G&M Straw Poll- What to do with North Korea

[M.Dancer]

North Korea has probably tested a nuclear weapon and Iran appears to be on track to do the same thing. How should the world's leading nations react to Pyongyang's action?

Use diplomacy (30%) 4985 votes

Apply stiff economic sanctions (30%) 4867 votes

Destroy the nuclear facility (36%) 5943 votes

Threaten to go to war (4%) 682 votes

Total votes: 16477

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...l/pollResultHub

[Liam]

I voted to destroy the nuclear facility provided it is a global effort. I think it would be disastrous for the US to take it upon itself to do it. If China wants to go that one alone, fine with me.

None of this will impact Iran. US bugling in both Afghanistan and Iraq have Tehran fairly insulated from almost all forms of military intervention in Iran.

[M.Dancer]

I voted to destroy the nuclear facility provided it is a global effort. I think it would be disastrous for the US to take it upon itself to do it. If China wants to go that one alone, fine with me.

None of this will impact Iran. US bugling in both Afghanistan and Iraq have Tehran fairly insulated from almost all forms of military intervention in Iran.

Wow, I wish I knew how to edit the poll....

Who would be best to deal with North Korea?

China

Coalition

US

[Figleaf]

The options in this poll don't make sense. THREATENING is a diplomatic method. Destruction of nuclear facilities would be an act of war.

So let's wise-up here. NK is a nuclear armed state already and they demonstrated a delivery system already. Who is willing to sacrifice a city to end Kim's regime?

[M.Dancer]

The options in this poll don't make sense. THREATENING is a diplomatic method. Destruction of nuclear facilities would be an act of war.

So let's wise-up here. NK is a nuclear armed state already and they demonstrated a delivery system already. Who is willing to sacrifice a city to end Kim's regime?

ahhh..yes but a threat of war assume the diplomacy will progress naturally. on the otherhand just going over and destroying the place sidesteps the diplomacy.

On the matter of wising up.......is NK nuclear armed? Maybe faltteninmg them now while their bombs only sort of work is better than waking up to find tokyo is burning.

[Figleaf]

On the matter of wising up.......is NK nuclear armed? Maybe faltteninmg them now while their bombs only sort of work is better than waking up to find tokyo is burning.

If you were NK, would you test your 1st & only device, or your 3rd?

Indeed, might you not already have a suitcase bomb in a Japanese city?

[geoffrey]

On the matter of wising up.......is NK nuclear armed? Maybe faltteninmg them now while their bombs only sort of work is better than waking up to find tokyo is burning.

If you were NK, would you test your 1st & only device, or your 3rd?

Indeed, might you not already have a suitcase bomb in a Japanese city?

Probably test my first to find out if the design works, then make more with my very limited materials.

The explosion was very small for a nuke... chances are it was their first and it was a small flex of muscle. Destroy all their nuclear facilities now, and there no further issue.

[Remiel]

There was an article mentioning that the US Government wants to push nuclear weapons on Japan... Am I alone in feeling that Japan being nuclear armed would be an occassion for unparalled sadness? I mean, they are the only country in the world that has ever felt the full, terrible effects of a nuclear weapon. For them to suddenly possess them would make it seem like there truly is no hope for the world, and would make me seriously begin to wonder if humanity was even worth trying to preserve.

[geoffrey]

There was an article mentioning that the US Government wants to push nuclear weapons on Japan... Am I alone in feeling that Japan being nuclear armed would be an occassion for unparalled sadness? I mean, they are the only country in the world that has ever felt the full, terrible effects of a nuclear weapon. For them to suddenly possess them would make it seem like there truly is no hope for the world, and would make me seriously begin to wonder if humanity was even worth trying to preserve.

I'd be more concerned with having Japan and N.Korea ready to blow each other up at all times.

[Charles Anthony]

Am I alone in feeling that Japan being nuclear armed would be an occassion for unparalled sadness?

I hope you are alone. This is no time for melodrama nor poetry.

