North Korea Strike

Is it time we should strike North Korea to destroy their long-range missiles and nuclear weapons?
Are they a serious threat?

Bi0Hazard: Yes.
Yes.

Bi0Hazard: It would cause a major war that would kill millions if not tens of millions.

At the same time, even more could potentially be killed if North Korea ever achieved a functional nuclear program.

The key note here is that North Korea's arsenal of nuclear weapons is fully capable of wroughting destruction on cities in South Korea and Japan.

cooldudebro: Your justification?

Crow: So, a yes because it would prevent greater destruction from happening?

Bi0Hazard: I don't know.

It isn't an easy choice, since it would seal people's fates.

It cannot even be considered self defense, since we manafacture nuclear bombs as well.

Bi0Hazard: Is it time we should strike North Korea to destroy their long-range missiles and nuclear weapons?
No

Are they a serious threat?
Definitely not

admin: Definitely not

Ridiculously large armed forces, the production of more destructive weapons, and the stockpiling of nuclear armaments is not a serious threat?

Turn in your pacifist card.

Crow: Telling me to turn it in while trying to tell you that a war is not necessary sure is ironic.

Sure, the North Korean weapons and army COULD BE threats.
North Korea, however, is definitely not.

North Korea can't attack the south effectively if it wanted to, and it really has very little incentive to do so right now. Same with attacking the USA or anywhere else. They stand to gain everything by making the world think they could destroy them, while in reality having no such power. It's all propaganda for the masses. The whole nuclear thing in particular is incredibly overblown.

admin: Sure, the North Korean weapons and army COULD BE threats.
North Korea, however, is definitely not.

Mate, you obviously do not understand the definition of a threat.

the possibility of trouble, danger, or ruin.

I consider North Korea a serious threat. If you have any sense, you should too.

North Korea can't attack the south effectively if it wanted to, and it really has very little incentive to do so right now.

Yes and no.

The threat of nuclear weapons is what is keeping them secure, but if they get too jumpy or feel too threatened, they will use them.

Nuclear weapons destroy entire cities. Wars often start sporadically with lots of confusion. All it takes is one misfire or border skirmish. If the regime is seriously threatened, like it would be in a war with NATO and South Korea, they will have no reserves about using nuclear weapons.


The whole nuclear thing in particular is incredibly overblown.

God, you are hopeless.

Go back to fantasyland, because out here in the real world, nuclear weapons are the quickest way to end all of civilization.

Crow: I think such possibility need to be fairly non-remote. N Korea is no more a threat to global peace right now than Fiji.

The ones they've likely detonated, at least semi-successfully, could probably take out a city block or two. These bombs are much smaller than those used in the second world war, even if their propaganda is to be believed. Personally I think it's highly likely any yield was heavily supplemented with traditional explosives to make it look more powerful than it really was and provide insurance if the test went wrong.

I actually disagree. There have been thousands of misfires over the years and none have led to a war.

admin: I think such possibility need to be fairly non-remote. N Korea is no more a threat to global peace right now than Fiji.


Fiji does not have the capacity to end tens of millions of lives.

The ones they've likely detonated, at least semi-successfully, could probably take out a city block or two.

They have over ten nuclear bombs. They are not tactical, but strategic (look up the difference)

Even being outdated and old, they are still more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they have actual delivery systems.

The only thing unsuccessful about their nuclear program, is the range of how far they can deliver their weapons. They will hit Seoul just fine. Give it a couple more months and they will be able to hit major population centers along the American West Coast.

I actually disagree. There have been thousands of misfires over the years and none have led to a war.

Sometimes they do.

In Armenia-Azerbaijan, skirmishes have led to temporary days of conventional warfare. In a situation like North Korea, the stakes are much higher.

Crow: Nor does N Korea. Nowhere close. Heck, all nuclear weapons ever detonated combined haven't killed anywhere close to that many.

I've looked it up extensively - they've only done 4 tests, 2 of which failed. Each one had a yield of less than 7 kilotons (based on independent seismic readings), giving a maximum yield of half that of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. THEIR OWN CLAIM for their biggest bomb is 9 kilotons, which is still smaller. Of course they claim to have this great arsenal or whatever - they don't have the capability to manufacture that much. And no, they don't have warhead technology at all. The only way they can detonate a bomb is presently in a carefully controlled, underground environment. Any environmental factors and their bombs universally fail.

I'll be clearer, there have been thousands of misfires on the Korean border directly.

admin: I've looked it up extensively - they've only done 4 tests, 2 of which failed.

Source it.

My understanding is that their recent tests involved whether or not they could deliver a bomb to the continental US.

Each one had a yield of less than 7 kilotons (based on independent seismic readings), giving a maximum yield of half that of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Source it.

And no, they don't have warhead technology at all.

Untrue.

North Koreas arsenal is in the form of missiles, which have warheads.

The ICBM's they launched had warheads.

And what warhead technology? Creating the warhead is the easy part.

I'll be clearer, there have been thousands of misfires on the Korean border directly.

Source it.

It has not happened thousands of times in 63 years.

Crow: You source your outrageous claims first. Please source non-propaganda sources. If you bring a claim and I don't demand a source for a counterclaim, it's really unethical for you to expect me to source my counterclaim while your original claim has gone unsourced, especially in a more informal setting like this. In a debate I'd be happy to source things without prompting, although you know how I am with that in general.

admin: I also think there's a worrying trend of expecting people to prove negatives on this site. If you claim North Korea has dinosaurs, I shouldn't have to find a source saying they don't.

admin: You source your outrageous claims first. Please source non-propaganda sources.

Deflection. You obviously do not have sources.

I didn't make any claims that were not in response to yours.

My initial claim being?

Crow: Sure you did. You cited that N Korea has nuclear weapons that can level entire cities and kill tens of millions, among others. I didn't prompt those claims.

My initial claim being?