|
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.
|
On March 26 2013 06:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 06:05 Salazarz wrote:
You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining. Yes, there would certainly be no justification to do this with the possible exception of preventing the same exact thing from happening to you. If, for example, NK really did make good on some promise to nuke the USA, would any of those things you just described not happen to the USA instead? Of course, this probably inflates NK's actual military capabilities. Once again I want to emphasize that such a decision should and would never be taken lightly (I would hope). You don't nuke a country because they piss you off. In fact, hopefully no country ever gets nuked. NK isn't doing a very good job of preventing this though. It would also be nice to get some perspectives from people who actually live in a country that NK has made clear they would like to nuke. It's very easy to take the moral superiority viewpoint from the UK, Germany, or Romania...
The point he is trying to make is there is no reason to use nukes, like at all. NK is not a supermilitary power, and the use of nukes from US won't stop them from using them, even used as a pre emptive measure. So you have to work with your intelligence service and your anti missile defense if you really want to avoid nukes hitting your land.. Nuking them first doesn't make sense.
|
On March 26 2013 06:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 06:05 Salazarz wrote:
You realize that an all-out nuclear attack on a country isn't a military action, right? It's called 'genocide', and it's not cool. Like, even if you completely disregard the after-effects of nuclear strikes such as radioactive fallout in neighbouring areas and what-not, you're basically saying it's okay to kill 20-odd million civilians because their country is ruled by an universally hated dictatorship. It's not like everyone in Korea actually supports the regime and dreams of watching America die in a fire - they're people, just like you and me, who simply want to go on with their lives. IF North Korean regime was actually seen as a threat to USA (or anyone else, for the matter), military intervention could become a reality - but a nuclear strike (preventive? lol) is honestly unthinkable. The loss of life and the issues that would arise out of it are simply beyond imagining. Yes, there would certainly be no justification to do this with the possible exception of preventing the same exact thing from happening to you. If, for example, NK really did make good on some promise to nuke the USA, would any of those things you just described not happen to the USA instead? Of course, this probably inflates NK's actual military capabilities. Once again I want to emphasize that such a decision should and would never be taken lightly (I would hope). You don't nuke a country because they piss you off. In fact, hopefully no country ever gets nuked. NK isn't doing a very good job of preventing this though. It would also be nice to get some perspectives from people who actually live in a country that NK has made clear they would like to nuke. It's very easy to take the moral superiority viewpoint from the UK, Germany, or Romania...
you can not destroy a nuclear missile with a nuclear missile (in this context, to prevent the former from being launched). at best, in the case of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, you would destroy an empty nuclear silo, because the actual missile will be air borned before your pre-emptive strike hits that location.
that is the main reason for saying that pre-emptive nuclear strikes don't exist.
also, why do you think nuclear missiles have as targets, cities/sometimes other military targets and not nuclear silos?. ('couse, yea, they'll be empty so you just wasted a nuke killing ... a patch of land).
|
On March 26 2013 19:49 ItanoCircus wrote:
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.
That's exactly the kind of pseudopsychopathic rhetoric that has some of us so concerned.
This isn't a trade. This isn't "one of our cities" is worth more than "one of theirs" or "one of our lives" is worth more than "one of theirs", that's completely irrelevant (and inherently distasteful at that). This is simply "do we have a right to kill millions of people to avoid having to pay for and risk minimal forces of our own" and "do we NEED to kill millions of people to eliminate the threat". Some people have it hardwired into their brains that indiscriminate massmurder is justifiable because it makes them feel safe. Someone presses a button and half way across the world a country disappears. They end up completely ignoring the fact that the US doesn't NEED to nuke North Korea to eliminate the threat.
I won't say that traditional warfare won't lead to casualties on both sides. Obviously it would. And there's definitely issues with for example an occupation of an increasingly brainwashed nation, but it would spare millions of lives.
