If North Korea were to nuke one of our major cities, what would be an appropriate response, on our part?
I know a lot of people would say, "Nuke them back," but I wonder ... would killing as many of their civilians as they killed of ours lose us the moral high ground? Could modern Americans be proud of their own country if it nuked another country back to the stone age, even in retribution?
But would we seem weak and invite more attacks if we responded to a nuclear strike with a mere conventional military invasion? Would it be unnecessarily risky to fall short of nuking them when they have an undetermined likelihood of being able to strike us again?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
There is no proper response for such an issue, the very principle of MAD is that there is no response.
Thus we learn children, nukes are very, very bad things and should not be played with by diminutive dictators, lest we plunge the world into a new dark age from which it would arise but very slowly, if at all. SAY NO TO NUKES CHILDREN, they can screw you up really bad.
DARE to keep diminutive dictators away from nukes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
NK? Use tactical nuclear weapons to strike military targets that can be hit with minimal civilian casualties, then invade (unless the situation has changed greatly, China will help). Assuming this is the near future, NK will not have used a missile (even if their missile that can reach us were working, they're nowhere near being able to build a nuke that can fit on it), so we'd have little to fear from a second attack.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If we fired about 3 Nukes back there wouldnt be a North Korea anymore.
I am not sure about the proper response. I do not think a nuclear response would be right. We could very easily gain TONS of international support and simply use a combined task force (with mainland China's and South Korea's help hopefully) to steam roll over the country and help them set up a new system of government.
Blighting the land as well as subjecting them to the indescriminate force of a nuclear bomb seems like the wrong response since them using nuclear bombs in a preemptive strike would be wrong for so many reasons. How could a nuclear response be convincingly justified if thats true?
Though still unlikely, I still find it entirely possible that the North Koreans having a crazy dictator as their head might nuke themselves and all our troops stationed there with them if we invaded. It probaby would not be hard for America to simply assasinate Kim Jong Il as well as all the strong minded leaders as a way to break the resolve of NK.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that MAD isn't so much a real response as a threat. Once the first missile has been fired, the threat ends.
quote:We could very easily gain TONS of international support and simply use a combined task force (with mainland China's and South Korea's help hopefully) to steam roll over the country and help them set up a new system of government.
This is what I think would happen.
Upon being attacked, regardless of what country it was, the use of nuclear weapons would resulted an immediate* "ton of bricks" response of unprecedented united conventional force.
The only way to stave off such a conventional response attack would be for N.K. (or whoever) to threaten to use Nukes again, if they had them.
That would be more likely to provoke a nuclear response although I think that a lot of intelligence sharing would go on first in order to ascertain the truth.
As a result, as far as I can tell, no one with the slightest bit of sense and with any regard for himself (I mean in the individual sense, clearly this dictator cares very little about his country) would use Nuclear Weapons against anyone else. Build them, yes. Threaten with them, yes. Use them- no. It takes of lot of madness to be so very destructive- sadly, I think it's possible in the mind of the righteous fanatic.
Goodness.
*Immediate would be necessary. I feel like if I were Japan, China, South Korea and America right now, this is what I would be planning: a swift (24 hours at the most) conventional response to a predecided sign of aggression.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
If they launched a nuke AND hit one of our major cities...
quote:would killing as many of their civilians as they killed of ours lose us the moral high ground? Could modern Americans be proud of their own country if it nuked another country back to the stone age, even in retribution?
We would not lose the moral high ground by counter attacking with nuclear weapons. I would still be proud of my country, even if such a terrible thing happened. I don't speak for anyone other than myself in this matter, though.
Doing otherwise is like hanging a giant neon sign on Uncle Sam's neck, blinking, "FREE EATS!!! COME AND GET IT!!!"
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
But since the civilians killed by our nuclear strike wouldn't have been the ones who chose to attack us, in what sense, honestly, would that be retribution?
I'm definitely not saying that we should do nothing in response to an attack. But even an swift, overwhelming, devastating conventional military response would at least have the ability to be somewhat discerning about its targets.
Fugu's comment about using small-scale nukes against military targets is a good one, if there are such targets to be had. Our response would feel commensurate in its devastating power, but it would be morally much more justifiable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cover their country with an umbrella of fighters so dense they blot out the sun, knock out every military fixture on the ground, then use bunker busters to start taking out the rest while paving the way for a ground assault. I'd never advocate nuking them back, there's no point in punishing the people for their crazy leader's decisions.
