This message was self-deleted by its author

[bluestarone]

This message was self-deleted by its author (bluestarone) on Sun Feb 4, 2018, 08:59 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[wasupaloopa]

1. Neither they would all be dead in the counter strike.

Pardon but what the hell kind of question is that?

[bluestarone]

2. it would be a mess that's for sure

[Lurks Often]

25. That's absurd, NK does not have the missiles to even come to close

to killing most of the people living in the United States.

[Blue_true]

43. It can kill a lot of the troops that we have in South Korea, along with millions of South Koreans.

NK does not have to strike the US mainland to cause chaos and death.

[Lurks Often]

58. But that isn't what the poster I responded to said

His post, intentionally or otherwise, implied that NK would strike the United States with enough nuclear weapons to kill a majority of the US population.

As to your answer, while certainly far too many people will die, the actual number would depend on how many nuclear weapons NK could deliver before the US (and maybe South Korea) destroyed all the launch sites, fixed or mobile.

Preparations for a large scale nuclear attack by NK would be pickedup by satellite, which would be a legitimate reason for a pre-emptive strike by the US, which would almost certainly consist of a large number of cruise missiles (about 150) from whichever SSGN is near North Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversions
as well as B-2 strikes with precision guided weapons (up to 80 per plane) to take out launch sites, mobile launchers, command and control sites and air defense sites.

[OhNo-Really]

77. Are you EFFIN kidding?

This post is NOT HELPFUL

Maybe we should check the background of posters that post provocative NUKE titles.

Just saying

[EX500rider]

90. Why is a factual post not helpful?

Unless you prefer hyperbole and emotional arguments.

[maryellen99]

59. If trump preemptively nukes NK,China will intervene on behalf of NK nt

[Lurks Often]

60. As I have already stated, we are not going to preemptively nuke NK

[maryellen99]

66. Why are so you so sure? Are you really pinning your hopes on the military disobeying an order?

They aren’t going to.

[Lurks Often]

69. Then we disagree

and since I'm certain nothing I say will change your mind, I'm not going to waste my time trying.

[Lurks Often]

71. Probably not, because doing so would wreck China's economy

China has always exported more to the US then it has imported from the US since at least 1985: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2017 Note the numbers are in billions of dollars. Do you really think the Chinese economy could afford to lose roughly $350 billions of dollars a year?

[stevenleser]

110. They wouldn't, but the host of issues it WOULD cause is almost as bad. nt

[Hortensis]

81. Probably does. How about that report to congress

about what would happen if any group set off a high-altitude nuke over North America? The short form for the worst case was that at the end of a year an estimated 90% of all Americans would be dead from combined effects of starvation, disease, civil disturbance, etc. This isn't just the nuclear age any more.

That worst case would assume a nation-level high-tech one that was well placed with the intention of destroying us completely. But we could be disabled with far less.

But a crappy smaller one launched from a freighter off one of our coasts would kill many millions and basically consume all our resources as we struggled to get back to our feet. In fact, the explosion wouldn't even have to be nuclear to be devastating.

Then there are little things like CYBER warfare. How would your city do if the computers running your county's water and power supplies destroyed them instead? Of course that would be far worse for the people of the Buffalo area in winter or San Bernardino in Summer than some happy city with plenty of fresh water and mild temperatures.

But definitely multiple your guesses just in case more than one big population area was taken down and water, electricity and food delivery trucks all stopped running, along with your cell phone, TV and internet service. if our cars ran, we'd get in them to go try to pick up our kids, or get home from work, or try to find out what was happening, and chances are all too good major roads would already be closed by civil defense workers before we got there.

[Lurks Often]

87. I've seen conflicting reports about EMP effects

with some saying, for example a car that is turned off would be unaffected. I lack the technical background to determine which side is correct.

And you just made a fairly strong argument for a pre-emptive strike. If that report is correct about the effects of a high altitude EMP burst, then why shouldn't we to take out NK's nuclear weapons immediately?

[Hortensis]

88. It is very technical, with a lot of effects "it depends."

Various factors would alter the effects. Including on the electrical systems of moving vehicles. But that'd all be irrelevant if there was no food in the stores to drive to and/or no driving allowed by military authorities to limit food and water riots and attempted migrations by starving populations.

Just-in-time inventory means everything from food to medications to flashlights and duct tape are deliberately kept in extremely short supply across every city in the entire nation. 100 years ago, only 3 cities had over 1M people, far fewer people lived in extreme climates where life required elaborately interlinked systems to maintain, 80% of households grew some portion of their own food and were equipped to maintain when power went off.