No one is even remotely hinting that it's ok for North Korea to nuke the US. Even if the US nukes North Korea first. No one is arguing the US shouldn't retaliate to North Korean strikes. There is absolutely no way the UN would let it slide. It is the measure of the response that's up for debate.
|
United States24799 Posts
All of you saying how nuking isn't intelligent are kinda missing the point: I didn't see anyone else saying (in recent pages) that nuking NK is the best option. I was just saying it could be justified in the eyes of the international community. I don't think a nuke would or should be used unless the situations specifically warranted it, which I doubt it does.
|
On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
I was just saying it[nuking NK] could be justified in the eyes of the international community. Are you out of your mind?
The international community will never justify nuking anyone. Period!
They would stay put (because who would want to oppose a country crazy enough to actually nuke someone), but they will never ever legitimate it.
|
On March 26 2013 19:49 ItanoCircus wrote:
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.
Good to see you have a sound understanding of the history of war, particularly when concerning civilian populations. It's not like what you described isn't actually how we define massacre, genocide, terrorism etc
For the record, War is an organized affair and rules of engagement and worldwide conventions have been established for centuries, its bloody and unpleasant, and yes civilian lives can be lost as collateral damage, but directly targeting civilians is reprehensible and there is no excuse for it, if NK was a genuine threat and nuclear action was genuinely required we could target their bases and silos and cripple them without needing to destroy civilian populations, any other suggestion is just preposterous and shows an impressive lack of empathy and total lack of any understanding of conflict on an international level.
For everyone else:
This is pure posturing by NK, if Kim Jong Un tries to start a nuclear war with the US his generals will overthrow him. They don't want their lives smashed to pieces and they know they cannot win, for all their propaganda they cannot be that ignorant and China will step in at some point to pull on their leash.
However what Iraq taught a lot of these countries is that if you don't have nukes the US will invade, so yes they have nukes and they are probably going to flash them around a bit to give them impression they aren't afraid to use them, but don't for a second assume that they aren't at least vaguely aware of the massive ramifications of using the devices, especially using them against the US, the country would be flattened and China wouldn't be able to provide any assistance.
NK can gain from posturing and propaganda, internally at least, but it has absolutely nothing to gain from direct military action.
|
On March 26 2013 19:49 ItanoCircus wrote:
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.
nice to see it only took 100 odd years to forget all the lessons of The Great War.
|
United States24799 Posts
On March 26 2013 23:42 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
I was just saying it[nuking NK] could be justified in the eyes of the international community. Are you out of your mind? The international community will never justify nuking anyone. Period! They would stay put (because who would want to oppose a country crazy enough to actually nuke someone), but they will never ever legitimate it.
And what has the international community done about NK? All I see is people saying "protect their citizens" (which I agree with of course). Here's a scenario:
NK is a few weeks away from both effective nuking technology and an effective delivery system. Foolishly, they claim that they will use it against the USA. The USA, to prevent such a situation, wipes out (through whatever means) NK's military capabilities, successfully. Compare with:
NK is a few weeks away from both effective nuking technology and an effective delivery system. They claim that they will use it against the USA. The USA continues to use sanctions and the same tactics other countries are using to limit NK but don't directly engage them. A few weeks later, NK makes good on its promises and millions are killed in a nuclear attack.
Innocent North Koreans would get hurt and killed in the first scenario, but it is still better in the eyes of the US government, than Innocent Americans getting hurt and killed. In fact, since the goal of the USA, unlike NK, would not be to hurt civilians, many steps could be taken to mitigate the effects as much as possible, even if a nuke became the most strategically/tactically viable option.
Again I want to point out I am not saying we should be nuking NK right now, just that NK is really playing with fire. Some of you should take a step back and imagine a crazy dictator and his crazy military was threatening your country with nuclear weapons.
edit: note I have not mentioned the role of SK in this at all which is obviously very important in any real decisions made
|
United Kingdom12054 Posts
On March 26 2013 23:51 death_vinegar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 19:49 ItanoCircus wrote:
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well. nice to see it only took 100 odd years to forget all the lessons of The Great War.
People forgot both World Wars far too quickly. I've always believed conflict should be the last looked too option, but with The Falklands War, Vietnam and the middle east to show, it seems our species didn't take any lessons from all the poor innocent people who lost their lives trying to fight for governments that really had little interest in their lives.
