Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

USA nuclear retaliation to North korea attack

Page 1 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

05 Apr 2013, 11:57 am

I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Apr 2013, 12:09 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.


If Kim Jong Nutcake orders a nuclear attack he will be repaid in kind. If he just does a conventional attack, he will be attacked by conventional weapons.



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,157

05 Apr 2013, 12:29 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.


I highly doubt that the US would use nuclear weapons first. The only possible exception would be if they thought a N. Korean nuclear strike was imminent and a nuclear strike of their own was the only way to stop it. If N. Korea did carry out a nuclear strike, I'm 99% sure that the U.S. would respond in kind.



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

05 Apr 2013, 12:47 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.


I highly doubt that the US would use nuclear weapons first. The only possible exception would be if they thought a N. Korean nuclear strike was imminent and a nuclear strike of their own was the only way to stop it. If N. Korea did carry out a nuclear strike, I'm 99% sure that the U.S. would respond in kind.


The question ramian what type of psycho Kim Jong-un is :D


When I look at Kim Jong-un, I can only see the fat man in his late twenties with a big ego, which has too much power. I myself am a fat man, I'm 27 years old and nearly 130 kilos, I do not see myself as a world leader :D . Now I see that the minimum age to ruining for president in Poland and in many other countries is 35 years old, it's a very good idea, once thought it is discriminatory, but not now.



Tsunami
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 83
Location: VA

05 Apr 2013, 1:09 pm

No chance. Drone strikes more effective.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

05 Apr 2013, 2:32 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
ruining for president

That's a lovely turn of phrase :D



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

05 Apr 2013, 2:39 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
ScrewyWabbit wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.


I highly doubt that the US would use nuclear weapons first. The only possible exception would be if they thought a N. Korean nuclear strike was imminent and a nuclear strike of their own was the only way to stop it. If N. Korea did carry out a nuclear strike, I'm 99% sure that the U.S. would respond in kind.


The question ramian what type of psycho Kim Jong-un is :D


When I look at Kim Jong-un, I can only see the fat man in his late twenties with a big ego, which has too much power. I myself am a fat man, I'm 27 years old and nearly 130 kilos, I do not see myself as a world leader :D . Now I see that the minimum age to ruining for president in Poland and in many other countries is 35 years old, it's a very good idea, once thought it is discriminatory, but not now.


Ruining for president!

What a concept!

The way it works here in the USA is- you RUN for President- and if you win- THEN you get to ruin stuff!

ROFL!



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,778
Location: Stendec

05 Apr 2013, 2:39 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.

America wouldn't need to. Conventional weapons would be sufficient to bomb NK back into the Stone Age.

Right now, a first strike by either side would make that side the Bad Guy, and anything the Good Guys do to retaliate would be justified as self-defense.

So, let NK's butterball president send his nookie bombs into the air; once their trajectories are known, the Good Guys will knock them out of the sky, and a few boomers of our own might "accidentally" make their way to Pyongyang.



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,901
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

05 Apr 2013, 3:28 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
ScrewyWabbit wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
I wonder does does America use their nuclear capability if North Korea attack South Korea or American territories.


I highly doubt that the US would use nuclear weapons first. The only possible exception would be if they thought a N. Korean nuclear strike was imminent and a nuclear strike of their own was the only way to stop it. If N. Korea did carry out a nuclear strike, I'm 99% sure that the U.S. would respond in kind.


The question ramian what type of psycho Kim Jong-un is :D


When I look at Kim Jong-un, I can only see the fat man in his late twenties with a big ego, which has too much power. I myself am a fat man, I'm 27 years old and nearly 130 kilos, I do not see myself as a world leader :D . Now I see that the minimum age to ruining for president in Poland and in many other countries is 35 years old, it's a very good idea, once thought it is discriminatory, but not now.


Ruining for president!

What a concept!

The way it works here in the USA is- you RUN for President- and if you win- THEN you get to ruin stuff!

ROFL!


I mean running for president damn google translate :lol: beside i'm dyslexic



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,836
Location: London

05 Apr 2013, 4:28 pm

Forget will they- should they?

Should millions suffer and die because of the actions of their leaders?

Does the USA need to respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons in order to deter future attacks?

I remember being told that if there is a nuclear attack on a non-armed country (South Korea, Japan), all nuclear armed countries are bound by treaty to attack the aggressor. Is that true?



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

05 Apr 2013, 4:32 pm

The thing to bear in mind, if it comes to blows China will inevitably get drawn in. That doesn't bode well for America.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

05 Apr 2013, 4:53 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I remember being told that if there is a nuclear attack on a non-armed country (South Korea, Japan), all nuclear armed countries are bound by treaty to attack the aggressor. Is that true?

Last time I checked, no such treaty exists.

The closest equivalents are Article 5 in the North Atlantic Treaty from 1949 and Article 4 in the Warsaw pact from 1955 (the "Musketeer" clauses), which treat attacks on one country as an attack on all countries in the respective alliance... But South Korea and Japan are not NATO member states.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

05 Apr 2013, 5:47 pm

I'm not worried,it's like two roosters strutting around each other kicking up dust.
Plus who would want to bomb Arkansas :lol:


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

05 Apr 2013, 5:55 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Plus who would want to bomb Arkansas :lol:


The only thing more terrifying than a salvo of atomic detonations is the nuclear winter that follows it.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,481
Location: Aux Arcs

06 Apr 2013, 2:21 pm

^^^^very true.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

06 Apr 2013, 2:36 pm

GGPViper wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
I remember being told that if there is a nuclear attack on a non-armed country (South Korea, Japan), all nuclear armed countries are bound by treaty to attack the aggressor. Is that true?

Last time I checked, no such treaty exists.

The closest equivalents are Article 5 in the North Atlantic Treaty from 1949 and Article 4 in the Warsaw pact from 1955 (the "Musketeer" clauses), which treat attacks on one country as an attack on all countries in the respective alliance... But South Korea and Japan are not NATO member states.


The US has its own treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia/New Zealand, etc.