Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

What should be the U.S. response to North Korea’s threat of a nuclear attack?

Forget it. This is familiar saber rattling from a dysfunctional rogue regime.
21% (536 votes)
Build allegiances and pressure from the international community.
23% (606 votes)
Impose severe sanctions, with threat of military force, unless North Korea dismantles its nuclear program.
39% (1011 votes)
Use military force to effect a regime change.
13% (325 votes)
Something else? Comment below.
5% (121 votes)
Total votes: 2599

 

View more polls

 

judgejj

March 7, 2013 - 3:06pm

This is pathetic. Steven Colbert can probably provide the best response. And, by-the-way, let us not forget Dennis Rodman as the modern-day Jane Fonda.

riggernnr

March 7, 2013 - 3:11pm

nuke 'em first

Lester Larsen

March 7, 2013 - 3:22pm

In 1947 December 5th I Joined the U.S. Marines and in 1948 was sent to China. Served in WEST PAC on the USS Saint Paul CA73 till 1949 then was tranfered to San Franciso Naval Ship Yard till Ordered to Korea, Sergeant Larsen On 27 November near eastern North Korea 's Chosin Reservoir, the Chinese fell on the First Marine Division and a nearby U.S. Army task force, almost wiping out the latter and provoking a Marine response that ranks as one of history's greatest feats of arms.
Over the following two weeks,
the Marines battled their way to the port of Hungnam, from which they would be evacuated by sea.
In their wake were the ruins of the opposing Chinese divisions, which suffered so many casualties from combat and the bitterly cold weather that they were out of action for months.
The commanding officer of the 1st Marine division, Major General O.P. Smith, did not agree with his superiors and had become convinced that they were stretched thin and that the Chinese Forces had entered the war. He purposely slowed his advance and consolidated along the way at every opportunity.[26] The 1st Marine Division was attacked by ten Chinese infantry divisions on 27 November 1950. They fought their way out of the Chosin Reservoir against seven Communist Chinese divisions suffering over 900 killed and missing, over 3,500 wounded and more than 6,500 non-battle casualties mostly from frostbite during the battle. The greater part of the Chinese 9th Army was rendered ineffective as they suffered an estimated 37,500 casualties trying to stop the Marines' march out of the "Frozen Chosin". I would Nuke them They will never change. We have been dealing with them since 1950 it is time to finsh this. Our way or die. Enough is Enough.

Pablo6

March 7, 2013 - 5:45pm

Les: Appreciate the history lesson. Always admired O.P. Smith. Among other things for which he was reknown - he never cursed or even raised his voice, much. As for "I would nuke 'em." No. Nobody's "nuking" anyone. To include the N. Koreans. All that would do is embroil us in a world war, again. And this time, we'd probably get as good as we give. It's no longer the same era as 1950. The NK is doing what they always do when ROK elects a new president: threaten all sorts of dire things, and then, nothing. Ignore them. They aren't doing anything.

RichardQ

March 8, 2013 - 6:56pm

There's no need to nuke anybody. North Korean threats are threats, not action, and should be answered with threats,not action. India and Pakistan are blood enemies and both have nuclear weapons. They are in standoff and have been ever since they tested them. We should threaten to equip South Korea with nuclear weapons if the North Koreans don't stop posturing. If we were to nuke North Korea we would trigger China into a response that could well obliterate South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan -- and possibly Hawaii before we could respond by obliterating various Chinese targets. Would Russia get into the act as well? The strategic ramifications require creative action, not old-fashioned knock-em out brute force. Over-confidence has ruined many commanders in the past, including those who planned Afghanistan and Iraq. The friction between North and South Korea should be limited to them. I suspect the current Chinese government feels the same way, since they have nothing to gain in a new Korean war. Perhaps little Kim is an assassination target for a joint US-Sino effort?

Zoobie

March 7, 2013 - 3:23pm

They have also indicated an attack on South Korea may occur by disregarding the Armistice. Upon acting-out on this subject, we need to test the Neutron and Hydrogen Bombs on their Military Locations (Just to see if they still work in that local)
OOOOOOOOOOH Yeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh !!!

joe1cr

March 7, 2013 - 3:48pm

Give them Obama, Biden, Hegel, Kerry, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi , McClain and the Supreme Court then sue for peace.

