The US Should Do A Full Out Strike of North Korea's Nuclear Sites

[GHook93]

Sweetheart, Dear Leader is not the guy we want striking NK now, is he? I wish you would think things through before shooting off your mouth. Yes, Iraq was even more stupid than Vietnam, which should give us good reason to think look and hard about striking NK.

Vietnam and Iraq give us good reason not to INVADE NK, but military success (alhtough the end regime outcome is undesireable) of the Kosovo and Libya campaigns show air-superiority and bombings work!

And yes I give Clinton (who is an even worse President than Obama) props for how he won that conflict, although we took the wrong side in that conflict, the way we won it was impressive.

Same thing for Libya. The regime that has taken over is undesireable, but props to Obama on how he conducted that war! Great strategy that should be mirrored in other like conflicts!

Get your history straight and be fair about it: the Civil War and the Spanish American War and the Vietnam Involvement and the Iraqi wars were the actions of Republican Presidents.

Seriously your that delussional? Kennedy got us into Vietnam and it was Democrat war. Same with Spanish American and you are really blaming the Civil War on the Republicans? Which party lead to the seccession of half the country, the go old Democratic party! Oh yea Korea was lead by FDR's successor TRUMAN!

Another way to look at these wars are to consider the ideology: conservatives struck in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish American War, and Iraq I and II.

Only if your mentally challenged and a hypocritical revisionist, I guess that is why you see it that way!

If you were president on December 7, 1941, you would have acted no differently than FDR.

Not all war is bad. Many conflicts have to be fought. The liberal theme of never resort to violence is a stupid ideology. Many times violence is acceptable. Low end case, a bully is picking on you at school. High end, a man tries to stable you with a knife. Highest end, a genocidal dictator seeks to take over the world. FDR was correct and I don't blame him. As I wouldn't blame Obama for striking NK!

Leave your absolutism aside and think, please.

Ditto!

 

[GHook93]

I can't really agree with this GHook, if we attacked North Korea the aftermath wouldn't be this simple and it would cause a shit storm in the region. Besides we are still involved in Afghanistan and the Middle East, now is not the time to strike North Korea.

Say we took all the intelligence and hit those sites whether they had nukes or not (yep there would be a lot of collateral damage, but there is collateral damage in every battle), then we hit their military sites (say airforce). Their response would be a paper dragon.

NK is not a tough country regardless of the rhetoric. Without nukes or an airforce (we can take out their airforce EASILY), what kind of response could they do. They aren't going to pick a fight with Japan and if they pick a fight with SK, then maybe that would provide SK the excuse they want to go into topple the NK govenment and reunify the country.

NK starves it's citizens, pays the military pennies, traps the populace in one big prison camp disallowing them to leave and putting a large chunk of their populace into slave labor prison camps. Many would defect instantly. The SK army wouldn't be a foreign army, it would be fellow Koreans!

I really would like nothing better than to see that crooked regime fall. However I learned from the Iraq war is that nothing is as it seems, everything you said here sounds beautiful but it reminds me of the peaches and cream we were promised when we rolled into Iraq. Now I know the situation in Iraq was completely different than North Korea but the same lessons apply, you never know what is going to happen on the ground until you are there.

My other issue with this is the stress and hardship it will place on our Military, we already have them doing so many deployments into Afghanistan and the Middle East, now add another war to the mix? doesn't sound like a good recipe.

Very true we were sold a raw deal in Iraq and that turned into a disaster, but I want to point out a few differences:
(1) We can 100% confirm NK has nukes.
(2) I am not talking about an invasion, occupation or nation building. Nation building is an impossible feat. Missile strike, followed by an air strike, with one objective: Destroy their nukes and nuclear capabilities.
(3) Believe it or not, but Iraq had an infrastructure and economy that what 10x NK. They were blessed with oil and there GDP even at a disadvantaged level is $100 Bil more than NK pathetic $45 Bil!
(4) Iraq was one country, Korea is two. Reunification under one people is a likely outcome when NK finally falls!

 

[g5000]

If ever we should reconsider electing and appointing neo-cons to office again, consider the Axis of Evil, Iraq and Iran and NK, are doing well, despite war and sanctions.

What are you smoking?

"North Korea is doing well" is in the seven-pounds-of-brain-damage category.


And there's this: "Suffering" in Iraq Highest Since 2008

More Iraqis experiencing negative emotions daily, as U.S. withdraws forces

And then there's this: A New Sign of Distress as Iran’s Currency Falls

Iran’s already fragile currency, the rial, has fallen in value by about 40 percent over the past week, battered by a combination of potent Western sanctions over the disputed Iranian nuclear program and new anxieties among Iranians about their government’s economic stewardship, analysts said.