But we wouldn't let it go unchecked, and I'd have to imagine we'd have all the international support we'd need.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
See, I don't think a nuclear strike would be an isolated incident; it would probably be coupled with a quick push across the DMZ. The ground assault's already started and we're on the defensive.
So we go with swift crippling force. Try to do as much damage to the regime as is possible without invading quite yet-- from the air, from the sea. Get ahold of your allies, and eliminate the nation's ability to make war. If you can't tacnuke it, MOAB it. Then you invade.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there are targets you could tactically nuke, I'm just not sure it'd be worth the headlines. We have little one kiloton bombs that would take out a base, but do little long term damage, but I really don't think it's worth the "US uses nukes on N Korea" headline and publicity it brings with it when targeted bombing with conventional weapons does the same thing.
I don't see a "quick" push across the DMZ as really being all the feasible. That kind of troop buildup with be witnessed days in advance, and the heightened alert would give us all the time we need to muster enough force to if not outright stop them, then at least bloody them badly enough to make them think twice. It's hard to move on S Korea when you've lost air superiority and your supply lines are being picked off.
Such a move, especially with the kind of speed required, could only be done with the element of surprise. Maybe that's what all those tunnels they are building are for. They'll just pop up in South Korea with a tank division and yell "Surprise!"
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I don't think MAD would even be a factor in this case- if it was just NK. The only reason MAD was a factor in the Cold War was because of the Soviet Union's overwhelming nuclear force. Compare our tens of thousands of nuclear warheads against NK's probably 20-50 warheads at most (I'm obviously assuming) that might be able to attack the West Coast.
I don't think nuclear warfare with NK would result in our destruction unless other countries joined in on their side.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But aren't they already almost into the stone age? It seems ridiculous for them to build nuclear weapons when so many of their peopel are starving... Shame they can't just rise up and crush the dictators...
I say focus on taking down the goverment and the military without hurting the civilians too much, but how is that possible?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think there is no leader or citizensry in the world that would not support America if it was simply retaliating in kind. Remember Afghanistan? It may be difficult to think back so far, but there was actually quite a lot of popular support for that even in Europe. You got attacked, you hit the swine who did it; even the leftists of my acquaintance (and I know one guy who is the last remaining member of the Norwegian Communist Party) were going, "Yeah, fair enough, the Taliban are nasty buggers." It was Iraq that was a war too far. If Korea were to use an actual nuke, well, you could blanket them with smallpox and the world would stand up and cheer.
That said, I don't think a nuke would be necessary. It's not as though a conscript army can possibly stand against the US, supported (as it would be) by South Korea, Japan, China, and every two-bit country that can raise three ceremonial guards armed with halberds. Just march into Pyongyang and hang the leadership cadre for war criminals. Then annex the place for your fifty-first state.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I don't see a "quick" push across the DMZ as really being all the feasible. That kind of troop buildup with be witnessed days in advance, and the heightened alert would give us all the time we need to muster enough force to if not outright stop them, then at least bloody them badly enough to make them think twice. It's hard to move on S Korea when you've lost air superiority and your supply lines are being picked off.
Hmm, maybe "quick push" is the wrong term then. Though we have(had?) troops there, S Korea is pretty good at taking care of itself.
Even so, I can't imagine the North throwing a punch at the US without trying to startle its nearest ally with a (possibly nuclear) attack. A North Korean ground attack wouldn't have to be very successful -- if they have nuclear missiles, it might not even be necessary. It would simply have to prevent the South from making the same move while the Americans assist from above.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
N Korea has to know they'll never be able to invade S Korea without a massive uproar of opposing forces. If they really wanted to nuke someone for the hell of it, they should nuke them withdraw from the DMZ, then nuke the DMZ. Kill a few hundred or thousand (I have no idea about border troop deployments) of the enemy, make the area uninhabitable to impede the enemy counteroffensive and hole up.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: I don't think MAD would even be a factor in this case- if it was just NK. The only reason MAD was a factor in the Cold War was because of the Soviet Union's overwhelming nuclear force. Compare our tens of thousands of nuclear warheads against NK's probably 20-50 warheads at most (I'm obviously assuming) that might be able to attack the West Coast.
Yea, MAD wouldn't be a factor. We'd be talking about massive casualties on our side, but no more North Korea on their side.