I'm hoping in this one instance, we can use it as a chance to move our species away from using mindless killing of people (in this case the majority of people join the NK military as they're either forced or it's their only way of getting food) and the lives of many American/South Korean and various countries soldiers all to take down a regime. It'd be such a massive waste of life.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On March 26 2013 23:42 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
I was just saying it[nuking NK] could be justified in the eyes of the international community. Are you out of your mind? The international community will never justify nuking anyone. Period! They would stay put (because who would want to oppose a country crazy enough to actually nuke someone), but they will never ever legitimate it.
Never is a pretty strong word. I agree that the international community, in general, would be against such actions, even if the nuclear threat from NK was imminent and well-founded. However, I can see them approving of nuclear retaliation, especially if they are sure that NK has more nukes in their arsenal to inflict devastation with. Obviously that would still be a tough decision, and many would be against it, but it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility.
|
United States44284 Posts
I believe a pre-emptive strike can be both morally justified and necessary. However it is still a tragedy when things get that far and people should not think of it as anything other than that. Sometimes genocide is necessary but it is still genocide.
|
Nuke will never be used(physically) again, in my opinion. Should never have been used either (ww2 was already won with stalingrad's battle). Nowadays Nukes are only used to make internatonal pressure. It's based on fear and a destruction potential. NK would never nuke USA, they just use menaces to obtain more fundings/lever towards international community.
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.
why NK would derserve a nuke more than USA? if we speak about deaths, USa has spilled blood all over the planet for its proper interest ? Why is it that USA got in so lately in ww2, why didn't the west intervene when poland was invaded? what justifies USA having Nukes and not other countries? What other option have NK or Iran than nuclear fear to obtain gains while they suffer huge embargo from the west? I think this question needs a wider look: USA demonizing NK is also proclaiming itself good, while making NK inherently bad. Even though they should be on equal standpoints(NK hasnt done anything worse than USA).
|
On March 26 2013 23:54 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:42 lord_nibbler wrote:On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
I was just saying it[nuking NK] could be justified in the eyes of the international community. Are you out of your mind? The international community will never justify nuking anyone. Period! They would stay put (because who would want to oppose a country crazy enough to actually nuke someone), but they will never ever legitimate it. And what has the international community done about NK? All I see is people saying "protect their citizens" (which I agree with of course). Here's a scenario: NK is a few weeks away from both effective nuking technology and an effective delivery system. Foolishly, they claim that they will use it against the USA. The USA, to prevent such a situation, wipes out (through whatever means) NK's military capabilities, successfully. Compare with: NK is a few weeks away from both effective nuking technology and an effective delivery system. They claim that they will use it against the USA. The USA continues to use sanctions and the same tactics other countries are using to limit NK but don't directly engage them. A few weeks later, NK makes good on its promises and millions are killed in a nuclear attack. Innocent North Koreans would get hurt and killed in the first scenario, but it is still better in the eyes of the US government, than Innocent Americans getting hurt and killed. In fact, since the goal of the USA, unlike NK, would not be to hurt civilians, many steps could be taken to mitigate the effects as much as possible, even if a nuke became the most strategically/tactically viable option. Again I want to point out I am not saying we should be nuking NK right now, just that NK is really playing with fire. Some of you should take a step back and imagine a crazy dictator and his crazy military was threatening your country with nuclear weapons. edit: note I have not mentioned the role of SK in this at all which is obviously very important in any real decisions made
How about this: NK has several nuclear warheads and medium range delivery systems ready. Foolishly, they make threats claiming they'll make nuclear strikes against USA, Japan, Korea, you name it. The USA uses nuclear strikes to wipe out NK's military capabilities, through whatever means. As NK detects ballistic missiles incoming, they launch their own medium range nuclear-tipped missiles into South Korea and Japan. Some 20 million South Korean and Japanese citizens are killed, followed by a similar amount of North Koreans. Entire region is covered by a radioactive cloud, a crisis of never seen before proportions paralyzes the global economy as nations everywhere scramble to create an effective ballistic protection system while the Middle East prepares for what is now seen as an inevitable nuclear war with the West.
Some 100 years later, as civilization is finally starting to recover from the aftermath of a global nuclear conflict, archaeologists recover North Korean documents circa 2013 in which Kim discussed the plans to exert some leverage and dissuade American and South Korean forces from invading Pyongyang through a show of power and nuke-backed threats. No evidence of an actual attack ever being prepared could be found.