As for a "fairly strong argument FOR" murdering 100 million people, really? Only the John Birchers during the Cold War and their hard-core conservative counterparts today consider that any kind of argument "for," strong or otherwise. Fortunately, civilized minds have always prevailed, although Trump seems to be their, to use a currently trendy term, "paleo-conservative" type.

[EX500rider]

89. "As for a "fairly strong argument FOR" murdering 100 million people"

Why would a preemptive strike on N Korean nuclear and missile assets kill "100 million people"?

The entire population of N Korea is less then Texas and wouldn't be targeted in a counter-force strike.

[Hortensis]

93. What about South Korea?

And why do you assume a Trump response would be measured in any way? Because you can be absolutely sure he would be acting against advice from his military advisers.

But if an inflated worst-case sort of number exceeds your notion of what I should be arguing would not be acceptable, how about $5 million? People.

Or drop this asinine argument. Even with Trump in power, wise, moral military minds will prevail over this kind of thought.

[Lurks Often]

103. Where did you get murdering 100 million people from?

And if you are President would you really allow NK to launch a EMP strike with the worst case scenario for the U.S. being the one in your previous post?

I don't believe we would ever launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Only under very specific conditions should a pre-emptive conventional strike take place, with the below scenario an example.

Preparations for a large scale nuclear attack by NK would be picked up by satellite, which would be a legitimate reason for a pre-emptive strike by the US, which would almost certainly consist of a large number of non-nuclear cruise missiles (about 150) from whichever SSGN is near North Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversions
as well as B-2 strikes with precision guided weapons (up to 80 per plane) to take out launch sites, mobile launchers, command and control sites and air defense sites.

More plainly a pre-emptive conventional strike is warranted where there are no diplomatic alternatives and a failure to act would cause more deaths then the strike would cause.

[JHB]

48. I suspect it is the kind of question that hinges on a word the OP left out...

Is the “preemptive NK strike” by NK or on NK (by Trump, with the “preemptive” part more Bushwah).

[bluestarone]

49. BY tRUMP on NK

[Iggo]

56. It would be by The United States of America.

We'd all be blamed and we'd all be fucked.

See: Nazi Germany.

[stevenleser]

111. Not correct. Their missiles cannot reach the Continental US, at least not yet. Of course, that

requires some explanation. Can their missiles reach the US with no warheads on them? Yes. Of course no one cares about that.

They don't have the technology to put a small enough warhead on their longest range missiles to reach the US yet.

[MichMary]

3. It would certainly help Dems

but since the counter attack would be nuclear, I hope it doesn't happen.

[The River]

4. It Wouldn't Help Either Party

it would probably start an all out war on the Korean peninsula and/or start WW3.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. Neither side really benefits.......

But give Democrats the edge because Republicans and Trump have killed millions of people , not to mention our own for no other reason than for vanity.

[spanone]

6. No one.

[lunatica]

12. Thats the second time today youve boiled it down

The the heart of the essence. Sweetly succinct!

[spanone]

14. death is no good for anyone. imho 👍🏼

[lark]

7. It would be framed as retaliation, not just striking for political expediency,

which of course is the real reason. Yes, so sadly, this country would fall for it, they always do. It worked for bush/cheney in Iraq. Americans are always pro-war, at the start.

i do think he's planning this, it's been said waaaay too often to not be on the table. Only I really think he'll take this a different way, go with his love Hitlers' actions and stage a large false flag attack here and then suspend the constitution (forever). He cannot suspend the constitution with a war against NK unless they attack us back with a nuclear bomb. Compliant russian repugs would go along with this while our standing in the world is destroyed for his personal and russia's benefit. I really doubt there are enough repugs that care about the country to stop this heinous and desired action by drumpf.

[bluestarone]

13. agree somewhat here TY for ur thoughts!!

[flamingdem]

108. You have to wonder why Tillerson let those 3 Russian spies in

last week.

What.is.up.

[Trust Buster]

8. A despicable question. Innocent lives for political gain is a despicable thought.

[bluestarone]

15. if for political gain it would be done by REPUBS!!!!

and VERY POSSIBLE reality i'm afraid!

[Iggo]

30. You asked if the Dems would gain politically.

And now you're rightly taking it in the shorts.

[bluestarone]

32. my wording may be BAD but i did say REPUBS ALSO????