And yes, I'd be all for nuking them until the country is a radioactive pit. Partially because I think a moral high ground is useless for a country unless it provides that country with something it wants or needs. Not nuking North Korea would do neither. Partially because if North Korea nukes us it pretty obviously wants to become a radioactive pit. And partially because I'm positive that an invasion of North Korea would just turn into another Iraq. I don't think that would serve as any kind of a deterrent. If someone nukes us, I want every other country watching them to see how it goes to be very, very deterred.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Someone had to say it.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:And yes, I'd be all for nuking them until the country is a radioactive pit. Partially because I think a moral high ground is useless for a country unless it provides that country with something it wants or needs. Not nuking North Korea would do neither.
I personally think that Americans "need" to feel like they aren't responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. I think we've proven that several times in the past few decades.
quote:Partially because if North Korea nukes us it pretty obviously wants to become a radioactive pit.
"It" meaning whom? The leaders of North Korea? Or its citizens? I'm not sure that the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil would necessarily constitute a death wish on the part of the millions of North Koreans who did not decide to send it there.
quote:And partially because I'm positive that an invasion of North Korea would just turn into another Iraq. I don't think that would serve as any kind of a deterrent. If someone nukes us, I want every other country watching them to see how it goes to be very, very deterred.
Though you can be sure that if we utterly destroyed another country, many of the nations who do not feel threatened by the United States, and who are not interested in attacking us, would be deterred from aligning themselves with us in the future.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see how NK could turn into another Iraq. (And, by the way, Iraq is nowhere near being another Vietnam, yet.) There's no religion to cloud the issue, and the people are not just being oppressed and tortured, they are actually starving. Ship in some ton-loads of rice and watch them welcome their liberators. Throwing roses, no doubt, if they had any.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would completely support our right to retaliate, although if we could achieve the same results otherwise I would support that as well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
just wait for things to get to the point where they'll unify peacefully with S. Korea, S. Korea is in a labour shortage and by having N. Korean heavy industry and man power would boost their economy. Hech S. Korea even has an offically sanctioned ministry of Unification.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
We could send massive forces to completely remove their government, and install a new one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How long would it take for reunification talks to begin?
Once we did all the invading and such, South Korea would jump in to help rebuild.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think there may be a subtle (or not so subtle) clarification Puppy needs to make. Is the issue using nuclear weapons or is the issue the killing of innocent civilians? This was touched on with the idea of low grade tactical nukes (by fugu and JTK). Would firebombing population centers be more or less morally degrading than using tactical nukes on leadership posts?
I subscribe to the tit-for-tat ideology, that the proper response to a violent action is one that has a similar effect. If they used a nuclear weapon on a population center of ours, we should use a nuclear weapon on a population center of theirs, with as much immediacy as possible. Then, in response to the lack of provocation for their attack, we should invade and oust Kim Jong Il's (or whomever is the current leader's) regime.
Of course, this is an ideological response and not a political one. My political response would depend on the disposition of S. Korea, China, Japan and Russia; their disapproval or threats of retaliation against the US for an Asian nuclear strike might overwhelm my support for what I believe is the proper response. However, if those countries supported a nuclear strike on NK, I would (probably) do it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Any attack kills innocent civilians, and an attack that eliminates the threat is necessary. Tactical nuclear weapons against military targets outside of civilian centers would likely not be worse than any other attack in that respect, but would show resolve, demonstrate a willingness to retaliate in kind, and rapidly eliminate important targets in advance of an invasion. One important consideration of action is not compromising our stances verses other nations, as not retaliating in kind would risk doing.
edit: and incidentally provide an effective demonstration of the difference that many are downplaying between a nuclear power and a nuclear superpower.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Basically you get the ok from the neighboring countries that hey I am dropping a nuclear weapon on North Korea don't get angry at us. Then if need be follow up with conventional weapons to destroy and kind of infrastructure they have. The whole idea of MAD is that you don't hit us because you know that we will turn your nation into a nuclear wasteland if you do, so whats the point of attacking us. If you let someone get away with nuking you and not destroying him in kind you lose that fear. Pretty much you let the world know that hey you can kill millions of Americans and all they will do is come in and set up a new government and then give you billions in aid to bring back your struggling economy so that you can join the "free world."
The world is not a kind and gentle place, do not treat everyone with compassion. That and innocent , civilian, etc. can be completely thrown out the window when it comes to talking about your nation and peoples. What matters is your survival, not someone elses. That is the name of the game. You can appear to look as kind and nice as you want to be. The end game is that you are trying to stay alive, and should do everything in your power to do so.