How is that for a scenario? It's much more likely than yours, by the way.
|
On March 26 2013 23:58 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:51 death_vinegar wrote:On March 26 2013 19:49 ItanoCircus wrote:
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well. nice to see it only took 100 odd years to forget all the lessons of The Great War. People forgot both World Wars far too quickly. I've always believed conflict should be the last looked too option, but with The Falklands War, Vietnam and the middle east to show, it seems our species didn't take any lessons from all the poor innocent people who lost their lives trying to fight for governments that really had little interest in their lives. I'm hoping in this one instance, we can use it as a chance to move our species away from using mindless killing of people (in this case the majority of people join the NK military as they're either forced or it's their only way of getting food) and the lives of many American/South Korean and various countries soldiers all to take down a regime. It'd be such a massive waste of life.
If only everyone had a glimpse of how terrible the Vietnam War really was, very few would ever support war unless it was absolutely necessary for survival. The problem is most people don't understand how bad it can get because they haven't seen it with their own eyes or experienced anything like it.
|
United States24799 Posts
@Salazarzcrazyweasel (sorry lol)
It takes a lot of balls to say NK hasn't done anything worse than the USA lol. I'm not saying both countries haven't done terrible things, of course.
NK chooses to have most of its people living in poverty while the dictator is elevated to god-like status. NK has been known to sell humanitarian aid it received in order to purchase other types of supplies having nothing to do with feeding its starving population. NK has threatened to nuke other countries and/or fire tons of artillery at Seoul, a civilian population center.
|
United States44284 Posts
On March 27 2013 00:12 crazyweasel wrote:Nuke will never be used(physically) again, in my opinion. Should never have been used either (ww2 was already won with stalingrad's battle). Nowadays Nukes are only used to make internatonal pressure. It's based on fear and a destruction potential. NK would never nuke USA, they just use menaces to obtain more fundings/lever towards international community. Show nested quote +
I'm tired of hearing people talk about how combatants should take into account their adversary's civilian population centers in a war scenario. I'm tired of hearing people that have no clue what war justifies and entails try and put trite limitations in the effort to be or appear to be humane.
War is the killing of others on a large scale for a dedicated purpose. If I've a choice between ANY city in the United States getting nuked and NK's capital getting nuked, I would always, 100% of the time, protect the US' and choose NK's capital. I just pray to Almighty God that the put-offs and workarounds that the international community is running through don't cost more American lives.
If the international community's sanctions don't work and any American or South Korean forces are hit with nuclear weaponry... well.
why NK would derserve a nuke more than USA? if we speak about deaths, USa has spilled blood all over the planet for its proper interest ? Why is it that USA got in so lately in ww2, why didn't the west intervene when poland was invaded? what justifies USA having Nukes and not other countries? What other option have NK or Iran than nuclear fear to obtain gains while they suffer huge embargo from the west? I think this question needs a wider look: USA demonizing NK is also proclaiming itself good, while making NK inherently bad. Even though they should be on equal standpoints(NK hasnt done anything worse than USA).
This is nonsensical USA bashing. NK is objectively worse than the USA in innumerable ways and pretending otherwise is absurd. NK is a Stalinist police state that exists only through deliberate impoverishment of its people and unrelenting state brutality, the USA is, for all its faults, a free state.
The USA doesn't just say it's good and that NK is bad, the USA is objectively better than NK as can be seen by anything but the most biased misinterpretations of the facts.
|
On March 27 2013 00:11 KwarK wrote:
I believe a pre-emptive strike can be both morally justified and necessary. However it is still a tragedy when things get that far and people should not think of it as anything other than that. Sometimes genocide is necessary but it is still genocide.