 

[High_Gravity]

Say we took all the intelligence and hit those sites whether they had nukes or not (yep there would be a lot of collateral damage, but there is collateral damage in every battle), then we hit their military sites (say airforce). Their response would be a paper dragon.

NK is not a tough country regardless of the rhetoric. Without nukes or an airforce (we can take out their airforce EASILY), what kind of response could they do. They aren't going to pick a fight with Japan and if they pick a fight with SK, then maybe that would provide SK the excuse they want to go into topple the NK govenment and reunify the country.

NK starves it's citizens, pays the military pennies, traps the populace in one big prison camp disallowing them to leave and putting a large chunk of their populace into slave labor prison camps. Many would defect instantly. The SK army wouldn't be a foreign army, it would be fellow Koreans!

I really would like nothing better than to see that crooked regime fall. However I learned from the Iraq war is that nothing is as it seems, everything you said here sounds beautiful but it reminds me of the peaches and cream we were promised when we rolled into Iraq. Now I know the situation in Iraq was completely different than North Korea but the same lessons apply, you never know what is going to happen on the ground until you are there.

My other issue with this is the stress and hardship it will place on our Military, we already have them doing so many deployments into Afghanistan and the Middle East, now add another war to the mix? doesn't sound like a good recipe.

Very true we were sold a raw deal in Iraq and that turned into a disaster, but I want to point out a few differences:
(1) We can 100% confirm NK has nukes.
(2) I am not talking about an invasion, occupation or nation building. Nation building is an impossible feat. Missile strike, followed by an air strike, with one objective: Destroy their nukes and nuclear capabilities.
(3) Believe it or not, but Iraq had an infrastructure and economy that what 10x NK. They were blessed with oil and there GDP even at a disadvantaged level is $100 Bil more than NK pathetic $45 Bil!
(4) Iraq was one country, Korea is two. Reunification under one people is a likely outcome when NK finally falls!

Air strikes can work to bring down a regime, but not always. We bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90s under Clinton, Saddam held on. It took US Soldiers boots on the ground to be rid of him.

 

[GHook93]

I really would like nothing better than to see that crooked regime fall. However I learned from the Iraq war is that nothing is as it seems, everything you said here sounds beautiful but it reminds me of the peaches and cream we were promised when we rolled into Iraq. Now I know the situation in Iraq was completely different than North Korea but the same lessons apply, you never know what is going to happen on the ground until you are there.

My other issue with this is the stress and hardship it will place on our Military, we already have them doing so many deployments into Afghanistan and the Middle East, now add another war to the mix? doesn't sound like a good recipe.

Very true we were sold a raw deal in Iraq and that turned into a disaster, but I want to point out a few differences:
(1) We can 100% confirm NK has nukes.
(2) I am not talking about an invasion, occupation or nation building. Nation building is an impossible feat. Missile strike, followed by an air strike, with one objective: Destroy their nukes and nuclear capabilities.
(3) Believe it or not, but Iraq had an infrastructure and economy that what 10x NK. They were blessed with oil and there GDP even at a disadvantaged level is $100 Bil more than NK pathetic $45 Bil!
(4) Iraq was one country, Korea is two. Reunification under one people is a likely outcome when NK finally falls!

Air strikes can work to bring down a regime, but not always. We bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90s under Clinton, Saddam held on. It took US Soldiers boots on the ground to be rid of him.

Objective #1 take out their nukes and nuclear capabilities. Objective #2 take out their airforce. If the regime feel as a result, then that is gravy, but regime change is no the objective.

 

[High_Gravity]

Very true we were sold a raw deal in Iraq and that turned into a disaster, but I want to point out a few differences:
(1) We can 100% confirm NK has nukes.
(2) I am not talking about an invasion, occupation or nation building. Nation building is an impossible feat. Missile strike, followed by an air strike, with one objective: Destroy their nukes and nuclear capabilities.
(3) Believe it or not, but Iraq had an infrastructure and economy that what 10x NK. They were blessed with oil and there GDP even at a disadvantaged level is $100 Bil more than NK pathetic $45 Bil!
(4) Iraq was one country, Korea is two. Reunification under one people is a likely outcome when NK finally falls!

Air strikes can work to bring down a regime, but not always. We bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90s under Clinton, Saddam held on. It took US Soldiers boots on the ground to be rid of him.

Objective #1 take out their nukes and nuclear capabilities. Objective #2 take out their airforce. If the regime feel as a result, then that is gravy, but regime change is no the objective.