Plus honestly the North Koreans will probably just nuke the Japanese in retaliton for what the Japanese did to them in WWII and before. Quite a bit of hate there. Plus they are no where near close enough to building a missile that can move anything close to a city destroyer towards the USA. The missile they tested could move a small payload, basically they could blow up a building in LA. They are much more likely to build a shorter range missile with the ability to say destroy Tokyo.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I have to say that after I'm a pile of radioactive dust being breathed in by people in Nevada, I won't care what you guys do.
But as someone who is still alive and living in a major west coast city, I would HOPE that you would nuke back.
Nuking back is the only response to nuclear weapons. Anything short invites more nukes, cuz after all, America is only going to invade... They're even going to avoid civilian casualties so our families will probably still be alive. Nuke away!
Pix
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And hopefully we wont have to do it at all, I believe that nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity and keeping such huge stockpiles is absurd, we patience, fair negotiations and with the willingness of China we should be able to resolve the sitution peacefully. However its always possible China is controlling their little puppet behind the scenes erging towards collapse and a unified Korea. A Unified Korea would have no threat from external forces and thus eliminate the need for an American troop pesence and thus if they Unified Korea would not have any american soldiers on it which is good for china.
However as clever as that sounds politics is not a nintendo I doubt they'ld be willing to risk this backfiring on them especially since its propable that they'll unify on their own eventally probly after the death od Kim Jong-Il and the guy who succeeds him. Korea is no in the warsaw pact theree's no communist super power willing to send in the tanks to prevent regime change.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Fire ze' missiles!!!
But I am le' tired!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And hopefully we wont have to do it at all, I believe that nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity and keeping such huge stockpiles is absurd, we patience, fair negotiations and with the willingness of China we should be able to resolve the sitution peacefully.
Yeah, breaking non-proliferation treaties is not an affront to humanity at all.
Seriously man, get over your love affair with Communism.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The thing to do is immediately launch non-nuclear strikes on all facilities that might be capable of housing and/or launching long range missiles or nuclear weaponry. However, we would NOT want to invade immediately or nuke North Korea because both of those would create a big problem with China - who doesn't want America on its border and definitely doesn't want nuclear weapons going off nearby.
We would invade and overthrow the government soon afterward, but only after coordinating with the rest of the world, particularly China, Japan, and Russia.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Whoa-- It's Black Fox!
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Actually if given the option most North Koreans would be VERY happy if they could merge with South Korea. But such talk is treason and constantly punished in NK. Were you to crumble the government in NK I am sure the border checks would also drop and it would basically be The West/East Germany style merger of Korea.
I am not sure how China would respond to NK becoming a democracy with America's insistance. Certainly if NK attacked with nukes they (China) would probably just watch the regime change happen, but if say the government simply fell one day I am not sure what China would do. Hopefully they would just let the Koreans deal with it, rather then pulling a Tibet on Korea and engulfing the whole country with a blitz of Chinese forces. Using the fact that Korea used to belong to China during whatever blah blah dynasty as justification.
I cannot see anybody being able to mobilize fast enough or even caring to do so in order to stop such a move by China.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Lets put it this way: nobody like NK, not even China and Russia and certainly not SK or Japan. The U.N. would have totatly destroyed NK had not the Chinese stepped in during the Korean Action and they wouldn't step in again.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:
quote:Partially because if North Korea nukes us it pretty obviously wants to become a radioactive pit
"It" meaning whom? The leaders of North Korea? Or its citizens? I'm not sure that the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil would necessarily constitute a death wish on the part of the millions of North Koreans who did not decide to send it there.
Which begs the question -- What exactly could Kim hope to accomplish by nuking Los Angeles? All it does is annoy a superpower and give the entire world a reason to hate you. He and his population are going to take a hit in the form of a nuclear strike or conventional bombing.
Either he's launching nukes while taking offensive action against the US elsewhere and, for whatever reason, thinks he can get away with it, or he's already losing a war with the US, or the South, or [i]somebody[i], and he's getting desperate. Theoretically he might do it just to prove that he can, but as crazy as Kim is, I doubt he is suicidal.
I think the proper response for this depends largely on what his rationale were in the first place.
--j_k
[ July 06, 2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If you guys don't think our government is willing to respond in kind to a nuclear attack, you're fooling yourselves. Nuclear deterrence doesn't work without a credible threat. That means you must be willing to counterattack if your weapons are to be of any use defensively.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
They would get his with nuclear weapons one way or another, believe me. Just plain public outcry in the United States would call for immediate counter attack. Plus who knows our little missile defense system might actually work, and we won't have to worry about nuclear waste clouds etc.