Chip

March 7, 2013 - 3:55pm

Reduce our old, obsolete weapons stockpile all at once - right on top of them. If anything is left of them, experiment with our new technologies to make sure they work the way we expect them to.

Itwas1951

March 7, 2013 - 4:10pm

Harry Truman made a mistake by recalling General MacArthur, who wanted to go on and get it over with while we were there the first time. Then there was Vietnam, now Afghanistan! duh!

piafredux

March 7, 2013 - 4:40pm

Send Dennis Rodman back over there. But this time give him some support: send Lady Gaga along with him so the starving North Korean people can barbecue and eat her meat dress.

Skipper59

March 7, 2013 - 4:43pm

Immediately send ALL dependents back to U.S.A., civilian or military. Warn DPK that ANY missile launch ,regardless of size ,or direction will be sufficient warning for them to SMILE IMMEDIATELY, weither they see a flash ,or not! 16 mos. in country, taught me not to trust,but verify.

moyerrp

March 7, 2013 - 4:52pm

With sequestration taking effect, we'd probably get our butts handed to us. If we get nuked, blame congress and the lack of leadership in this country.

1Jump

March 7, 2013 - 5:13pm

China is the biggest obstacle to a US military action, nukes will do nothing but destroy a lot of innocent people.

beying1sr

March 7, 2013 - 5:21pm

These are fanatics, the only way to deal with them is by force. If they were to launch any nukes at us I am sure we could intercept them. Then we should take out their entire military capabilities, no ands, ifs, or buts about it. We do not have enough troops to put on the ground there. It would behoove us to tell China what we would do before hand.

1Jump

March 7, 2013 - 5:26pm

whom do you think is supplying the north koreans? can u say china i highly doubt telling them will do anything. theyre playing both sides like a fiddle. N korea is nothing but an irrelevant bully

Blueleader

March 7, 2013 - 5:54pm

Send Sean Penn over when he's finished officiating over Chavez' funeral.

AmentSgtInf

March 7, 2013 - 6:47pm

Counter the threat by 1.Placing tactical nukes in South Korea. 2. Station ballistic missile subs within range of every city in North Korea and let the world know we are doing this. And lay down a policy if ANY North Korean launch site appears to be launching a nuke we will kill the site with drones.

tadamoana

March 7, 2013 - 11:33pm

That's an updated version of version of the "old school" Cold War S.O.P. that kept the 1st generation nuclear superpowers from destroying themselves. It should buy us some time, but we need a global solution to all these petty tyrannical zealots, that have this doomsday capacity, and think we are just a bag of wind and would never respond in kind. I have faith in the speedy reactions of the crews of the boomers, but not with the leadership in Washington

AmentSgtInf

March 7, 2013 - 6:50pm

IF the PRC threatens to intervene embargo ALL chinese inports to the united states and make no more payments on the 2 trillion dollars worth of US t-bills that they hold.

tdegroot

March 7, 2013 - 7:22pm

That's a good idea irregardless of North Korea's threat. All that China has done is hamper any effect any sanctions have had by supplying North Korea with money, most likely by selling us crap, taking away our jobs. As long as we let our corporations run the country, rather than the people who elected them, we are going to have these problems.

egbear7567

March 7, 2013 - 7:06pm

for every one you send we will send back 5 !!!!!!

LieutenantCharlie

March 7, 2013 - 10:25pm

The Incompetent Leaders at the White House told the Americans in Benghazi that they have nothing to worry about. And today the White House said there is nothing to worry about with North Korea. So, BE VERY AFRAID, VERY AFRAID with the INCOMPETENT LEADERS in the White House.

msmarlene

March 7, 2013 - 10:51pm

Great idea Chip! Obama signed the START treaty with Russia promising he would deplete our nuclear arsenal in hopes that other nuclear-armed countries would follow suit (like that would work).
Give them a good dose of our power and let them know America is still a force to be reckoned with.

MSgt-West

March 8, 2013 - 1:54am

We don’t need Nukes. Just quietly go in and terminate the threat. Then get out before the liberals can make the U.S. the bad guys in all of this.

