Help support TMP

"North Korea: The Ethics of a U.S. Military Strike" Topic

7 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board

521 hits since 14 Nov 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 12:39 p.m. PST

"As part of a series on North Korea, I have made the strategic case for war to prevent Pyongyang's development of a nuclear-tipped ICBM, interrogated the arguments through debate, and explained why a conflict is becoming inevitable. This piece provides a refutation of the moral arguments made against a U.S. military strike. A further article will outline what victory in another Korean war looks like and some principles for destroying North Korea's armed forces…."
Main page


Lion in the Stars14 Nov 2017 3:25 p.m. PST

I'm going to fall back to a simple question: Will there be fewer dead as a result of a US military strike on North Korea than there will be dead as a result of a North Korean nuclear strike on South Korean, Japanese, or US soil?

If there will be fewer dead as a result of a US strike, strike.

If there will be more dead as a result of a US strike, don't.

It is that simple.

skipper John Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 3:55 p.m. PST

So we wait till they are more capable and then we strike???? What kind of logic is that????????????

Archaeologist1970 Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 4:01 p.m. PST

I think it is wrong to be posting political themed topics and then expect people not to dawghouse themselves. It's a sly way of baiting people.

jdginaz15 Nov 2017 12:21 a.m. PST

Since we are unable to see the future it is imposable to know whether there would be more or less deaths in either case. It's a ridicules question.

Lion in the Stars15 Nov 2017 2:28 p.m. PST

@Skipper John: The Norks have already demonstrated a number of nuclear warheads. While the first couple tests were small enough to only be enormous fertilizer bombs, the more recent ones have carried the whiff of radioactive fission byproduct elements.

@jdginaz: I suppose you think that we should have invaded Japan instead of dropping the two atomic bombs, then. Since "it is impossible to know if there would be more or less deaths" if the US invaded. Oh. Except that we also saw how many civilian deaths there were when the US invaded Okinawa (half the prewar civilian population was killed or committed suicide).

Personally, I'm expecting any US invasion of North Korea to have about as many civilian casualties as Okinawa. After all, they've had 60 years of indoctrination that the Americans are demons and will literally eat them. How else would people be so tall?

So yeah. I'm expecting about 10-15 million North Korean civilians dead in an invasion.

KSmyth15 Nov 2017 3:52 p.m. PST

Yes Archaeologist, I am right there with you. Isn't there a ten-year rule? I'm not going to pull the trigger on this, but Bill should.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.