That and Invading North Korea would not be a fun game, because we keep forgetting that though they may only have a few viable nuclear weapons, they do have tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons. Not to mention an ungodly amount of artillery with which they can pepper South Korea. Believe me the whole idea of a Second Korean war is no fun, we would win, but not that there would be much to win. Korea would be a cratered piece of land with a lot less of a population. But I will say this, what is the point of having nuclear weapons if you don't use them?
I must be the only human being willing to take a little guilt from the next generation so that they can live without bombed out cities. There are times when you should not go full out Bush style wild. However when someone eliminates one of your metropolitan areas, millions of lives, trillions of dollars thrown away. Yeah.. I want you to be the guy that says we will blow up a few military targets. I tell you what, the Romans wouldn't have been around for 2000 years plus if you were in charge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or with the actual Romans in charge, for that matter.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:What exactly could Kim hope to accomplish by nuking Los Angelos?
Probably trying to get the U.S. to make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I agree with Destineer. I think that actual usage of nuclear weapons by NK, would probably require a nuclear response.
-Bok
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If you guys don't think our government is willing to respond in kind to a nuclear attack, you're fooling yourselves. Nuclear deterrence doesn't work without a credible threat. That means you must be willing to counterattack if your weapons are to be of any use defensively.
But nuclear weapons have never, ever been used as a defensive weapon, if you consider the 2 past uses as alternatives to an invasion. There is no telling what would happen if they were used that way.
The problem with the nuclear threat and the whole idea of the weapon which is effectively too powerful for any usefull purpose is that you have to have it, and you can't use it. Its immensely stupid IMO to even have developed nuclear weapons from the get-go, because countless billions have been spent in Nuke related activites and they have done nothing remotely useful since the day they were first used. No-one in these arguments seems ever to mention that its rather silly to pour money into research on a weapon which is "too dangerous" for others to have. What makes us so special? Nothing.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:What exactly could Kim hope to accomplish by nuking Los Angelos?
Probably trying to get the U.S. to make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia.
He has to be aware that it might swing the other way entirely. Nuking LA would give the US a (highly justified) reason not to bother with that messy "land war" thing.
--j_k
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think it was a joking reference to Princess Bride, Captain, but I could be wrong.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ori, I don't think you really get it. We weren't the only people developing nukes, and I for one am GLAD we got them first.
I agree that a ton of resources have gone into developing weapon systems that we hope that we never have to use, and while it seems on the surface to be silly I don't think it is.
Having those weapons in the first place has prevented more bloodshed than the alternative.
I believe that using nukes in WWII saved many, many American lives, and without using them just as many people would have been killed. I don't buy into the apologist view that we had no right or need to use them. Look at the history of the war in the Pacific...the Japanese fought until the bitter end, over and over again, even when there was no possible chance of any sort of victory.
If we get into a war, the point of it is to win with the fewest number of American casualties possible. In most situations nukes would cause more problems than they would sure, but in this specific situation they are a serious option.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And hopefully we wont have to do it at all, I believe that nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity and keeping such huge stockpiles is absurd, we patience, fair negotiations and with the willingness of China we should be able to resolve the sitution peacefully.
Yeah, breaking non-proliferation treaties is not an affront to humanity at all.
Seriously man, get over your love affair with Communism.
Excuse me? And whose the one who withdrew from SALT 1 and refused to sign SALT II? Oh ya the US of effing A.
Oh and who refused to aid the Swiss government in tracking down smuggling of weapons grad plutonium? oh ya the US of effing A.
WHose the only country to ever use nukes in war? oh yeah the US of A.
And which country said that in any case of Soviet attack they would use every single nukle they had regardless of the consequences? the USA.
Which country delcared a "no-first-use" policy and has so far only kept the minimum anount of nukes they need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent with second strike capabilities? China. 50 ICBM capoable of hitting targets 10,000 miles away compared to the USA's what? 8000?
Refusing to sign a treaty that would leave you defenceless against the nuclear wishes of other powers is perfectly reasonable, upgrading 5000 1950's tanks to 400 ~2000 model tanks designs is just as reasonable.
