|
On March 27 2013 21:12 TOCHMY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:07 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:00 Sephyr wrote:On March 27 2013 20:43 Shival wrote:On March 27 2013 19:23 Cereb wrote:
I mean, I do not take NK too seriously either but it's crucial to remember that there was once another poor country whose action no one took seriously...
And then the second World War happened... What country might that be? Probably means Germany. Don't think it's a good example though.. Not at all a good example. Micronesia's point from earlier is still lacking a good response. Nobody here has any evidence that NK cannot strike the US while NK themselves claim that they can and that they will do so based upon provocation which has already happened. Sitting in Europe and saying "but based on my experience as a 20 year old college kid/sc2 player I reckon they're probably full of shit and won't actually do the thing that they repeatedly claim they're going to do" isn't a reasonable expectation for a US response, not when the threat is the obliteration of large US civilian populations. The US is showing extreme restraint thus far but they're long past justification for a pre-emptive strike. We are just speculating, as much as micronesia is speculating (with a pinch of some justified "scared to get a nuke on my head" arguments). And none of us on this forum has any experience what so ever in this matter.
Well, if you read kwarks posts you get the impression that he is a nuclear warfare specialist.
Just see how correctly he assets the situation - basicaly every attempt of NK to launch something in the air has failed, but now suddenly they have balistic missiles capable of reaching USA and their threats are so realistic that USA have every justification to nuke them pre-emptivly.
|
United States43972 Posts
On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell...
If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed.
|
On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed.
I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid.
|
On March 27 2013 21:00 Sephyr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 20:43 Shival wrote:On March 27 2013 19:23 Cereb wrote:
I mean, I do not take NK too seriously either but it's crucial to remember that there was once another poor country whose action no one took seriously...
And then the second World War happened... What country might that be? Probably means Germany. Don't think it's a good example though..
My point exactly, neither Germany nor Japan fits the bill.
|
On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid.
No it isn't if you blow up all of your enemies nukes and they dont see your nukes coming to launch in time then there can be no second retaliation strike, that was the whole point of the nuclear arms race to get enough nukes that you couldn't possibly blow them all up in one go.
As for north Korea, why does the US have to use nukes to blow up their nukes? Why cant they just bombard them with tomahawk missiles or something similar and disable their nuclear capability (if they even have any) and im pretty sure the US could shoot down the 10 nukes that north korea has before they hit any US territory
|
Why are you all talking about a nuclear strike as a first resort? Are you serious? It should be a LOST resort. The things that a nuke can do to a country is devastating... You are talking about wiping out thousands of people in a span of a couple seconds like it's not a big deal. I don't care if it means that the US spends more money controlling the situation with North Korea but nuking them should never be an option.
Even if NK is threatening to nuke anyone doesn't mean we have the right to wipe them off the face of the Earth, for just threats. Have some regard for human life guys, come on. Enemy or not.
|
On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid.
You obviously did not read what he said. What he said is that in the cold war, both sides invested A LOT into second strike capabilities, which is something the NKs didn't. They do not have nuclear submarines, or nukes stationed around the world, or any of those things, Apparently in the cold war both sides thought these to be needed to provide MAD. In the case of the cold war, it would probably not have been possible to prevent the launch of all missiles, but if none of the secondary strike systems were in place, it is reasonable to construct a scenario where one side completely destroys the opponent while taking some losses, but not crippling ones, which some might see as a victory.
If you know where the enemy launch sites are, it might be possible to destroy those with a carefully planned first strike. I would argue that in the case of NK, the USA could probably take those out with a carefully planned conventional strike just as easily.
One other thing i find interesting is how our american posters seem to suddenly see NK as a threat that justifies a first strike, while a few months ago they just laughed at them. I would guess that there is now a lot of media coverage in the US that paints NK in that light, which probably means that we can expect a US attack on NK in the next year or so. Then after the war it turns out that they have nothing that could even reach japan, and you are stuck having your soldiers killed by suicide bombers in North Korea for the next 10 years.
|
On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid.
I'm actually trying to tell if you're trolling... what he's saying is very real. Those policies and thoughts are still what our world leaders operate on today. Did you go to school or did you just skip history?
|
On March 27 2013 22:02 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid. No it isn't if you blow up all of your enemies nukes and they dont see your nukes coming to launch in time then there can be no second retaliation strike, that was the whole point of the nuclear arms race to get enough nukes that you couldn't possibly blow them all up in one go. As for north Korea, why does the US have to use nukes to blow up their nukes? Why cant they just bombard them with tomahawk missiles or something similar and disable their nuclear capability (if they even have any) and im pretty sure the US could shoot down the 10 nukes that north korea has before they hit any US territory
That is if the NK nukes even reach higher than 5+ kilometers of height, something that has yet to be done by NK.
|
The stockpiling of nuclear weapons was about mutually assured destruction, not preventing a reactionary second strike. Just sayin'.
|
On March 27 2013 22:05 deth wrote:
The stockpiling of nuclear weapons was about mutually assured destruction, not preventing a reactionary second strike. Just sayin'.
