If America was under Nuclear strike from North Korea. Would you support nuclear retaliation?

Question

Cold War II. Additionally, Much as the United States and its Administration did during the first cold war. Do you believe our current administration could negociate the same withdrawl with the North Koreans?

Answer 1

If North Korea were to launch a nuclear-tipped missile at U.S. territory, I would support whatever kind of retaliation were necessary, including a nuclear response (though I believe that would be a bad choice both tactically and strategically). I think that you can be certain that if North Korea were to make such a serious mistake we would use our military force to eliminate their military and government (as it were).

That would be a relatively easy scenario for our decision-makers, though. The tougher questions are about what we would do if North Korea were to launch a strike (nuclear or conventional) against the South or against Japan, or if they were to threaten to do so. Would we destroy their missile sites if they announced that they planned to fire at Japan unless we provide them with (say) an open trade agreement?

As for our current administration's ability to negotiate, I think they're improving, but have a long way to go. The core problem is that their domestic political power comes from people who think that negotiation is always wrong. That means that the administration is stuck in a difficult position between the country's needs for an effective position in the world and their voting base's instinctive opposition to effective U.S. foreign policy. Clearly the administration is a large part of the problem here, and we should expect that the U.S. position in the world will only change for the better when this administration ends and is replaced by one not dependent on a voting base opposed to U.S. strength in the world.

Answer 2

Paul S. makes a good point. From a military standpoint Japan is like an aircraft carrier as far as defense against any Asian mainland power. We are and I believe must be committed to the protection of Japan heart and soul.

I don't know about how to go about neutralizing NK's threats.
I wish some scholar of this subject would weigh in here. NK doesn't stand alone. I'm almost 100% that if war started they would have military resources available from Russia and China. And no country stands geographically between to break the supply line.

It's impossible to negotiate with the NK government. Their aims are completely different from ours.

What I would like to see is some way to stop this before it gets as far as lobbing missiles at each other. But quite honestly I don't think it should be the U.S.'s lead as to what decision is made. South Korea and Japan have a greater stake here and I think they should lead in the decision making process.

If they lob a missile the best we could do wold be to try to intercept and detonate it in the air before it left NK soil. But whether it's a good idea or not I don't know.

We aren't given the kind of news from the media that helps us understand the complexity of the situations we are in, nor from the government for that matter.

But I don't want to see nuclear weapons brought out again anymore than I want to see chemical weapons brought out.

Answer 3

I wouldn't agree with a nuke attack back since those weapons are horrible, but if it would end the world with the least possible death, then yes but only as a last resort.

And if we were attacked first, it doesn't make a nuke any better, but I don't think we could stand by and do nothing. I'd agree with the Covert ops to stop future attacks for good before nuking back and then doing what was needed. And if it didn't work and we could go to the last resort option. (Unless we can do like 5 million things within 24 hours).

And Dr. L, I'd like to remind you that Clinton has been out of office for about 6 years now, maybe you should focus on who could be putting that money into missile defense now instead. It wasn't needed when Clinton was around (Partially true statment, things were occuring, but no one was testing nukes at that time), it is needed now.

Answer 4

There would be no reason to retaliate with nukes. Nuclear retaliation would scare other countries into a defensive stance. The world would (should?) stand behind the US in dealing with the North Koreans after such an attack. Since they only have a few nukes we could handle the onslaught then take our time to respond in the most appropriate way.

Answer 5

If America was attacked by a nuclear weapon then of course North Korea should be reduced to ash. What would really have been nice was if President Clinton had left the resources flowing into a missle defense system so we could protect ourselves from nuclear attacks.

Answer 6

I PRAY every day that our world never agains sees a nuclear weapon turned on human beings. That being said, I would hope who ever is in charge would do some covert crap and stop the problem from coming up in the first place.

Answer 7

If North Korea had a nuke, they wouldn't waste it on the U.S, becaues we have enough nukes to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in every square inch of N.K.

N.K. wants a nuke more for the negotion position it gives it, and if they ever did use one, it would likely be against South Korea or Japan.

Answer 8

You have to be prepared to retaliate. Otherwise, you make it much easier for a criminal in charge of a country like that to make the first strike. If there's no cost to making the first strike, lot's of lunatics would do it.

Answer 9

North Korea why are you woried about them thier rockets went about 70 ft in the air anyway....Trust me North Korea is nothing compared to russia and china thats who we should be worried about..

Answer 10

Nuclear weapons should never seen the light of day, and the use of them, for any reason, is intolerable. Just ask the 200,000 Japanese who were vaporized, burned to death, or died a grisly death from radiation poisoing.