In fact now that i think about China is one of the few nations that is actually vocal ininternational discussion on the strengthening of NNP treaties.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lets put it this way: nobody like NK, not even China and Russia and certainly not SK or Japan. The U.N. would have totatly destroyed NK had not the Chinese stepped in during the Korean Action and they wouldn't step in again.
Be careful about saying SK hates NK. They both insisted on flying under the same singular "Korea" banner in the olympics. A few weeks ago America criticized NK and there were quite a few angry replies from SK. Based on my own understanding of the situation I really do feel that Koreans at the citizen level would love to form one country, its really NK's government that is preventing such a merger from taking place.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I think it was a joking reference to Princess Bride, Captain, but I could be wrong.
<-- Makes a note. Needs to see that film.
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Excuse me? And whose the one who withdrew from SALT 1 and refused to sign SALT II? Oh ya the US of effing A.
Oh and who refused to aid the Swiss government in tracking down smuggling of weapons grad plutonium? oh ya the US of effing A.
WHose the only country to ever use nukes in war? oh yeah the US of A.
And which country said that in any case of Soviet attack they would use every single nukle they had regardless of the consequences? the USA.
Which country delcared a "no-first-use" policy and has so far only kept the minimum anount of nukes they need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent with second strike capabilities? China. 50 ICBM capoable of hitting targets 10,000 miles away compared to the USA's what? 8000?
Refusing to sign a treaty that would leave you defenceless against the nuclear wishes of other powers is perfectly reasonable, upgrading 5000 1950's tanks to 400 ~2000 model tanks designs is just as reasonable.
In fact now that i think about China is one of the few nations that is actually vocal ininternational discussion on the strengthening of NNP treaties.
Blayne: China may be vocal about lowering Nuclear Armament numbers (a fact I lack the knowledge to prove or disprove) but that is probably more because they have not had the funds or time to build as many before these treaties were in place.
How about this statistic:
Which country has had double digit % increases in its military spending for more than a decade? What country's defence budget has doubled since 1997, (citing US activity in Kosovo as a reason for so doing?) What country has military spending in excess of 90 Billion US dollars and yet publishes figures that are intentionally deceptive? What country keeps the largest stock pile of missiles (non nuclear) pointing at a single target at all times and just waiting for launch approval? What country does all this and yet has NO enemies nearby to warrant such huge expenditures in the military?
Finally:
What is the only country on the UN security council to use its military as a means to blitz its way into grabbing a neighboring country, enslaving the population, attempting to breed it out of existance, and completely obliterating its culture?
No one else but the Central Country, China.
BTW your statement that the US is the only country to use Nuclear Weapons in war is deceptive as they were developed first in the US as a means to avoid prolonging the war. Had another country invented them and used them instead, and THEN the US developed nuclear weapons, its completely likely that we would be like any other nuclear power in that we had them, but have never used them.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
BlackBlade,
Most of us have long since given up trying to use reason or logic in discussing China or communism with Blayne. The multiple US of f'in A comments hint at his emotional attachment to the subject. I feel a little bad for even bringing it up now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: BlackBlade,
Most of us have long since given up trying to use reason or logic in discussing China or communism with Blayne. The multiple US of f'in A comments hint at his emotional attachment to the subject. I feel a little bad for even bringing it up now.
Perhaps, but I really feel that China's track record is so well documented that any reasonable person can see the risk China poses while still being able to realize the countries potential for good is wonderful.
The current government stands on a mountain of blood, and it must be knocked down before a proper government can exist.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'd like to think so too. Here's a typical 'Blayne on the subject of China' thread though: China on the move. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
His arguements that Mao was not evil and was instead an idealist to me show a lack of understanding.
But hey as I said, the documentation is there.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem with MAD stragegy in regards to Korea, is that it takes two rational parties for it to work.
The leader of NK is not rational.
Why would he nuke LA? Because he's a paranoid lunatic who would imagine it as a premptive strike for an invasion he mystically knows is gathering there, so since we are coming for him anyway he might as well get in one good shot.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Excuse me, the Republic of China was on the Security COuncil in 1952, the People's Republic of China was nto cosndiered the sole representative of the Chinese nation until ~1979.
Its the Pentagon that says that China is spending 90,000,000,000$ Several European Agencies however put the figure at around 30-40 billion not the 90 billion suggested by the USA and I think the EU is in a far better position to be neutral.
China's armed budget also includes dual use technologies, essentially a laptop that is dependable enough to be used by ECCM/ECM forces on the ground is also mass produced for public consumption, the PLA has per tradition of "livng off the land" owns part of or wholly of a great many industries and firms that allows it to develop the R&D for advanced electronics and etc procure them for the army and then sell it to the public, although alot of this has been stripped away to fight corruption.
