somewhere near the DMZ. Perhaps that would be a good target for a retaliatory strike consisting of/and or including tactical nuclear weapons if those could be deployed without serious risk to civilians on both sides of the DMZ.
25 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderIt ain't that easy. What do you want, do you want to sit around and wait for another nuke from them?
How many million North Koreans would you willing to kill in that scenario? All of them?
The Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans might not be too happy with the use of nuclear weapons and resulting fallout it would cause in the area.
The bottom line is if they use one that should be all the damage they should be allowed to inflict.
Game over.
25 Jul 10
Originally posted by whodeyWeaseling is typical of you, so I'll ask my question AGAIN:
It ain't that easy. What do you want, do you want to sit around and wait for another nuke from them?
The bottom line is if they use one that should be all the damage they should be allowed to inflict.
Game over.
How many million North Koreans would you willing to kill in that scenario? All of them?
25 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe idea would be to target known military sites with suspected WMD's.
Yes, it is typical of me but apparently not of you.
There's something like 23-24 million North Koreans. In the nuclear strike you envision, would your goal be to exterminate all of them?
26 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI think he scenario in question, was them using Nukes first. Then comes the question of a proper response......
Yes, it is typical of me but apparently not of you.
There's something like 23-24 million North Koreans. In the nuclear strike you envision, would your goal be to exterminate all of them?
What direction do you think the weather currents move in that area? Would fallout just blow back in their faces, toward japan, or Russia and China?
If it blows toward the Chinese or Russians, maybe this time we just sit it out, and watch what their neighbors do to react.
The Penninsula is about 160 miles wide at the DMZ...... the USA could carpet bomb that for weeks if need be, and never use a nuke. I don't think we would. We have bombs that can blow the bejesus out of them, without resorting to a nuke.
But it's simple math, to figure there would be a grossly high number of civilian casualties... 23 million people crammed in that space, how could one not kill a bunch of them? But that is why the Nut case should just stop his yapping, and try to do something for his country,, seems he doesn't care.
26 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThat area is too small to drop a nuke on, it's insane.
You should really actually read someone's posts rather than assume what they are going to say. From my prior post:
I'm not completely aware of their force deployment, but presumably they have some kind of corp or army level HQ somewhere near the DMZ. Perhaps that would be a good target for a retaliatory strike [b]consisting of/and or incl ...[text shortened]... ons if those could be deployed without serious risk to civilians on both sides of the DMZ.[/b]
The guy needs to be surgically removed by a hell fire fired from an unmanned drone.. who would really miss him anyway? Iran?