Would You Support A U.S. Nuclear First Strike Against North Korea?

LOL

 

What fallout?

Donate bombs at a reasonably high altitude or deep underground and radioactive fallout is minimal.

Do you know how many nuclear weapons were detonated in the open air of the American Southwest? And it isn't a radioactive wasteland.

 

Dictionary.com says that "overt" may mean "not concealed or secret."

Are you suggesting that Little Kim's words do not represent a threat that is neither "concealed [n]or secret"?

That is probably not too far from the truth. (Although I do not know if I would use the word, "catastrophic," to describe it, it would surely be terrible, with hundreds of thousands of innocents in South Korea and Japan--at least!--dying, as a result.

Perhaps it is time that someone did.

Threats should never--never!--be met with mere appeasement, but with counter-threats. (And no, I am not interested--even a little bit--in "de-escalating" the current tensions. In fact, I would hope that they would be ratcheted up, until Dear Leader backs down--and not one minute prior to that.)

And just how, pray tell, would a pre-emptive strike by North Korea enhance Kim Jong-un's prospects--either for "respect," or for survival as North Korea's leader, or for anything else?

 

The people of Guam are American citizens by birth.

That's right: 100 percent American citizens, with all the rights and privileges inherent thereunto.

Since when is America an "empire"?

That sounds like leftist gobbledygook...

 

Only the anti-American left believes that the US is a threat to world peace.

The fact is that ever since atomic (not really nuclear) weapons were used by the US in 1945, there has developed in the West a phobia against the first use of nuclear weapons.

Great Britain colonized India.

I offered you a link...

 

Apparently, you don't take Kim's threats seriously. Obviously, Trump does. Obviously, Kim does. That is what the article is all about.

But, to you, it doesn't make sense. Okay.

 

Sandy Shanks said: ↑
Still Guam is not a state of the USA but a result of the politics of the American empire.

You quoted me. Where did you get that statement? I never said it.

 

Everyone who read this response, including you, knows you did not even try to answer the question I asked.
Care to try again?

 

There is fallout even from an air burst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

 

minimal.

 

So you don't believe in the Christian religion, you don't believe in the philosophy of the enlightenment and you don't think in visions, if you think about a future of all mankind. But you dream of nuclear war! The problem: You are not the only one. What are all this people? Citizens of an american nightmare? Invisible Kims on their own? Would you do exactly the same what Kim Jong-un would do, if he could do it: Bombing down this damned ****ing North Korea ... ah sorry: this damned ****ing USA? What's in your mind? Darwinism? You are the best, because weapons give you a pseudo-Darwinian advantage? A simple "lol", a simple shot and others have to carry the burden of your rotten heroism - while you are hidden behind the screen of your communication unit?

 

The interpretation of the appeasement politics of England before world war 2 is wrong. This was only the foreground - in the background England tried to bring Hitler in a war with Stalin. What no one understand is why Hitler made indeed a war against Stalin, although Stalin and Hitler ... whatever - not important. Generally the argument "appeasement politics is wrong" is wrong, because this argument is self-fulfilling. The people who says so ignore that they don't know when appeasement was successful, because there is no war in this case. I call this "the problem of the good deed". If someone makes a good deed, so a war is not happening, then never anyone will know whether this good deed was the real reason for. The good deed is invisibel.

Threat and counter-threat and counter-counter-threat and counter-counter-counter-threat and ... are not a strategy of de-escalation.

The strategy of China was very good in deescalating the nonsense Kim Trump made. First they said they will defend North-Korea. This stopped the senseless verbal "first-strike" attacks of the American president. A short while later they said, they will not defend North Korea in case North Korea is doing a first strike.

We will see. Nevertheless I would suggest to arrest Kim Jong-un - and if this is not possible to eliminate him. Perhaps China, Russia and the USA together - representing about 1.5 billion people - are able to do so. Not to forget: The people of North Korea should become informed what had happened.

 

______
Shh, that doesn't count. The president was a Democrat. In any case the Progressive Socialists solved the problem. They sent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the job they weren't capable of doing.

 

Ooops?

I'm not an American at all. And I said not the USA is a threat for the world peace. I said if your argument is correct then this is a reason to reduce the nukes in the USA. One reason why I said so: Aging. Another reason: Nukes need service. A third reason: possible terror attacks. A fourth reason: It exists no system against idiocy, which an idiot might not destroy accidentally ...

"Nuclear" is the correct expression. Two types: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion.

What you call "phobia " call other people complex systems of moral and ethics. A first strike is always wrong and it exists always the principle of proportionality. And it causes for sure fear if someone thinks about the possibility of a nuclear overkill. Without this fear the principle of deterrence would not work.

"Colonized" means conquered in this case. The Indians colonized India - later made some Brits for short three hundred years holidays in India, while they thought they are the owner of India. But a man with the name Gandhi - a Mahatma - made clear the Englishmen are thinking sometimes a little confused in senseless systems of aggressions. The strange thing for me (I'm a German): The freedom of India was also an indirect result of world war 2, which was in general a very stupid war. The East of Europe lost freedom - but India wan freedom.

I remember in the moment not whether I read it or not. But thank you.

 

Good question. When you forced Japan with gunships to open the own markets for international business you was already an empire. This was in Juli, 14th, 1853 under Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry.

By the way: When will you force Germany with some aircraft carriers - or all Germans personally with international warrants of arrest - to close the German engagement in international markets? Monroe doctrine "America for the Americans" - Trump doctrine "Build a wall against America. World for the Americans".

 

just take a serious look at yourself who is doing bargain with millions of human lives.

Human lives are not your some kind of money savings or budget.

You are far distant from being a real human being.

You need a psycology check up actually, but there are just too many people in American who needs psycology check up, and
this system is hopeless in that regard.

 

I'm a Christian. Don't know how you came to your conclusion about me, but whatever.

You really should consider ambien, or copious amounts of weed.

 

Your are what? ... A "Christian" who propagates first strikes with nukes? ... What a joke. Do you know the concept of a christian army in sense of a rulership of Christ in our world here? Have a big, strong, mighty, well trained and well armed army - so no one is able to attack you! And never use it, because to kill is not Christian! - except someone should really be so crazy to attack you, although he will lose every war against you. Such an army is a guarantee for peace. And that's what should exist if your army is perfect: peace.

I hope I did not misunderstand what you said or mistook the person.

What? ... I understand the words here now - but not the context. Seem to have to do something with drugs. If you think to make discussions about new forms of mass-murder - which will throw this planet into an age of nuclear wars - is the same as to speak about the color of tea in a tea pot then you are wrong. If you should be a Christian then you are more than a shame for your people. Do you not live in respect of god and in fear to lose your people? How are you able not to do everything what you can do so no one has to go to hell? Instead you are doing the opposite of this. Boy oh boy. Take your time. Do you really think Jesus would argue: "Throw nukes on your enemies - specially on innocent mothers with their innocent babies"?

 

I don't give a fried **** what you think of me, my way of being Christian, (I'm human) or my POV.

I made my opinion/stand clear. If you don't like it, lump it.

 

If you remember I said also something about the philosophy of enlightenment. Immanuel Kant was convinced we are only able to live in peace in the world if we are able to solve problems between nations with laws and courthouses.

Your point of view is what you said here. But in case of murder or mass-murder or war or nuclear war or ... I don't accept every point of view. Peace is the way to peace.

Don't misuse the expression "Christian" any longer.

 

Piss off.

 

no message - technical defect

 

You know how the ignore function works?

Piss off & use it.

 

How is it peace while living under the constant threat of a nuclear North Korea?