China's nuclear production capacity is slowed due only to 1 thing that all fissile production has capped either due to the inablilty to mine more uranium safely or due to government pressure to limit the construction of nuclear weapons, they built newer replacements sure, such as the DF-41's and the new cruise missiles they got but those are meant to keep the 2nd Artillery more survivable and more mobile.
Saying that the current gov't needs to be toppled is retarded, who will topple them? The people from all regards appear to be on average content with the way things are running, reforms are reaching the people, agricultural taxes have been abolished the economy is booming, fighting pollution is now a priority China is strong again and is reclaiming its place as a world power why would the people want to "violently" topple them as you are suggesting?
And frankly your jerk at Tibet is absurd, Tibetans are the majority within Tibet, their cultural icons and monestaries are being rebuilt and monks and nuns are being trained again. Tibet according to international law was still recognized as being part of the Republic of China, replaced by the People's Republic of China under the sucession fo States theory the PRC has every legitmate right to Tibet as the ROC did and quite frankly every US military expert ont he subject agreed that either faction would've done the same.
And finally China's military budget is still far far FAR from the USA's 400,000,000,000$ and the 30 or so billion spent each year on Iraq which surprisingly enough they also are deceptive in elavuating the cost of the war lower then it actually is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Excuse me, the Republic of China was on the Security Council in 1952, the People's Republic of China was nto cosndiered the sole representative of the Chinese nation until ~1979.
You can thank Chiang Kai Shek (jiang zhong zheng) for accomplishing that significant feat. He was forced into exile in the 1950's and attempted to control China in exile. He had little to no success within China and he was only really recognized as the real government of China by western nations. He had virtually no control over China the moment he stepped onto the boat he took to Taiwan. It was not until 1971 after Carter finally recognized the PROC as the legitimate government of China that they then claimed their UN seat that had been held by the ROC. [/quote]
quote: Its the Pentagon that says that China is spending 90,000,000,000$ Several European Agencies however put the figure at around 30-40 billion not the 90 billion suggested by the USA and I think the EU is in a far better position to be neutral.
Why would the EU be "MORE neutral?" not only that what makes you think the pentagon does not have greater fact finding abilities then the EU in this regard? Even if we get past those two questions, anyway you slice it, China is NOT honest as to how it is spending its money and to what extent it builds up its military with it.
quote: China's armed budget also includes dual use technologies, essentially a laptop that is dependable enough to be used by ECCM/ECM forces on the ground is also mass produced for public consumption, the PLA has per tradition of "livng off the land" owns part of or wholly of a great many industries and firms that allows it to develop the R&D for advanced electronics and etc procure them for the army and then sell it to the public, although alot of this has been stripped away to fight corruption.
It works both ways my friend. If China develops something for the "Civilian Sector." and it in fact has GREAT perhaps even GREATER military value and is subsequentially used within the military it is not written as part of military spending. So if a wonderful laptop is developed for the civilians and it just happens to be great at launching missiles you do not hear it reported in Chinese governmental reports.
quote: China's nuclear production capacity is slowed due only to 1 thing that all fissile production has capped either due to the inablilty to mine more uranium safely or due to government pressure to limit the construction of nuclear weapons, they built newer replacements sure, such as the DF-41's and the new cruise missiles they got but those are meant to keep the 2nd Artillery more survivable and more mobile.
I do not think China is trying to covertly build up stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But as America has demonstrated twice now in Iraq, nuclear weapons are not the end all weapon for a military.
quote: Saying that the current gov't needs to be toppled is retarded, who will topple them? The people from all regards appear to be on average content with the way things are running, reforms are reaching the people, agricultural taxes have been abolished the economy is booming, fighting pollution is now a priority China is strong again and is reclaiming its place as a world power why would the people want to "violently" topple them as you are suggesting?
You seem to forget Tian A Men square, where the entire government WAS almost toppled by the people a mere 16 years ago. We can thank Deng Xiao Ping (Mao's successor) for finally using the military option to crush those pro democracy protestors. It is agreed by MANY (I can show you the reports) scholars that had he not made that decision the communist experiment would have ended there.
Oh and what about the Fa Lun Gong oppression of the mid 90's? Where thousands of people were hearded off to camps to be, "Reeducated?"