Which is part of the MAD theory.
|
On March 27 2013 22:03 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid. You obviously did not read what he said. What he said is that in the cold war, both sides invested A LOT into second strike capabilities, which is something the NKs didn't. They do not have nuclear submarines, or nukes stationed around the world, or any of those things, Apparently in the cold war both sides thought these to be needed to provide MAD. In the case of the cold war, it would probably not have been possible to prevent the launch of all missiles, but if none of the secondary strike systems were in place, it is reasonable to construct a scenario where one side completely destroys the opponent while taking some losses, but not crippling ones, which some might see as a victory. If you know where the enemy launch sites are, it might be possible to destroy those with a carefully planned first strike. I would argue that in the case of NK, the USA could probably take those out with a carefully planned conventional strike just as easily. One other thing i find interesting is how our american posters seem to suddenly see NK as a threat that justifies a first strike, while a few months ago they just laughed at them. I would guess that there is now a lot of media coverage in the US that paints NK in that light, which probably means that we can expect a US attack on NK in the next year or so. Then after the war it turns out that they have nothing that could even reach japan, and you are stuck having your soldiers killed by suicide bombers in North Korea for the next 10 years.
On March 27 2013 22:03 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid. I'm actually trying to tell if you're trolling... what he's saying is very real. Those policies and thoughts are still what our world leaders operate on today. Did you go to school or did you just skip history?
On March 27 2013 22:02 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 21:51 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 21:40 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 21:16 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table. The situation in North Korea is spinning out of control and if not this time it will in a view years. There are no signs of relaxation or a normalization of relations between the two states. There will be war at some point and I think it is better us to land the first strike even if it is the nuclear option then them. You can discuss moral and what not later but at least you are alive to discuss it and this is my point. I think a first strike would be the best way, rendering their nuclear capabilities inert, in addition it would also cripple their conventional arsenal. I doubt that North Korea has the technologies to detect a first strike so it will be to our advantage. There will be casualties on the south Korean side in the opening attack but they will be minimal compared to a first strike scenario of the North Koreans. Following an invasion force on land from the south lead by South Korea and the US in combination with massive airstrikes, the resistance of the North Korean army will crumble in one to two weeks. But after this comes the heart part.... Rebuilding, giving them a vision, etc. etc. I actually did not want to get into this, and i'm not going to read you post, as the arguments are always the same. (damn, now i read it nonetheless, propably lost a few braincells in the process.) However, firing Nuclear weaons does not prevent the opponent from doing the same. So all you achieve from using Nuclear Missiles is: 100% certainty of the opponent doing the same, if they can, especially if its NK. If you fire them as a reaction to NK fireing theirs, you still don't protect anybody. And it is inhumane and unwise to use Nuclear Weapons, because you polute the country and propably even surrounding areas for years to come. So why not just invade the country after? Same results, propably less dead in the longterm. Considering nukes as an effective tactic is flat out stupid. edit: I'd love to have a mod stop the nuking debate... I can't believe people didn't learn anything from the cold war. I'm glad i was educated in germany, where it is impossible to forget anything about WW2 and the Cold War. Americans should start learning more about global history aswell... If you studied the Cold War you'd know that both countries felt that a nuclear first strike could potentially prevent a second strike and thus invested a huge amount of resources into ensuring they couldn't be first striked because they believed it was a credible threat. Satellites, always airbourne bombers over the arctic, mobile launch platforms, nuclear submarines, nukes stationed in proxies around the world, all of these pillars of Cold War military doctrine were built on the assumption that without them a first strike could potentially be effective at preventing a second strike. Maybe get your head out of your ass and stop calling other people ignorant when your claim is directly contradicted by the recommendations of experts on the subject whose fears caused trillions of dollars in spending. It is incredibly unlikely that North Korea has second strike capability because it lacks the technology, the allies and the quantity of nuclear material needed. I`m starting to think you are trolling this discussion. First strike can prevent second strike in the cold war? Thats just plain stupid. No it isn't if you blow up all of your enemies nukes and they dont see your nukes coming to launch in time then there can be no second retaliation strike, that was the whole point of the nuclear arms race to get enough nukes that you couldn't possibly blow them all up in one go. As for north Korea, why does the US have to use nukes to blow up their nukes? Why cant they just bombard them with tomahawk missiles or something similar and disable their nuclear capability (if they even have any) and im pretty sure the US could shoot down the 10 nukes that north korea has before they hit any US territory
Well, the production of many many nuclear weapons in the Cold War had one main reason - to keep peace by making sure that nuclear war will be the end of the world, not for preventing second strike.
|
United States43972 Posts
On March 27 2013 22:05 deth wrote:
The stockpiling of nuclear weapons was about mutually assured destruction, not preventing a reactionary second strike. Just sayin'.
