North Korea Nuclear Test

[superjohnmcginlay]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

Im sure if someone lobbed a nuke at them they'd lob a couple of hundred back.

[David Lee's Hair]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

Im sure if someone lobbed a nuke at them they'd lob a couple of hundred back.

Or ask the Japs what they think??

Ok so its a long time ago but you do it once you could do it again.

[Simmy]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

Im sure if someone lobbed a nuke at them they'd lob a couple of hundred back.

Thinking realisticly anyone who 'lobbed a nuke at them' would only ever be some sick dictator such as Kim Jong il. If that happened they still wouldn't be able to justify wiping out innocent Korean victims when conventional weapons would do the job.

That's also of course, totally hypothetical as a direct nuke attack would just never happen. It would only ever be by some guerilla group with no traceable links to any government. Otherwise its like instant war vs the entire world.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

Im sure if someone lobbed a nuke at them they'd lob a couple of hundred back.

Thinking realisticly anyone who 'lobbed a nuke at them' would only ever be some sick dictator such as Kim Jong il. If that happened they still wouldn't be able to justify wiping out innocent Korean victims when conventional weapons would do the job.

That's also of course, totally hypothetical as a direct nuke attack would just never happen. It would only ever be by some guerilla group with no traceable links to any government. Otherwise its like instant war vs the entire world.

Im not so sure. If a nation has a hundred thousand of its own innocent people wiped out the anger will be such that they may feel it is justified. But as you say its hypothetical - for now.

[thebish]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

are you being serious here?? The USA have already used nuclear weapons offensively - twice...

the weapons they are developing right now are just a small step up from Bunker Busters - and they are being developed precisely so that they can be used - the excuse being that terrorists hide in deep caves and bunkers...

the other weapons they are developing are air-to-surface nukes (this is the subject of a huge battle between the US Navy and the US Airforce.. the Navy want funding to develop nukes you can fire from boats - the Airforce want them to be fired from planes...)

and (less seriously) anyone who can't say nuclear (nucular!!!) should not be allowed to have them...

[FaninOz]

Thinking realisticly anyone who 'lobbed a nuke at them' would only ever be some sick dictator such as Kim Jong il. If that happened they still wouldn't be able to justify wiping out innocent Korean victims when conventional weapons would do the job.

Unfortunately conventional weapons don't always work, that is why the US used unranium enhanced shells against both Afgan and Iraqi troops in their most recent wars. The Yanks are fighting a losing battle in both those Countries even after they "won" the war, even though they have far superior conventional weapons. And as thebish said the yanks and the UK are developing smaller nuclear weapons for use on more specific smaller targets like bunkers, caves, ships, tanks, etc.

I believe that under the current leadership they would use a nuclear weapon in retaliation against a small Country that would not be able to effectively fight back, if that Country fired first. They would then of course lose the moral high ground, but they would do it in the name of freedom and democracy!

[superjohnmcginlay]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

are you being serious here?? The USA have already used nuclear weapons offensively - twice...

To be fair the Japs attacked them, they repsonded.

[David Lee's Hair]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

are you being serious here?? The USA have already used nuclear weapons offensively - twice...

To be fair the Japs attacked them, they repsonded.

They were already beaten before Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the Japanese were not given the time to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb before the yanks obliterated Nagasaki as well), the dropping of the Bombs was not to bring an end to the war it was to show the Russians that the Americans had the technology and were not afrais to use it, as the relationship between the allies were already in decline following victory in Europe.

Truman authorised the bombing to show Stalin who was the boss, and so began the cold war.

[communistworkethic]

Thinking realisticly anyone who 'lobbed a nuke at them' would only ever be some sick dictator such as Kim Jong il. If that happened they still wouldn't be able to justify wiping out innocent Korean victims when conventional weapons would do the job.

Unfortunately conventional weapons don't always work, that is why the US used unranium enhanced shells against both Afgan and Iraqi troops in their most recent wars.

I think you misunderstand the premise of depleted uranium shells FIO. Depleted uranium is the waste product of the enrichment process for powerstations. It is not radiocativity that is the quality with makes them "better" but the penetrative quality caused my the high mass of smaller projectiles, lower drag at muzzle velocities and in some instances it's incendiary qualities. To all intents and purposes it is a conventional weapon.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

are you being serious here?? The USA have already used nuclear weapons offensively - twice...

