Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

haele

(14,499 posts)
46. It's not just what they can deliver in a strike.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 03:31 PM
Mar 2017

It's what happens once nuclear weapons start being used - or destroyed in mass quantities.
Warheads are not the only delivery system. And again, we don't know where all his nuclear weapons are stored.

North Korea is a very strange country that actually believe their leader is a God; we'd have to break the country; destroy their leader and several levels down in the government, their military, and their scientific community, to actually remove the threat posed by the Kim dynasty and their religious/political stranglehold there.
Those people have put up with so much - sacrificed their personal futures and actual blood relationships with South Korea - to support their Dear Leader; they aren't just going to dance around singing "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead!" once Kim is gone. And if he's not deposed by internal methods, the North Koreans will blame the "Corrupt West and Asian Proxies" for their loss of leadership and National identity.

Except for a few actual dissidents, they (as a body politic) don't see us as helping them. They see us as taking away their reason for existence - and the entire country has been trained as an army against our "corruption".

Any nuclear weapons or nuclear resource/infrastructure, left available to North Korean Nationalists after any preemptive strike will be used against us and our allies, one way or another.

There's a reason why preemptive and preventative strikes are considered a last resort. Once it becomes acceptable to throw sovereignty - the respect for a national identification - out the window and just go in and take away another country's armaments without their tacit agreement through diplomacy and treaties, then MAD loses its teeth. And the country that just walks in and takes what they want reduces its own standing as part of the world community - it becomes as much a rogue state as the little dysfunctional government that threatens everyone else.

(Thanks, Bush and Cheney, and all you other PNAC supporters...)

Haele

Recommendations

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

OPPOSE! Aristus Mar 2017 #1
I oppose too, but supremacy doesn't have much to do with this, I think. randome Mar 2017 #9
Good grief, NK by itself. Then CHINA Hortensis Mar 2017 #38
I know. NK is a tragedy with no clear solution. randome Mar 2017 #40
Sorry but the wording is confusing ProudLib72 Mar 2017 #2
Oppose maryellen99 Mar 2017 #3
NK cannot be allowed to continue building longer range delivery vehicles Calculating Mar 2017 #4
Depends on what China might do. If they stand back, then yes. SharonAnn Mar 2017 #27
Sounds like something the UN/international community should address. meadowlander Mar 2017 #28
If no one has a pre-emptive strike, we would have eliminated war HoneyBadger Mar 2017 #5
We are treaty bound to defend Japan and South Korea* if they are attacked. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #6
South Korea, maybe? randome Mar 2017 #10
I support preemptive diplomacy... Blanks Mar 2017 #7
Yes! I am totally in favor of not preemptively using nuclear weapons on the DPRK NurseJackie Mar 2017 #8
N.K. nuke sub over halfway built already Tom the Mechanic Mar 2017 #11
North Korea has the technology to build a nuclear submarine? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #12
You can see it from satelite Tom the Mechanic Mar 2017 #15
Do you have a link? DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #16
It's for real and even though by all standards it's rudimentary, if completed it would change a lot. NWCorona Mar 2017 #30
Even if it is not mechanized DK504 Mar 2017 #33
I'd like to see a link to that too. nt cwydro Mar 2017 #23
See post #30 NWCorona Mar 2017 #32
Thanks! cwydro Mar 2017 #55
Really... Why are Republican policies given equal credence here? procon Mar 2017 #13
There are defenses of a pre-emptive strike in this thread. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #14
An incidental happenstance; and not the focus of this thread, yeah? procon Mar 2017 #18
Oh, I knew it would be lopsided. I was trying to get the pre-emptive strikers to reveal themselves. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #20
Hogwash. procon Mar 2017 #24
Wow. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #25
The assumption of any "value" in the rhetorical question presented is open to debate. procon Mar 2017 #54
My thread has fostered discussion as intended, your pomposity and pretentiousness notwithstanding. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #56
As stated above, this is just another attention seeking poll. procon Mar 2017 #59
I intended to foster discussion on a discussion board. The tragedy. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #60
I Support Regime Change erpowers Mar 2017 #17
Oh sure MFM008 Mar 2017 #19
It would probably be a preventative strike, not pre-emptive wiggs Mar 2017 #21
I oppose. LP2K12 Mar 2017 #22
He's going to kill us all, but first he'll take his family and fly to Mother Russia to live. SummerSnow Mar 2017 #26
I say favor ExciteBike66 Mar 2017 #29
Not only no, but Hell NO! haele Mar 2017 #31
Sorry, N Korea has nowhere near the megatonnage needed for what you said. EX500rider Mar 2017 #37
Nine nuclear weapons going off is nine nuclear weapons too much. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #43
It's not just what they can deliver in a strike. haele Mar 2017 #46
So would just assassinating him work? Kittycow Mar 2017 #39
No, there are too many levels of NK political crazy down for outsiders to do it. haele Mar 2017 #50
I'm against the Bush doctrine except for extreme cases. NWCorona Mar 2017 #34
I apposed it for the obvious reason, the war thing. Javaman Mar 2017 #35
SHIT! get the red out Mar 2017 #36
By "pre-emptive", you mean before they strike? Thanks. nt. NCTraveler Mar 2017 #41
Yes, of course... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #42
If a strike by them was certain, of course we should strike them ahead of time. NCTraveler Mar 2017 #44
We have military treaties with Japan and South Korea. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #45
"It's also the moral thing to do. " That poses little significance. NCTraveler Mar 2017 #47
All I know is if they attack Japan or South Korea we should do whatever is necessary to repel the... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #48
Fucking hell no!!!! Initech Mar 2017 #49
We don't need another war we're bound to LOSE. eom BlueCaliDem Mar 2017 #51
no 'preemptive wars. period heaven05 Mar 2017 #52
Strongly Oppose JDC Mar 2017 #53
I voted "No vote" because I need more context for the question. stevenleser Mar 2017 #57
Why isn't ARE YOU NUTS? a choice? tavernier Mar 2017 #58
No! I would like Seoul and the rest of SK to remain intact...please Kimchijeon Mar 2017 #61
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do you favor or oppose a ...»Reply #46