Ok, point taken.

 

[Dubya]

Air strikes can work to bring down a regime, but not always. We bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90s under Clinton, Saddam held on. It took US Soldiers boots on the ground to be rid of him.

Objective #1 take out their nukes and nuclear capabilities. Objective #2 take out their airforce. If the regime feel as a result, then that is gravy, but regime change is no the objective.

Ok, point taken.

North Korea also has a huge military and we may not have the intelligence to get all their nuclear arsenal on a first strike. Saying something about war and doing it are two different things and wars tend to have unforeseen consequences. A military strike against these major targets would trigger a war, even if successful. Seoul, South Korea is within artillery range of North Korea and it would be targeted. The issue is, is it worth all the consequences to take such action and what is really gained by doing it? North Korea isn't in a position to use it's military threat to influence that area or do much around the world. It's made itself insignificant by being such a rogue state.

I fail to see the positives of starting a war with North Korea, even with regime change, when the consequences of action are worse than inaction. There is no guarantee attacking North Korea would influence Iran enough to change their policy to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

[Charles_Main]

I can't say I want to see it happen (negotiations would be better if they were genuine), but, if a strike were to happen, I'd be much happier if it came from the Chinese.

That's like expecting an owner of a bad, aggressive Dog, that Raised it to be so, to take the dog out.

Not going to happen.

 

[there4eyeM]

1) The assurance of taking out all the nuke goods in one blow is highly questionable.
2) The NK air force would probably not be much of a problem for US forces.
3) The artillery aimed at SK could probably be rapidly neutralized.
4) An American invasion of NK is not an option.

SK is not able to take the necessary military action on its own.

The Chinese will do what is in their perceived interests. If that is to replace Kim, they will do it. If that means a military strike to do it, they will. If they decide to support NK after a strike by another party, they will do that, too. It would be necessary to have some reliable idea of where they want to come down.

The great danger of having too much military power is the temptation to use it for every problem. That has led to the US being involved in too many places and, thus, spread too thin. Preparations now would be obvious to NK.

For all these reasons alone, the potential for US military intervention at this time and place are nearly non-existent.

Now, for an interesting scenario and a game changer, imagine that the US and China did this in a co-ordinated fashion!

 

[Dubya]

1) The assurance of taking out all the nuke goods in one blow is highly questionable.
2) The NK air force would probably not be much of a problem for US forces.
3) The artillery aimed at SK could probably be rapidly neutralized.
4) An American invasion of NK is not an option.

SK is not able to take the necessary military action on its own.

The Chinese will do what is in their perceived interests. If that is to replace Kim, they will do it. If that means a military strike to do it, they will. If they decide to support NK after a strike by another party, they will do that, too. It would be necessary to have some reliable idea of where they want to come down.

The great danger of having too much military power is the temptation to use it for every problem. That has led to the US being involved in too many places and, thus, spread too thin. Preparations now would be obvious to NK.

For all these reasons alone, the potential for US military intervention at this time and place are nearly non-existent.

Now, for an interesting scenario and a game changer, imagine that the US and China did this in a co-ordinated fashion!

That North Korean artillery could be neutralized, but I doubt it could be done before it did it's significant damage. North Korea has the 4th largest active military in the world and it's active, reserve and paramilitary military is 3.24 times our active, reserve and paramilitary military combined. It's 2.07 times China's. Attacking North Korea is going to get a lot of people killed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If ever we should reconsider electing and appointing neo-cons to office again, consider the Axis of Evil, Iraq and Iran and NK, are doing well, despite war and sanctions.

What are you smoking?

"North Korea is doing well" is in the seven-pounds-of-brain-damage category.


And there's this: "Suffering" in Iraq Highest Since 2008

More Iraqis experiencing negative emotions daily, as U.S. withdraws forces

And then there's this: A New Sign of Distress as Iran’s Currency Falls

Iran’s already fragile currency, the rial, has fallen in value by about 40 percent over the past week, battered by a combination of potent Western sanctions over the disputed Iranian nuclear program and new anxieties among Iranians about their government’s economic stewardship, analysts said.

They are doing quite well compared to GWB's idiot speech in 2002. NK rolls along despite starvation, Iran rolls along despite sanctions, and Iraq, whose ass we actually invaded (007 will like that imagery), is now headed for closer relations to Iran.

And you fucking want to militarily strike? You are a loon, a useful tool of people with an evil agenda.

 

[there4eyeM]

1) The assurance of taking out all the nuke goods in one blow is highly questionable.
2) The NK air force would probably not be much of a problem for US forces.
3) The artillery aimed at SK could probably be rapidly neutralized.
4) An American invasion of NK is not an option.