MY bad if misunderstood but tRUMP is likely planing a preemptive strike right?

[salin]

74. it is - but it isn't out of the blue.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-very-bad

Posted last night - no follow up, yet - on TPM - sourced in South Korea.

[still_one]

9. I think a bigger concern would be surviving WWIII

[SWBTATTReg]

10. I can't believe that this line of questioning etc. is ...

being postulated. Idiotic, and I would think (hope) that the military boys would finally say NO to such a proposal, especially if evidence to do such a thing is contrived or manufactured by tRUMP for such a blatant purpose.

Also, I would think that by now, there would be a realization that war is messy, and you really truly can't plan for it and all of the negative impacts.

[Squinch]

28. I agree. It is incredibly offensive. This place has become unrecognizable.

[OhNo-Really]

83. DUBots?

Wasa and Blue signed up 4/6/2017 and 4/7/2017 respectively and MichMary signed up 12/2016 and joined Backing Forum - no involvement with forum. First to comment on this REPULSIVE TOPIC.

Is it possible that BOTS are infiltrating DU and, if so, is the DU staff cleaning them out?

[Hekate]

105. You have an Alert button you can use. You can also contact MIRT members...

...who are listed in Announcements, or even go to Ask the Administrators.

[EX500rider]

92. A decidedly unfriendly country is working on nukes and has threatened to use them against the US..

....and you think the US military would say no to taking the threat out?

Are you confusing the US military with the Quakers or the Peace Corp?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. It seems like the start of a war would favor incumbents.

But I think the only thing that'll save Republicans is economic growth for workers. Significant permanent wage increases.

Otherwise, Dems take over Congress, and legislation stagnates until 2020. Hopefully, any Supreme Court nomination is ignored until 2021.

[lunatica]

22. Your last point is quite salient

If the Democrats get the majority they will be able to hobble any legislation that would be pro the 1%, but Trump would get writer’s cramp from vetoing every legislative attempt on our part and from putting out torrential quantities of tweets.

But maybe that would be enough to keep him and his Republican Party in check until the 2020 elections.

I don’t see things getting much better if Democrats gain the majority. The opposition may have already become institutionalized. We just may not have any proof that acknowledges that eventuality yet.

Scary thought

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

73. May his writer's cramp cause him to quit golfing.

BHO probably had writer's cramp from vetoing every bill that killed the ACA. But every one of those vetoes was probably scrawled with a smile on his face.

[redwitch]

16. Seriously?

What. The. Fuck. No one wins, incredibly offensive. Or did you forget the sarcasm emoji?

[bluestarone]

18. REPUBS have the plan right?

We gotta deal with it right?

[MichMary]

40. You know that for a fact, right? n/t

[bluestarone]

41. no

but very possible

[MichMary]

46. I hate unfounded speculation

No one, and I do mean NO ONE wants nuclear war. I have no idea how old you are, but I grew up in the era of duck and cover. DH used to do nuclear attack drills in school. We actually have a booklet from then about what you do in the event of a nuclear attack.

Trump lived through that era, too. Even he wouldn't want to provoke a nuclear attack.

Really. Get a grip.

[bluestarone]

57. 70 years here

and maybe you haven't heard of tRUMPS discussions with military but it;s a definite possibility for tRUMP to preemptive strike NK just to bloody there nose? And NO WHERE DO I WANT A NUCLEAR OR ANY FIRST STRIKE!!!

[MichMary]

65. Probably ever president EVER

had discussions with the military over whatever what-ifs were the big concerns of the era.

[maryellen99]

62. Whats the point of having Nuclear Weapons if you cant use them?

[winstars]

17. Ahhhh, what elections? They will be "postponed" due to national emergency. Thats coming, believe me.

[bluestarone]

19. i VERY MUCH BELIEVE YOU

That's the problem!!!!!

[maryellen99]

72. I think we will be a Nuclear wasteland by mid terms nt

[EX500rider]

91. How?

N Korea just got some of their long range missiles to occasionally work, it's doubtful they have hardened and miniaturized a working warhead design, and if they have it's unlikely they more then a few which would have to make it past US ABM systems stationed off shore near N Korea and in Alaska. They may want to launch those few against a country that has over 6,000 nuclear weapons but I doubt they are truly that suicidal.

[maryellen99]

94. No Im expecting trump to first strike and China to intervene on behalf of NK

I think SHTF and spins out of control with this crew in charge.

[EX500rider]

96. So you think China will pit it's less then 300 or so nukes against the US arsenal of over 6,000?

I really doubt they are that suicidal.

