General Discussion

Renew Deal

(84,577 posts) Fri Mar 29, 2013, 11:34 PM Mar 2013

Would Obama use a nuke in retaliation? [View all]

North Korea is talking about nuking South Korea. Do you think Obama would use a nuke in retaliation?

37 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, Obama would retaliate with a nuke
	17 (46%)
	Yes, but only after multiple nuclear detonations by NK
	0 (0%)
	Yes, but only after a nuclear bomb is used against US territory (Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.)
	2 (5%)
	No, Obama would not retaliate with a nuke
	17 (46%)
	Not Sure
	1 (3%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would Obama use a nuke in retaliation? [View all] Renew Deal Mar 2013 OP

IMO, mass murder of a million or more people for no reason deserves a bonk. nt Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #1

I assume the first option means after NK attacks SK with at least one nuke. nt Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #2

Yes Renew Deal Mar 2013 #3

The "bonk" also happens to be mass murder of a million or more people, though... Scootaloo Mar 2013 #9

No, not necessarily. The US would use the most dialed-down variable yield... Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #12

If North Korea used a nuclear weapon first, I absolutely think they'd receive some in response. (nt) Posteritatis Mar 2013 #4

As I have repeatedly said today nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #5

If NK lobs a nuke into Seoul and then a nuke explodes over Pyongyang, the only question is... Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #7

Oh that question will be answered with 72 hours nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #10

IMO, of course they would. Only Israel plays the "Maybe I did, maybe I didn't" game. nt Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #14

Israel will stay weby, weby, quiet on this one nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #15

Oh hell yeah they will. Until like 3 weeks later when they start claiming that... Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #16

As I said, they will know within 72 hours nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #18

I think maybe we're talking about two different things. I think whomever launches a... Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #20

I think China is the wildcard Renew Deal Mar 2013 #8

Very much so nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #11

Everyone is well aware of the ramificataions of using a nuclear weapon. Archaic Mar 2013 #6

But if NK could walk into Seoul defacto7 Mar 2013 #22

I don't believe that China would support an aggressor state. Archaic Mar 2013 #28

NK can't walk into Seoul hack89 Mar 2013 #77

I don't see why it would be necessary bhikkhu Mar 2013 #13

Totally Agree - A Nuke, Even in Response to a Nuke, is Not Necessary dballance Mar 2013 #19

My assumption is that retaliatory targets would include hardened underground... Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #25

If North Korea uses a nuke in this modern age, then NK should be nuked. nt bluestate10 Mar 2013 #17

So We Should Level Some Cities and Create a Humanitarian Disaster? dballance Mar 2013 #23

Let's just hope we never find out n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #21

amen maryellen99 Mar 2013 #26

I believe the US would not have to retaliate against North Korea if they attacked the South Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #24

I hope not. Apophis Mar 2013 #27

Yes, I would expect him to myself. Jack Sprat Mar 2013 #29

The US has a lot of troops in South Korea Cali_Democrat Mar 2013 #30

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #31

I would be surprised if he did not. But North Korea can level most of Seoul without nukes Douglas Carpenter Mar 2013 #32

I don't think Obama would have time to.... Rosco T. Mar 2013 #33

To prevent a million deaths, a drone could be used,but then the haters hate drones graham4anything Mar 2013 #34

A drone used to do what exactly? Cali_Democrat Mar 2013 #35

"If only Harry Truman had drones." Union Scribe Mar 2013 #38

Terrifying to see how many "progressives" support unnecessary mass killing as long as it's revenge. DireStrike Mar 2013 #36

I'm an atheist. I don't turn the other cheek. nt Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #41

Where did the post you're replying to say that? Union Scribe Mar 2013 #43

Well you could as an atheist, but that's cute I guess. DireStrike Mar 2013 #68

I think you are projecting a motive onto people that is not there. stevenleser Mar 2013 #57

Regardless of motive, nukes are unnecessary and would help very little with the military effort. DireStrike Mar 2013 #66

I hope he would. Shrike47 Mar 2013 #37

Question for the pro nuke folks, would YOU push the button to kill millions? UBEEDelusional Mar 2013 #39

The question is not would we, but would he (the President). nt NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #40

Unless someone here is a former President, sarisataka Mar 2013 #45

Actually you are very incorrect UBEEDelusional Mar 2013 #83

I take it you sarisataka Mar 2013 #88

Anyone voting "yes" is clueless! Wow! Logical Mar 2013 #42

Why do you say that? Renew Deal Mar 2013 #44

I do not think there is any way that Obama would escalate the use of Nukes. It is a huge step. n-t Logical Mar 2013 #60

Nobody's nuking anybody. rucky Mar 2013 #46

You are the voice of sanity in this thread. LAGC Mar 2013 #91

Nukes? 99Forever Mar 2013 #47

Lil kim is nuts Renew Deal Mar 2013 #58

ANYONE and EVERYONE... 99Forever Mar 2013 #59

I would hope not. JVS Mar 2013 #48

No, he wouldn't. However, Kim Jung Un had better find some MineralMan Mar 2013 #49

Keep in mind that the prevailing wind patterns over Korea are from west to east.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #50

He should use a net instead. randome Mar 2013 #51

This is a very difficult question that has ramifications beyond the Koreas stevenleser Mar 2013 #52

You are assuming that not being nuked means "getting away with" using nukes. DireStrike Mar 2013 #65

You are dealing with 10% of the issue and arguing something no one is disputing at that stevenleser Mar 2013 #70

"What message are we sending" DireStrike Mar 2013 #73

No, you aren't getting it. The fear factor is not the same stevenleser Mar 2013 #87

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree DireStrike Mar 2013 #89

North Korea could be contained without using the nuclear option BUT.... chelsea0011 Mar 2013 #53

He Would Pretty Much Have To, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2013 #54

I think "what NK could count on" is more "all immediate moves to disarm the country and remove... muriel_volestrangler Mar 2013 #61

This message was self-deleted by its author SidDithers Mar 2013 #55

Tempest in a teapot aristocles Mar 2013 #56

There's no need. You know damn well we've got enough conventional firepower... talkingmime Mar 2013 #62

The days of using nukes are over. ileus Mar 2013 #63

I'd like to think not. LWolf Mar 2013 #64

As retaliation? No. If tactically called for? Yes. cthulu2016 Mar 2013 #67

That's a good summary of my argument. DireStrike Mar 2013 #76

I highly doubt it. Glaug-Eldare Mar 2013 #69

+1 Good poll, Renew Deal. The best polls give interesting results. nt Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #71

I would certainly hope so. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #72

Not sure treestar Mar 2013 #74

How about just taking out one man. warrior1 Mar 2013 #75

It's not a "one man" situation: TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #78

I don't see that their would be a choice other than to use a nuke............ wandy Mar 2013 #79

I don't see how that would work. Glaug-Eldare Mar 2013 #82

It would depend on North Korea's nuclear abilities, or at least our perception of those abilites... wandy Mar 2013 #84

I think he should, but I don't think he would. ZOB Mar 2013 #80

It would be a horrible decision to have to make, but probably he would have to. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #81

if it's not good business, he won't do it datasuspect Mar 2013 #85

Well if he did..... obliviously Mar 2013 #86

Well, let's say NK nukes SK Ter Mar 2013 #90

Not sure. But I don't think anyone would use a nuke again - it's MAD. ellisonz Mar 2013 #92