General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(105,376 posts)

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

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 11:39 AM

Mar 2013

...the leadership". That could include a nuclear response, but wouldn't inevitably mean that, I think. It would depend on how good the US and other powers think their intelligence is - do they know exactly where and how many nuclear warheads NK has? How precisely do they know where Kim and the powerful generals are, and how strong are the reinforcements? Something they should know well, but I don't, is where the artillery that can cause heavy damage to Seoul is. Could one nuclear weapon be used against one section without too much civilian loss of life pour encourager les autres to surrender? Would heavy conventional attacks on the artillery be enough to stop it/make the rest surrender?

The thing is, there is no 'custom' with nuclear weapons. The only time they've ever been used was against a state that didn't possess them. The assumptions made in the cold war about how the USSR, or China, would behave with nuclear weapons don't automatically hold with NK too.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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