Bob95490

March 8, 2013 - 2:11am

After reading all of the above comments it appears at least one person has an idea that, if the present administration had the willingness to implement, might just begin to put the North Korean genie back in the lamp. That person suggested the U.S. discontinue payments on the Chinese held US debt and an embargo of all Chinese imports (if the PRC intervenes to US positioning nukes in ROK and offshore) came the closest but I would suggest that positioning nukes in ROK is not only counterproductive it is also completely unnecessary. I would also suggest it is not the prevention of Chinese intervention that we should be seeking as much as it is the direction of that intervention toward the prevention of North Korean Nuclear proliferation. Additionally, despite the initial giddiness produced by the thought of denying payment to the Chinese for anything, I must further suggest that the long-term, negative, economic affects this would provoke far outweighs any short term, duress produced, gain made in North Korea.

While using an import embargo and debt repayment moratorium might or might not provide the necessary leverage to achieve China's assistance in halting North Korea's nuclear nonsense, and periodic public tantrums, there are certainly other political/territorial levers to be considered than threatening an awakening economic giant with an expanding military industrial capacity. However, as I mentioned to begin with, this would require will on the part of the present administration and at the moment the present administration is occupied with the campaign to destroy the 2nd Amendment, providing foreign aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, receiving a medal from Israel and, now, the death of Hugo Chavez. The current administration is far too busy to be bothered with North Korea’s threats to the Republic of Korea, missile launches, or nuclear threats beyond issuing empty worded threats about America’s response.

Then again, if the boy king and our dear leader are both issuing empty threats there is nothing to worry about. Yeah! That’s the ticket, don’t worry, be happy. (Damn! I wish computers had a sarcasm key.)

Robert Ireland (PUFL)

charles lenny

March 8, 2013 - 10:52am

First I would demonstratae our anti missle defense system! And if it isn't ready, get it ready. Then inform the N. Koreans we could outgun them 20 to one on missles. Then send in a drone to get Kim Il Sung.
Charles Lenny

spc fuller

March 8, 2013 - 11:50am

this should have been dealt with when Bush was in office when they tried to launch their first missile. it should have been shot down with a strong message that this is considered an act of war and we WILL respond accordingly. While slapping China with trade restrictions and such maybe a good idea we need to get our factories back online to make up for the shortage that will happen when Chinese products stop flowing into the US

hm1wil

March 8, 2013 - 9:36pm

Those who go to war had better remember that Congress's promises are written on water. For those that haven't heard about the latest change to Tricare:

As of October 1, 2013, TRICARE Prime will no longer be available to beneficiaries living in certain areas. The Department of Defense (DoD) has planned to make PSA reductions since 2007. Prime Service Areas (PSAs) are geographic areas where TRICARE Prime is offered. PSAs were created to ensure medical readiness of the active duty force by augmenting the capability and capacity of military hospitals and clinics. The affected PSAs are not close to existing military hospitals or clinics and have never augmented care around military hospitals or clinics or 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)locations. (source: tricare_mil//psa)

You will be disenrolled from TRICARE Prime on September 30, 2013. You will remain enrolled until September 30, 2013 as long as your enrollment fees are paid, you do not disenroll early or otherwise lose eligibility.
In some cases, you may be able to re-enroll in TRICARE Prime by waiving your drive-time standards. By waiving your drive-time standards, you will have to drive long distances (+/- 100 miles)for primary and specialty care so you should carefully consider this option.
Note: This is also true for others who are covered like retired service members (i.e. former spouses, surviving spouses of deceased active duty service members after three years, Medal of Honor recipients, etc.).
Officials estimate the changes will lower overall TRICARE costs by $45 million to $56 million a year, depending on the number of beneficiaries who choose to remain in Prime, Austin Camacho, TRICARE’s benefit information and outreach branch chief, said.

CarverBob7

March 9, 2013 - 6:15pm

Don't respond to NK. Just ignore them, but carry a big stick.

john stan

March 10, 2013 - 3:36pm

couple of subs off there shore and tell NK you fire at any one you will never see it fall

Bradford

March 21, 2013 - 6:01pm

N K has always been, and will continue to be a pain in the *** and rattles the sabre as a sign that they are unable to comprise an original idea. However, their recent launch supports the front that they are posturing and may have results that are not conducive to a continued truce in the area. Been there and they are not reasonable
in any way we can comprehend.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think