SK is not able to take the necessary military action on its own.

The Chinese will do what is in their perceived interests. If that is to replace Kim, they will do it. If that means a military strike to do it, they will. If they decide to support NK after a strike by another party, they will do that, too. It would be necessary to have some reliable idea of where they want to come down.

The great danger of having too much military power is the temptation to use it for every problem. That has led to the US being involved in too many places and, thus, spread too thin. Preparations now would be obvious to NK.

For all these reasons alone, the potential for US military intervention at this time and place are nearly non-existent.

Now, for an interesting scenario and a game changer, imagine that the US and China did this in a co-ordinated fashion!

That North Korean artillery could be neutralized, but I doubt it could be done before it did it's significant damage. North Korea has the 4th largest active military in the world and it's active, reserve and paramilitary military is 3.24 times our active, reserve and paramilitary military combined. It's 2.07 times China's. Attacking North Korea is going to get a lot of people killed.

I pointed out very early that many would die, especially in the ranks of the immensely inferior NK army. Size doesn't matter any more, except to swell the casualty figures.

Note, again, that this not something I want to see or that I think would be good; we're just discussing this objectively. I think it would be a huge mistake for the US to do this independently, or even in league with SK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Having served for many years in the infantry, having served with 2ID in South Korea, having trained at the ROK American ranger school near Uijeongbu in the late seventies, having served with the Korean infantry ~~ any of who have served with them, will tell you SK or NK, Koreans are tough ass soldiers. Everything I have read, as late as 2009, on the internet from our soldiers in Korea, they are still tough as nails.

They will resist fanatically.

 

[Dubya]

1) The assurance of taking out all the nuke goods in one blow is highly questionable.
2) The NK air force would probably not be much of a problem for US forces.
3) The artillery aimed at SK could probably be rapidly neutralized.
4) An American invasion of NK is not an option.

SK is not able to take the necessary military action on its own.

The Chinese will do what is in their perceived interests. If that is to replace Kim, they will do it. If that means a military strike to do it, they will. If they decide to support NK after a strike by another party, they will do that, too. It would be necessary to have some reliable idea of where they want to come down.

The great danger of having too much military power is the temptation to use it for every problem. That has led to the US being involved in too many places and, thus, spread too thin. Preparations now would be obvious to NK.

For all these reasons alone, the potential for US military intervention at this time and place are nearly non-existent.

Now, for an interesting scenario and a game changer, imagine that the US and China did this in a co-ordinated fashion!

That North Korean artillery could be neutralized, but I doubt it could be done before it did it's significant damage. North Korea has the 4th largest active military in the world and it's active, reserve and paramilitary military is 3.24 times our active, reserve and paramilitary military combined. It's 2.07 times China's. Attacking North Korea is going to get a lot of people killed.

I pointed out very early that many would die, especially in the ranks of the immensely inferior NK army. Size doesn't matter any more, except to swell the casualty figures.

Note, again, that this not something I want to see or that I think would be good; we're just discussing this objectively. I think it would be a huge mistake for the US to do this independently, or even in league with SK.

I'm just discussing it objectively too, but I don't see how much could be gained to warrant such large loses of human life. The NK military may be inferior, but they will fight like fanatics. The SK military is ranked 7th in active military and has more reserves than all our forces. Some of those fanatics may someday live in a better world for all, so I don't see killing a fanatic that isn't much of a threat being a benefit. You can click this link to rank the militaries of the world and notice some countries have no military, except paramilitary.

List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

will tell you SK or NK, Koreans are tough ass soldiers. Everything I have read, as late as 2009, on the internet from our soldiers in Korea, they are still tough as nails.

They will resist fanatically.

Now wait a minute, Since when did North Korea start trying to prove they have bigger dicks than us, nukes and military aside, they can say they have big dicks by defying the USA, but to say they have bigger dicks, well that means WAR.

Not even the brown nation of Iran has the balls or stupidity to go there.

 

[Dubya]

will tell you SK or NK, Koreans are tough ass soldiers. Everything I have read, as late as 2009, on the internet from our soldiers in Korea, they are still tough as nails.

They will resist fanatically.

Now wait a minute, Since when did North Korea start trying to prove they have bigger dicks than us, nukes and military aside, they can say they have big dicks by defying the USA, but to say they have bigger dicks, well that means WAR.

Not even the brown nation of Iran has the balls or stupidity to go there.

they have bigger dicks than us

Maybe they were talking about you and it was lost in the tranlation.