For reasons of proximity with Korea, Japan should have missiles and nuclear warheads NOW.

Deterrence is a really powerful weapon itself. Would YOU pull out a hand-gun and take aim in a crowd if you knew that everybody around you also had a loaded hand-gun and the will to fight back?

[Remiel]

Do you really think that any other country with nuclear weapons would waste time by not immediately launching a retaliatory strike of their own on North Korea if they actually used a nuke? Why in God's name would anyone want to waste money on nuclear weapons when their allies were already dumb enough to stockpile too many to begin with? Thats called waste. I thought waste was supposed to be antithetical to conservatives.

And yes, " unparalled sadness " was quite melodramatic on my part (which is odd, because I am not really a big fan of melodrama usually), but I would still say it is quite tragic. Why? Because if nuclear weapons victims succumb to the madness of the bomb, then what hope do the rest of us have?

Out of curiousity though... does anyone know if the Koreans killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were predominantly from the North or South of the peninsula?

[jbg]

My vote, turn Pyongyang into a parking lot; as well as the nuclear facility.

[Remiel]

Are you trying to say you want us to hit them with a nuclear weapon first?

[jbg]

Are you trying to say you want us to hit them with a nuclear weapon first?

I'm trying to say that the NK people have had ample opportunity to revolt. If any place is going to die a death in a nuclear war, it should be them, not us.

[jdobbin]

I'm trying to say that the NK people have had ample opportunity to revolt. If any place is going to die a death in a nuclear war, it should be them, not us.

So you advocate a nuclear strike now?

[Charles Anthony]

Do you really think that any other country with nuclear weapons would waste time by not immediately launching a retaliatory strike of their own on North Korea if they actually used a nuke?

Correct. If YOU can figure it that out, so can Mr.NuKem in North Korea. Therefore, it makes no sense for anybody in North Korea to strike first.

Why in God's name would anyone want to waste money on nuclear weapons when their allies were already dumb enough to stockpile too many to begin with? Thats called waste. I thought waste was supposed to be antithetical to conservatives.

To deter your enemy. That is not a waste. Also, who cares what "conservatives" want to do?

but I would still say it is quite tragic. Why? Because if nuclear weapons victims succumb to the madness of the bomb, then what hope do the rest of us have?

We will have MORE hope to live because of the deterrent effect of everybody owning nuclear weapons.

Out of curiousity though... does anyone know if the Koreans killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were predominantly from the North or South of the peninsula?

I have no idea and I do not care about people's nationality.

I'm trying to say that the NK people have had ample opportunity to revolt.

Ample time??

If any place is going to die a death in a nuclear war, it should be them, not us.

Are you trying to prevent one of Kim's feeble missiles from hitting anybody or are you trying to prevent Kim from selling nukes to non-state organizations?

[jbg]

If any place is going to die a death in a nuclear war, it should be them, not us.

Are you trying to prevent one of Kim's feeble missiles from hitting anybody or are you trying to prevent Kim from selling nukes to non-state organizations?

Yes

[Remiel]

Charles, for MAD to work, I don't believe it is required for every one to have nuclear weapons, just for every side. The United States, of its own accord, built way more nuclear weapons than they ever needed, and they are expensive to maintain, and if anyone were to launch a nuke at Japan, or Canada, or any number of NATO allies, the US would probably launch in return, and not even because they were " protecting " those countries, just because in such a scenario it would almost certainly coincide with their own interests. Thus, it would be a waste of money for more countries on our " side " to develop and build nukes, and the money would be better spent on conventional forces and defenses. The operative question of nuclear war is not " Can my target nuke me back? " , it is, " Who will nuke me if I nuke my target? " .

[M.Dancer]

On the matter of wising up.......is NK nuclear armed? Maybe faltteninmg them now while their bombs only sort of work is better than waking up to find tokyo is burning.

If you were NK, would you test your 1st & only device, or your 3rd?

Indeed, might you not already have a suitcase bomb in a Japanese city?

FYI...a suitcase nuke wouold weigh over 100lbs.....