MAD IS guaranteed second strike capability. That was the entire point of it. If a first strike can potentially work then MAD breaks down, the entire Cold War was spent investing in things like more nukes, more missiles, more versatile launch platforms, earlier warning, shorter range and so forth to make sure that second strike capability was maintained to act as a deterrent against a first strike. It is very unlikely NK even obtained enough fissile material to make enough nukes to spread them out into multiple mobile platforms.
The guy I intially responded to was claiming that a first strike will always end in an all out nuclear exchange. 40 years of Cold War military experts seemed to think that without missiles in Turkey, nuclear submarines, satellite warning systems, extensive espionage networks, bombers over the arctic, thousands of warheads thinly distributed and mobile launch systems the guarantee of a second strike was questionable. The random German guy was saying that everyone who thinks a first strike could potentially work has no knowledge of the Cold War and is a complete idiot when the Cold War was dominated by attempts to guarantee a second strike that simply do not apply to NK.
|
Everyone is way off base on the nuclear threat of NK. The current regime would never actually do anything to risk being smoked by SK/Japan/USA, no one is that stupid. NK can not wage war against any one of these countries, much less all three, and they know that.
The real threat of NK is what happens when the regime finally crumbles. Years of starvation and horrifying human rights abuse only lead to one end- rebellion. Then we have a country descending into anarchy, with nuclear armed rebel groups vying for the country's resources. Rebels who've spent their entire lives beaten and tortured, watching whole families disappear to concentration camps, and who think its Westerners' fault.
That's the REAL threat of NK, and we want no part of that mess.
|
Pre emptive nuclear strike at NK makes no sense. Even if NK has nuclear warheads, there are two options
1. NK has one or very few warheads
2. NK has a bunch of warheads
in the first case you obviously dont need nuclear bomb to disable them. if you know the exact locations, a precision strike with conventional weapon is enough.
in the second case the threat of retaliation strike is far too big
|
United States43972 Posts
You need a certain level of prosperity to have a revolt, if you keep people hungry enough and keep the army well fed enough then they're too busy looking for food to rise up.
I don't believe that NK's leaders are irrational but I don't know enough to discount the possibility of irrational actions, especially when they state publicly that they're going to do them. A rational actor would state "we have nukes, we do not intend to use them offensively but if you try to interfere with our game of real life civ then we'll kill a bunch of South Korean civilians" and then go back to being a hermit state. This escalation of tension with the US is irrational and serves no purpose other than to force the US to view them as a more immediate threat.
|
United States43972 Posts
On March 27 2013 22:30 mdb wrote:
Pre emptive nuclear strike at NK makes no sense. Even if NK has nuclear warheads, there are two options
1. NK has one or very few warheads
2. NK has a bunch of warheads
in the first case you obviously dont need nuclear bomb to disable them. if you know the exact locations, a precision strike with conventional weapon is enough.
in the second case the threat of retaliation strike is far too big
A first strike would not necessarily have to be nuclear. Nor are all nukes colossal world ending events. Nuclear warheads come in varying sizes, shapes and yields and can be used for precision strikes without the sky falling down. Underground bunker complexes can be destroyed by a modified bunker buster with a low yield nuclear warhead that detonates underground to create a shockwave that collapses them for example. The yield is considerably lower than your typical city destroying nuke and the ground around it acts to insulate the fallout. It's very unlikely the US would use them over conventional warheads because of popular misconceptions that would result from the word nuclear but the divide between conventional and nuclear ammunition is not as wide as some people imagine.
|
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet (or Taiwan) for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions
edit: in short, any country that uses a nuclear weapon waves its right to exist. Period
|
It is NEVER ok to nuke anyone... to nuke is one of the most coward moves a country can possibly make.
|
United States43972 Posts
On March 27 2013 22:58 Zeo wrote:
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions
NK are threatening to launch an offensive strike without their national sovereignty being imposed upon. Your examples are in no way comparable to that. Furthermore your "nobody can use nukes" plan lacks any response to the current situation in which a rogue state says they will and you have no peaceful ways to prevent it. You don't actually have the red button, someone else does, you can say "no exceptions" but what you say doesn't actually stop them using one which then leads to the inevitable "is it justifiable to use one nuke to prevent two". This is the problem with moral absolutism, it only makes sense from your ivory tower, once you're in the real world it falls apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
