Is Carrying Out A Military Exercise When You Have Been Told There Will Be Retalitation Un-Ethical and Irresponsible?

[THEBRAIN]

Should the US continue its Military exersice after hearing of Nuclear threats from North Korea?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

North Korea has no legal authority over the ocean that the United States is doing its exercises in. There is, of course, a slight risk that North Korea will follow through with their threats; however, this is mitigated by the facts that (a) North Korea threatens and blusters with great regularity, while doing very little; and (2) the function of a carrier battle group (like the one exercising near North Korea) is to protect the group against possible attacks. There are very specific anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-submarine defenses that I'm sure are on high alert.

 

Is your ethical qualm with the intimidation of North Korea, or with the risk that they will detonate a nuclear device and kill thousands of sailors?

[Mr Skeptic]

I should think it would be extremely unethical for our military to act like a bunch of chickens, which could put our whole country at risk.

 

On a similar note, even if North Korea does try to nuke them, they might fail due to their bomb being shot down or simply failing to detonate. But what would be the effect of a failed nuking?

[ajb]

I don't think the West should let any nation tell them what to do in international waters.

 

That said, how would US citizens feel if the North Korean Navy were doing exercises off the US coast? This reminds me of the Cuban missile crisis.

[TheEtherealChemist]

I think the comparison with the Cuban missile crisis is very apt.

 

I don't consider it cowardice to avoid the threat - where do you then draw the line? There are examples in military history where threats have been ignored and carnage has ensued, and the effects of a nuclear weapon, successful or otherwise, will be farreaching, and affect more than just those directly involved.

[John Cuthber]

North Korea has fewer than a dozen nukes, and the only way it could get them an American city would be by post.

 

A nuclear strike against the US would bring retaliation. The only thing that would stop the US nuking North Korea from the map would be South Korea. That might be enough to persuade them to destroy the North with conventional weapons- and I think they have the industrial strength to do it.

 

The government of North Korea is dumb, but not suicidal.

I think they have issued the "warning" for their own propaganda, rather than for it to be taken seriously.

In due course, the Americans will do as they please and the North Koreans will tell their people that the Americans chickened out.

 

You only need to react to a threat if the threat is serious, and I don't think this one can be.

 

The comparison with the Cuban crisis seems flawed to me. North Korea simply hasn't got as many nukes as the Russians had.

(Strictly speaking, the numbers might be comparable, but back then the uncertainty was rather greater- the USSR claimed to have lots more than it really had, so the threat seemed real.)

[DJBruce]

In this case there is nothing unethical about caring out a legal military exercise. Especially when you consider the fact that the North Korean military has proven to be very inept when it comes to building and launching a nuclear missile. If anything about this indecent is unethical it would be North Korea's threats, and any response they might have.

[timo]

North Korea has fewer than a dozen nukes, and the only way it could get them an American city would be by post.

I think North Korea attacking US territory is not the point.

 

EDIT: @John: My original comment was possibly a bit offensive. I hope that you can at least understand that people might become pissed when one completely misses the point (like the lives of 50 million people living in South Korea) over some rather ridiculous self-centered scenario.

 

The comparison with the Cuban crisis seems flawed to me. North Korea simply hasn't got as many nukes as the Russians had.

North Korea probably was not supposed to play the role of the Russians in ajb's analogy.

Edited July 26, 2010 by timo

[THEBRAIN]

North Korea has no legal authority over the ocean that the United States is doing its exercises in. There is, of course, a slight risk that North Korea will follow through with their threats; however, this is mitigated by the facts that (a) North Korea threatens and blusters with great regularity, while doing very little; and (2) the function of a carrier battle group (like the one exercising near North Korea) is to protect the group against possible attacks. There are very specific anti-aircraft, anti-missile and anti-submarine defenses that I'm sure are on high alert.

 

Is your ethical qualm with the intimidation of North Korea, or with the risk that they will detonate a nuclear device and kill thousands of sailors?

 

Were I to think that it was un-ethical, it would be that our sailers could be killed while performing a simple excersise. With my military backgorund and experience I think that we should go through with our excersise and show them that they will not tell us what we can and cannot do in international waters. I could careless about North Korea's threats usually, because they cannot reach the coast with a nuke, but now our boys are well within striking range and it could be bad. Just something for us to discuss and think on over the next couple days until we know the outcome.

 

I should think it would be extremely unethical for our military to act like a bunch of chickens, which could put our whole country at risk.

 

On a similar note, even if North Korea does try to nuke them, they might fail due to their bomb being shot down or simply failing to detonate. But what would be the effect of a failed nuking?

 

 

By your logic then I could build a pipe bomb with possible faulty wires, and you would have no problem toting it around beacuse what would be the effect of a failed pipe bomb. Well obvioiusly nothing plus nothing equals nothing, so a failed nuke would not do anything, but you cannot say with infalibility that the nuke they fire will fail to detonate. While I dont think we should turn at run and agree with you on that, to assume that somthing is harmless is always a bad decision.

 

I don't think the West should let any nation tell them what to do in international waters.

 

That said, how would US citizens feel if the North Korean Navy were doing exercises off the US coast? This reminds me of the Cuban missile crisis.

 

 

Correct, and this is where the ethics come in. By us doing these excersises off the coast it could be interpreted as us delibrately challenging North Korea do back up there threat. This one topic has so many different ethical options. This is a great way to view it, the US would be making some threats of its own if someone was operating war games around our coast.

 

North Korea has fewer than a dozen nukes, and the only way it could get them an American city would be by post.

 

A nuclear strike against the US would bring retaliation. The only thing that would stop the US nuking North Korea from the map would be South Korea. That might be enough to persuade them to destroy the North with conventional weapons- and I think they have the industrial strength to do it.

 

The government of North Korea is dumb, but not suicidal.

I think they have issued the "warning" for their own propaganda, rather than for it to be taken seriously.

In due course, the Americans will do as they please and the North Koreans will tell their people that the Americans chickened out.

 

You only need to react to a threat if the threat is serious, and I don't think this one can be.

 

The comparison with the Cuban crisis seems flawed to me. North Korea simply hasn't got as many nukes as the Russians had.

(Strictly speaking, the numbers might be comparable, but back then the uncertainty was rather greater- the USSR claimed to have lots more than it really had, so the threat seemed real.)

 

So by your theory because the Russians said they had more and didn't the threat appeared real so we took it as such, so if they sey they only have 12 we souldn't because "they couldn't have more". All it takes is one.