What??? that's insane, not only would it affect the whole NK but all it's neighbours. may we reitate that Asia is the biggest basin of population, this could have severe impact on the whole region and incredible damages and not only human (the ecosystem as well). And what morally justifie such an act? how is it necessary? Maybe if we loosen embargo, maybe NK wouldnt be so eager to "aim" potential attacks. how can genocide be necessary? is it the people of NK is who evil of nature? of course not, why not have a simple ossama type strike again? wanna end their regime, end it but not by sacrificing a whole nation....
|
United States44284 Posts
On March 27 2013 00:15 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:54 micronesia wrote:On March 26 2013 23:42 lord_nibbler wrote:On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
I was just saying it[nuking NK] could be justified in the eyes of the international community. Are you out of your mind? The international community will never justify nuking anyone. Period! They would stay put (because who would want to oppose a country crazy enough to actually nuke someone), but they will never ever legitimate it. And what has the international community done about NK? All I see is people saying "protect their citizens" (which I agree with of course). Here's a scenario: NK is a few weeks away from both effective nuking technology and an effective delivery system. Foolishly, they claim that they will use it against the USA. The USA, to prevent such a situation, wipes out (through whatever means) NK's military capabilities, successfully. Compare with: NK is a few weeks away from both effective nuking technology and an effective delivery system. They claim that they will use it against the USA. The USA continues to use sanctions and the same tactics other countries are using to limit NK but don't directly engage them. A few weeks later, NK makes good on its promises and millions are killed in a nuclear attack. Innocent North Koreans would get hurt and killed in the first scenario, but it is still better in the eyes of the US government, than Innocent Americans getting hurt and killed. In fact, since the goal of the USA, unlike NK, would not be to hurt civilians, many steps could be taken to mitigate the effects as much as possible, even if a nuke became the most strategically/tactically viable option. Again I want to point out I am not saying we should be nuking NK right now, just that NK is really playing with fire. Some of you should take a step back and imagine a crazy dictator and his crazy military was threatening your country with nuclear weapons. edit: note I have not mentioned the role of SK in this at all which is obviously very important in any real decisions made How about this: NK has several nuclear warheads and medium range delivery systems ready. Foolishly, they make threats claiming they'll make nuclear strikes against USA, Japan, Korea, you name it. The USA uses nuclear strikes to wipe out NK's military capabilities, through whatever means. As NK detects ballistic missiles incoming, they launch their own medium range nuclear-tipped missiles into South Korea and Japan. Some 20 million South Korean and Japanese citizens are killed, followed by a similar amount of North Koreans. Entire region is covered by a radioactive cloud, a crisis of never seen before proportions paralyzes the global economy as nations everywhere scramble to create an effective ballistic protection system while the Middle East prepares for what is now seen as an inevitable nuclear war with the West. Some 100 years later, as civilization is finally starting to recover from the aftermath of a global nuclear conflict, archaeologists recover North Korean documents circa 2013 in which Kim discussed the plans to exert some leverage and dissuade American and South Korean forces from invading Pyongyang through a show of power and nuke-backed threats. No evidence of an actual attack ever being prepared could be found. How is that for a scenario? It's much more likely than yours, by the way.
A policy that is based upon taking a country at its word and responding appropriately is generally not a foolish one. Your assumptions depend upon the willful denial of the statements issued by NK, do you have any evidence that justifies dismissing them? It's certainly possible that they're bluffing but you're gambling a lot of lives on not a lot of evidence given (so far just a hypothetical document that won't be found for another hundred years).
|
United States44284 Posts
On March 27 2013 00:21 crazyweasel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 00:11 KwarK wrote:
I believe a pre-emptive strike can be both morally justified and necessary. However it is still a tragedy when things get that far and people should not think of it as anything other than that. Sometimes genocide is necessary but it is still genocide. What??? that's insane, not only would it affect the whole NK but all it's neighbours. may we reitate that Asia is the biggest basin of population, this could have severe impact on the whole region and incredible damages and not only human (the ecosystem as well). And what morally justifie such an act? how is it necessary? Maybe if we loosen embargo, maybe NK wouldnt be so eager to "aim" potential attacks. how can genocide be necessary? is it the people of NK is who evil of nature? of course not, why not have a simple ossama type strike again? wanna end their regime, end it but not by sacrificing a whole nation....
A pre-emptive strike does not necessarily have to be nuclear, nor does it have to be of sufficient scale to impact the entire of Asia. I wasn't advocating hitting that side of the globe with a meteor or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