[maryellen99]

99. No but I think Trump is dumb enough to open Pandoras box

Especially if Mueller gets too close.

[marble falls]

20. What a stupid scenario to even be considering. Looking for a political upside to an unprovoked ....

military action even hypothetically? Seriously.

[bluestarone]

36. I AGREE but you see this is the REPUBS (possible)plan right?

[highplainsdem]

21. You can't have a pre-emptive strike if NK can strike back, and they can. It would be a 1st strike,

they would retaliate with everything they have that we missed (and we don't know where a lot of their weapons are), and millions would die.

As for which political party would benefit -- what a crazy question. But keep in mind US plans for nuclear war in past decades included the imposition of martial law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/12/what-would-the-government-do-after-a-wmd-attack-we-have-no-idea/

Think about martial law with Trump as president.

[bluestarone]

24. the question is out there because i truly believe tRUMP will do this (preemtive) to stay in office

I question is WILL THERE PLAN will work for THE REPUBS???? to stay in office

[highplainsdem]

35. Your OP says you believe a pre-emptive stike on NK by Trump will help Dems in the midterms. Again,

there probably won't be any midterms, if Trump starts a nuclear war.

[bluestarone]

37. i DID NOT SAY it WILL help DEMS i asked WHO it would help IF tRUMP attacked NK first

[highplainsdem]

44. Your subject line asked who it would help. Below that you said you thought it would help Dems

Here's your OP:

would a pre-emptive NK strike help Democrats in midterms or help RepubliCONS?

I would think it would help Democrats! (of-course this would depend on how the war is going)

[bluestarone]

47. My thought was people would be really pissed if tRUMP attacked NK which i feel would help DEMS?

in midterm?

[Iggo]

63. You still don't get it.

[Squinch]

68. I think they do get it. Its horrible, but I think it's intentional.

[SidDithers]

23. A pre-enptive NK strike would help nobody...nt

Sid

[Squinch]

26. It would kill tens or hundreds of thousands for no reason whatsoever. What the everloving fuck?

[Iggo]

27. You know who it wouldn't help? Innocent Korean people.

[beachbum bob]

29. 60% of america would see any such move by trump as "wag the dog"

makes little difference to direction of the upcoming Nov route of republicans everywhere...unless trump can goad NK into an attack on south korea or a missile launch on japan...trump is sunk, republicans along with him

[shraby]

31. Nuke anything is not acceptable even as a what if.

[Lurks Often]

33. Realistically it would depend on the justification of the strike and it's result

None of my comments should be considered advocating for a pre-emptive strike

A first strike would be non-nuclear, thinking otherwise is conspiracy theory level thinking.

A pre-emptive attack on NK missile sites to prevent NK from launching a nuclear attack on S. Korea, Japan or Guam* would be supported by the majority of Americans, presuming of course there is firm evidence that there was a high probability such an attack was
going to happen.

A pre-emptive attack on NK to kill Fat Boy would probably be supported by the majority of Americans, especially if the successor gave up NK's nuclear weapons and factual evidence (including photo's) of the horrific living conditions of the average North Korean citizen.

A pre-emptive attack on NK just because Trump "felt like it" would not be supported by the majority of Americans.

*I remain skeptical of NK's ability to be able to launch a long range missile with a working nuclear weapon with a high probability of it both hitting the intended target and having the warhead go off at the desired time.

[MichMary]

53. I heard an interview with a Guam resident

a few months ago. He said he figured the safest place in the world to be would be the place NK was aiming at!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

34. It would help undertakers and publishers of books analyzing how such a f*cked up thing happened

Lots of thee-word books will be published: "Trump caused it."

[MineralMan]

38. A Pre-Emptive Strike Is Unthinkable.

If we do the unthinkable, we will become a pariah nation. If we become a pariah nation our internal politics are not going to matter, frankly.

Therefore, we should not do an unthinkable thing. If we do, regardless of that, we will deserve the scorn and enmity of the rest of the world.

[bluestarone]

39. totally 100% agree

[shraby]

79. It's also against the constitution. There's something in there about being the aggressor.

[bdamomma]

100. Mineral Man

I do agree with your post, but then this is the unthinkable thing and we will be scorned. One question: what is Russia's stance on NK and saber rattling of this stupid POS we have squatting in the US.? What would Russia do or say?

[Hekate]

102. Russia is in favor of whatever destabilizes and degrades the USA, and they are doing it. MAGA

[MineralMan]

104. I truly do not know.

Everything is upside down.