Mainland China has seen what has happened in Hong Kong since 1997 and believe me they have not kept to their 50 year agreement they made with the UK. I lived there until 2001, many of my friends still live there, I KNOW.
People in China are now deftly afraid of discussing politics because of the vile tactics used by Mao to detect desenters. Children being told to report their parents, husbands reporting wives to avoid execution. But in spite of this, disent still flares up. Geographers estimate that within 30 years there will be 1 female to every 20 males in China due to their one child policy.
Men with families often try to stay out of harms way and so spare their family from the hardship of them dying. What do that many men have to lose when there are so few women? They will demand reform, the government will crack down on it, and when 95% of your population are unhappy how do you crack down on that?
Nobody believes what China says anymore. They have such a long history of distorting the truth especially when it comes to numbers that it almost warrants a twist on an old phrase, "Fool me 30 times, you must be China."
quote: And frankly your jerk at Tibet is absurd, Tibetans are the majority within Tibet, their cultural icons and monestaries are being rebuilt and monks and nuns are being trained again. Tibet according to international law was still recognized as being part of the Republic of China, replaced by the People's Republic of China under the sucession fo States theory the PRC has every legitmate right to Tibet as the ROC did and quite frankly every US military expert ont he subject agreed that either faction would've done the same.
Your "military experts" are as good as mine. The fact remains the ROC did nothing to interfere with Tibets way of life, or their culture. The PROC cited some ancient loose royal claim to Tibet as an excuse to mow them over and force Tibet into subjection. You can't say the ROC would have done something years down the road just because their opponents did it. What evidence do you have that their monastaries are being rebuilt? And why, if they are, must they be rebuilt? Oh wait, because Chinese soldiers burned them to the ground, forced the monks to fornicate with nuns at gun point, forced monks to shoot priests, lit them on fire, and commited all manner of atrocities. It was not very hard, those same people had been raised by Mao to obey without hesitation or face, "Reeducation."
Monks and Nuns are being retrained you say? Trained to do what? The Dalai Lhama's picture is illegal within Tibet. My best friend smuggled just a few into the country when he went there last year and people weep with joy when they get them. If their training is in the same vein as the Catholic priets and nuns that are also trained in Mainland China, then we can expect the same black, rotten, bastardization of the religion.
quote: And finally China's military budget is still far far FAR from the USA's 400,000,000,000$ and the 30 or so billion spent each year on Iraq which surprisingly enough they also are deceptive in elavuating the cost of the war lower then it actually is.
Imagine that, I can agree with that entire quote. Now show me what China has done on the international scene with its military that warrents such spending? The constant threats to Taiwan that they will level their island to the ground if they try to officially declare what is already a reality? The annual crying and screaming they do to Japan when the Japanese Prime Minister visits the WW2 war memorial? I know lets make Japan officially apologize for the "Rape of Nanjing." Ignore the fact they have officially apologized JUST to China for WW2 attrocities 7, count them, 7 times. I suppose the rape of Tibet was a bit of a hardship and so increased military spending = smoother conquest in the future. China's military has done NOTHING but suppress the human rights of others. They have no enemies at their boarder. No countries that are hostile to them. The only people Chinese soldiers have had to shoot at, were their own people, merely asking their voices be heard.
They have not commited their forces to any sort of peace keeping op that I know of. Bill Clinton said that not stopping the genocide in Rwanda was the singled biggest regret of his administration. China does not even have to explain why its military never did or does anything helpful.
It would scare the hell out of me if a terrorist attack was perpetrated in China as its already horrible how much military spending they justify without any cause at all. Think how truely terrible it would be if there WAS a real threat to China's safety.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for double posting, but does anybody else after posting a lengthy post get ansy about receiving a reply, as one cannot be sure their post was read until its responded to? Or do you all just stoically continue to post in other threads?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm just making sure I fully read your post not missing any information and stoically doing my research before responding, dont wanna look like an idiot afterall.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Firing a nuclear weapon on North Korea would kill innocents who had nothing to do with the decision to launch the initial strike. It would also likely have unpredictable environmental effects, likely ones effecting, at the least, its immediate neighbors (China and South Korea, and possibly Japan and Russia as well.)
It would be far more prudent, to my mind, to take the initial strike on the chin and retaliate with devestating but conventional force. Preferably multinational force. The United States could use the reputation as a fair and just superpower far more than it needs to further its reputation as an overwhelmingly well-armed one; the latter is more or less evident to everyone.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)