Now that N.Korea has a nuclear missile pointed at the US should we attack them?

Question

If we could attack Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, why don't we attack N.Korea for having a nuclear weapon fueled up and ready to launch at the USA?

OH WELL IF IT'S JUST A THREE STAGE ROCKET THAT WOULD ONLY TAKE OUT ARIZONA OE WISCONSIN, WHAT AM I WORRYING ABOUT???

Answer 1

North Korea does not have ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in the US -- yet!!! Plans to test the first such missile appear to be in go-ahead stage, but until a successful test launch and subsequent successful test launches, they will not have demonstrated a reliable long range missile system. We also have no credible evidence that North Korea has produced a weapon capable of being mounted on the missile. We also cannot confirm that North Korea even has any nuclear weapons at all, although we know they have sufficient plutonium for several devices and we suspect they have built several devices.

Kim Jong Il postures in a risky game of brinkmanship by permitting this test prep to proceed. The missile was fueled Sunday, June 18, which is usually an indicator that the launch will go forth. (Removing fuel is a hazardous procedure, so fueling usually means a go-ahead status.)

If the test proceeds, it will be Korea's first launch attempt of a long range missile since its unsuccessful 1998 launch of a missile over Japan. That missile's third stage failed to engage and the missile broke up and fell into the Pacific. Analysts fear Korea has improved the missile design since then.

If there is a launch and it is successful, we will enter a new era, and we'll see nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis.

Comparisons of Korea and Iraq are not valid, and solutions will vastly differ.

In the post-USSR era, the US stands more likely to be targeted with a nuclear weapon or weapons by terrorist organizations. Such stateless organizations have the ambition to make such attacks, and are unhampered by any fears of retaliation, as there would be no nation-state against whcih to retaliate.

North Korea's Kim Jong Il is fettered by his nation, and is well aware of the stakes.

I suppose, in my weary last words here tonight, I'd say that I don't think that Kim Jong Il will launch a nuclear weapon against the US because our response will not be a tactical air and ground campaign. It will be a nuclear response.

I'd like to write more, but it's late and I'm tired. I hope what I did write makes sense and is at least somewhat informative. I don't pretend to know how this will all play out in the coming months and years.

I'm sorry to be seeing the situation develop, but that seems to be the theme of the post 9-11 world as I know it.

Answer 2

I detect a dis-ingenious tone but since I think it is important I will give you the benefit of an answer. This North Korean missle complicates the defense startegy of the US.

The advent of North Korea developing a missile that can hit the US is profoundly significant. The development of the missile changes the way the US must plan for the possibility that North Korea might actually launch one or more at the US.

The new plan must consider what the US would do if a nuclear attack came from North Korea. I can tell you that it is very likely that the US would launch a major retaliatory strike designed to completely destroy North Korea.

Now China is aware of what the New threat might mean to its security situation as well. They understand that the US might respond with a full scale nuclear retaliation against North Korea that could be an attack on China as well. The US anticipates the possibility of Chinese intervention and realizes it must hit China as well as North Korea to prevent the Chinese from launching an attack on the US first.

Its not complicated, if this country is attacked even in the way in which you described someone is going to pay and in the confusion it isn't going to matter if you pulled the trigger or not. Just being in the neighbor hood will be enough reason.

I hope you can see why nations like North Korea and Iran cannot be allowed to have the capacity to start a global nuclear exchange.

Answer 3

North Korea has no nuclear weapon pointed at us. They have an unarmed missile apparently fueled and ready to launch which they are speculating could hit the west coast of the United States. Kind of a lets see if we can do it thing. Seeing as how they have nuclear capability this is a dangerous situation. lucky2bealive addressed this issue well. China Figures very much in this. That is why I would put the burden of dealing with this problem on them..because they know the risks if it isn't dealt with, and I look at North Korea as China's (social)science experiment gone wrong...their frankenstein. In a similar question to this one that was my answer. If N. Korea doesn't stand down i would tell China..I will give you one chance to fix this problem..then we will. Then again...that's why Condi's where she's at and I'm where I'm at.

Answer 4

Who said they had a nuclear missile pointed at us? They currently do not present a strategic threat, although they sure are trying hard to get to that level. The test of the 3-stage long range missile today, or soon, will put them into the 8,000 km range....which could reach as far east along the arc from Phx, AZ to Wisconsin. Our monitoring systems would be able to pick up a deployed and operational nuke....we're not at that stage yet. The satellite photos are only showing the 3-stage rocket being prepare....

Answer 5

IT WOULD NOT BE A WW3 UNLESS ALL THE UN COUNTRIES JOINS IN THE WAR! Expect China to think about their economic trades with th US and being a communist country along side their neighbor North Korea. If North Korea sends a missile towards the US it will be shot down. If it heads to Russia it would also be shot down. But if it hits either Hawaii or South Korea the US would retaliate with military combat. And we by far has the second biggest military even though we have our troops scattered all over the Middle East. If we needed more troops the UN would help us out. Countries would include The UK, South Korea, and Japan(even though they technically have an army). But possibly the following countries might try to help Canada, France, and Russia. And of course China will try to negotiate and calm everything down the best they can but they will not go to war with either counrties they are saving their troops in case of a military defense. But we do not need help, but if we fight this war alone we will be spending the amount of money into the hundreds of billions. All I want is for the US to bring back "THE DRAFT" we would demolish North Korea. Plus even when Kim Jong Il dies his 26 year old son Kim Jong Un "The Prince" will take over as the new leader and I heard this kid is as vicious as his dad and cold hearted like him too.

Answer 6

Well, we went into Iraq for supposedly the same reason. But a war with North Korea is another matter. I think we try the diplomatic channels first and then if the problem escalates, then maybe some sort of action on a world scale should be taken.

Then again, I am just a sofa politician.

Answer 7

No, because we too have nuk's pointing at them. Nuclear weapons do not solve problems. N. Korea just wants respect from the world. They have virtually no economy, the president starves his own people, imports food from nations, and is a maniac. We have over 8,000 troops on the border and another 15,000 or so in Japan. We could deploy more within 7 days. N. Korea has nothing important for the U.S.

Answer 8

Nice parallel. Kim Jong Il is just shaking his international "spare some change" cup. What he needs instead is a good spanking. Tantrums are for kids, this guy needs a dose of Massad-type justice.

I don't see the similarity between Saddam, the Middle East, Iraq, and our little buddy Kim. Apples and oranges.

Does this response qualify as that of an angry person, or is it just matter of fact. You need to relax a little more and not read too deeply into things.

Answer 9

They don't have the Nukes yet. They have a rocket capable of reaching Western States (Accurately: Hawaii, Alaska, Possibly Washington and Oregon) We cannot attack for the nukes they are 5-10 years away from. But i agree N. Korea should not have the capability to attack the U.S.. We should not attack though.

Answer 10

Because one of their nuclear missile may reach city in the USA, also attacking North Korea will be rejected by China, South Korea and Japan, because of radiation pollution .