[Blue_true]

42. Such an action would precipitate a bloodbath in short order.

North Korea is a difficult terrain country. We may take out some of that country's capability, but what will be left will induce a lot of dying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. North Korea would likely flatten Seoul in retaliation.

[bluestarone]

61. oh for sure

and tRUMP wouldn't give a shit either

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. The rest of the world would.

And war on the Korean Peninsula would precipitate a global recession.

[pangaia]

50. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[get the red out]

51. Hard to vote when dead

So I think it would be simply a fail.

[Girard442]

52. So if you and your spouse douse the house with gasoline...

...chain yourselves to the refrigerator, and toss a lit match — who wins the argument?

[Historic NY]

54. Pay up your life insurance....

your survivors will need it if there is anything left to barter for.

[Vinca]

55. If Dear Leader (theirs, not ours) takes out California, it helps Republicans.

[janterry]

67. I think it would help republicans

after any hostile event (even if we start it), Americans tend to become more patriotic.

I think it will help Trump and company

[malaise]

70. What a world where we discuss how killing people can help one party or another

in the USA - good effin' grief!

[salin]

75. sadly - its being talked about in South Korea

not yet sourced https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-very-bad

[Afromania]

76. It would kill a whole hell of a lot of people who don't have anything to do with any of it.

and help nobody.

[ollie10]

78. People rally behind leader in times of war

The bigger questions center on whether Trump would simply cancel the elections untill the find out what the hell is going on.....which would of course mean forever

[shraby]

80. Not with a nuclear war. That's unthinkable, immoral, a war crime, ad infinitum.

[ollie10]

82. Yes it is unthinkable.

Don't forget we used nukes before....

Trump would come up with some sort of lie

And people would be scared.

Doesn't matter though. He would just cancel all future elections

[malaise]

84. +1,000 n/t

[Downtown Hound]

86. Yes, until the body bags start coming home

And that would happen very quick in a war with North Korea, and there would be a hell of a lot of them. America hasn't fought a war like that since Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan were small in terms of casualties by comparison. We lost nearly 60,00 troops in Vietnam and over 40,000 in Korea (38000 by official count, but nearly 10,000 more missing that almost certainly died and their bodies left behind in the snow during the retreat from the Chinese intervention).

In a Korean war today, we would have thousands of casualties in a matter of days, and many more by the time we managed to get more troops over there to provide reinforcements.

[Downtown Hound]

85. Any so-called limited strike in NK

would pretty much lead to all out war. The idea that you could successfully do a limited strike on a country like North Korea is pure fantasy, and a dangerous one at that.

So while certain Americans may be initially supportive, I think that would wear off pretty quick when Americans started coming home in body bags by the thousands.

[smirkymonkey]

95. It is unthinkable.

The argument for using nukes is completely untenable. There is no situation for which this will be the solution. I don't care what your political position is, this is something that can not happen.

[steve2470]

97. jesus what a question

you're a Democrat ??????????????

Who the fuck cares, it would just start WW3.

Good bye and good riddance soon I hope.

[nini]

98. wouldn't matter

the earth would be screwed up so bad and so many dead elections would be the last thing to worry about.

[Hekate]

101. We'll be too dead to care. Christ on a Trailer Hitch

[Hekate]

106. What I want to know is who the HELL are all these DUers who are even entertaining the idea...

...of nuclear war as somehow beneficial to one goddam POLITICAL PARTY? What the everloving holy eff, people. What is WRONG with you?



Edited to add: 108 replies and 1,240 views -- what a great face for DU to present to the world.

[tonyt53]

107. ANY attack on NK and they will unleash thousands of artillery pieces that can reach Seoul.

Thousands of innocent people will die. The US can't take out what they can't see.

[radius777]

109. Good question, everything is political

and has a political cost/benefit, whether we like it or not.

Dems failure to take off the rose-colored glasses and understand this, at how the Repubs start wars to gain/keep power, is a big reason for why they keep getting away with it. Especially someone like Trump who would love to suspend the constitution and be 'president for life' like his hero Putin.

I think Americans love a good fight, and at first they would be behind Trump, but as NK (just as crazy as Trump) retaliates against South Korea and Japan, a global crisis of sorts would be preciptated that could lead to a world war.

I think the GOP's war schemes would destroy them this time.. amazing that Iraq didnt do that to them... once again because Dems failed to hold the GOP accountable.