To be fair the Japs attacked them, they repsonded.

They were already beaten before Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the Japanese were not given the time to surrender after the Hiroshima bomb before the yanks obliterated Nagasaki as well), the dropping of the Bombs was not to bring an end to the war it was to show the Russians that the Americans had the technology and were not afrais to use it, as the relationship between the allies were already in decline following victory in Europe.

Truman authorised the bombing to show Stalin who was the boss, and so began the cold war.

Well yes, but the Japanese still attacked the Americans. Going back to the original point of the thread - it is feared N Korea will strike first with a nuclear weapon.

[communistworkethic]

so are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the USA?

[superjohnmcginlay]

so are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the USA?

Not at all.

[communistworkethic]

so what's your point?

The USA murderer 100s of thousands of innocent people to prove a pont to Stalin and now they're worried a country a tenth their size has a weapon they have thousands of. Just a hint of hypocrisy?

[americantrotter]

They dropped the 1st bomb because Japan wouldnt surrender and they wanted to avoid invading Japan. The second bomb was premature, but the fact remains that the US has only ever used nukes those 2 times against a country we had been at war with for over 5 years. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans died in WWII, many at the hands of the Japanese.

The US has every right to be worried, as they have demonstrated restraint with their nuclear weapons, while Jong-Il has only ever demonstrated that he is insane.

[communistworkethic]

and the country starting the most conflicts around the world in the last say 20 years is?

A- north korea
B - USA

[americantrotter]

B. Of course they do. That's what happens when you are the superpower. I dont think invading iraq was okay, but we didnt use nukes either.

[superjohnmcginlay]

so what's your point?

The USA murderer 100s of thousands of innocent people to prove a pont to Stalin and now they're worried a country a tenth their size has a weapon they have thousands of. Just a hint of hypocrisy?

I was responding to the points raised by Bish and DLH in that the US has never attacked (the first strike) another country with a nuclear weapon in the context of the original thread, which was basically whats all the fuss about N Korea.
They may respond to a nuclear strike with there own as I suggested to Simmy.

[thebish]

Well yes, but the Japanese still attacked the Americans. Going back to the original point of the thread - it is feared N Korea will strike first with a nuclear weapon.

I was responding to Simmy's very bold assertion:

I don't think theres any chance of the USA ever using a nuclear weapon in anger offensively or even defenseivly. There would never be enough justification for it and certainly never a large enough target.

which is, frankly, tosh...

I'd like to think that the US will hesitate before using nukes again - but i think it is pretty much inevitable that they will use them sooner or later

the old language about first-strike is pretty much irrelevant nowadays as the UIS takes the view that they are engaged in a state of permament undeclared war - any of their actions is justified under the banner of "war against terror" or "battle for freedom and democracy"

as for N Korea.

who do you think they are going to launch their missiles at, exactly (on the BIG assumption that they have anything close to a deliverable warhead)?? They may be a bit mad (by Western standards) - but they are not stupid...

acquiring a nuclear capacity is, for them, like waving their knob on the town-hall steps.. it's a status symbol.

I'll wager that the US will deploy so-called "battlefield" nukes in Afghanistan before Nth korea fire anything in anger...

[Montreal Wanderer]

They dropped the 1st bomb because Japan wouldnt surrender and they wanted to avoid invading Japan. The second bomb was premature, but the fact remains that the US has only ever used nukes those 2 times against a country we had been at war with for over 5 years. Many hundreds of thousands of Americans died in WWII, many at the hands of the Japanese.

The US has every right to be worried, as they have demonstrated restraint with their nuclear weapons, while Jong-Il has only ever demonstrated that he is insane.

Just out of curiosity, AT, how does December 7 1941 to August 1945 come out to over five years. America did not declare war in WW2 - Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

[communistworkethic]

B. Of course they do. That's what happens when you are the superpower. I dont think invading iraq was okay, but we didnt use nukes either.

Superpower or super-bully?

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, all those CIA operations to destabilise governments, the funding of Al-Queda. One could make the point that if the USA just concentrated on sorting its own internal problems out the world might just be a safer place without it playing "World policeman".