DU this poll PLEASE - Is a strike to take out nukes ever justified?

[peacebird]

http://www.cnn.com/

so far 57% are saying YES.


Is a preemptive strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever justified?

Yes

58%
23392 votes

No

42%
17094 votes
Total: 40486 votes

[stepnw1f]

1. Every Person That Voted Yes is an Idiot! (nt)

[TheWraith]

16. Actually, every person who voted "No" is an idiot.

It's NEVER justified? You're saying that if someone was about to launch a nuclear attack on another country, it wouldn't be justifiable to destroy said nukes before they can be launched?

There may be other connotations to the poll, but there's only one reasonable answer to the question.

[Hosnon]

20. I agree. I can come up with lots of scenarios when I think it would be

justified.

[stepnw1f]

21. every person who voted "YES" is an idiot

You want our government to have the right to PRE-EMPTIVELY ATTACK another nation again? Haven't you learned anything from attacking Iraq?

And what happens if there is fallout from the attack?

IRAQ was a bad enough idea. Diplomacy was all we needed to keep a lid on this. Never use pre-emptive attacks.

[Zhade]

27. But remember, Iraq was NOT pre-emptive, but PREVENTATIVE...

...which is illegal.

[endarkenment]

22. Yes there are exceptions.

So the question is bullshit. However within the context of the phony NK nuke crisis, the answer is NO, a preemptive strike to destroy another nation's nuclear capability, absent a direct threat that this capability is being put to use, is not justifiable.

[citizen snips]

2. done

n/t

[Catamount]

3. It's getting worse- 58% Yes

K&R

[MrModerate]

4. Frighteningly enough, I haven't heard much in the way . . .

of alternatives being articulated by anyone recently -- not that a strike on North Korea would be anything other than an incredible disaster.

However, Georgie and his crew have pissed away the diplomatic option, so what do we do now? And you can answer that question as 1) a sentient being, and/or 2) as George Bush. Because, lest we forget, he commands our nuclear arsenal.

If I lived in Seoul today, I might be planning for a looooong vacation, preferably thousands of miles away.

[rfranklin]

5. So North Korea should attack the U.S.?

Is that what they're sugesting?

[Deja Q]

11. NK said some time ago the US doesn't have a monopoly on pre-emptive action

NK will undoubtedly attempt to attack the moment it gets a chance.

And like I said, with China not too happy over the course of developments, it could be very easy to put N Korea in its place without using a nuke to stop them. (working with the international community, as any country using a nuke will merely trigger THE end.)

[endarkenment]

23. "NK will undoubtedly attempt to attack the moment it gets a chance."

Really? Based on what evidence?

Does the US have a monopoly on pre-emptive action?

[Zhade]

28. So which psychiatrist told you Kim is suicidal?

Sorry, not buying it.

[SteppingRazor]

6. Well, the question is, is it EVER justified...

I would have to admit that taking out nukes would be justified in certain hypothetical circumstances, so I suppose I'd be forced to vote yes myself.

In other words, I don't think it's a fair question.

[HereSince1628]

25. Exactly right, I would have expected an even higher amount

of support for the notion. But, a large percent of the respondents seem to be aware that the NeoConCabal running foreign polich should NEVER be given a green light.

[longship]

7. I can't respond to this.

In context of ChimpCo I want to say "No" but I can conceive of situations where I'd want to say "Yes".

Best for me to not vote and pollute DU efforts.

[RufusEarl]

8. Who are these idiots,

they obviously have no idea what a nuke can do. Not just to the people it's directed to, but the world and it's environment or what's left of it.

[RufusEarl]

9. Who are these idiots,

they obviously have no idea what a nuke can do. Not just to the people it's directed to, but the world and it's environment or what's left of it.

[Deja Q]

10. Dunno.

NK is on record saying the US doesn't have a monopoly on this. And as the US under * hasn't used what NK is testing, circumstantial evidence does suggest NK will use anything it can find.

China is worried too.

Why China and the US don't do a team military effort to stop N Korea, I do not know. A temporary truce, whatever it takes. Nukes to stop N Korea are not necessary given the circumstances.

[Yoda Yada]

12. Bush will USE this poll to keep our country polarized. n/t

[FuzzyDicePHL]

13. Must be BS

The count didn't change after I voted.

[liberal N proud]

14. God help us!

[Monkeyman]

15. Done

[onenote]

17. depends on what the question is really asking

If it had said: Is a preemptive nuclear strike to destroy a nation's nuclear weapons capability ever justified?, I'd vote no.

But if the question is read as referring to a preemptive non-nuclear strike, then my answer would be yes.

So I'll just not vote.

[truthisfreedom]

18. it's a ridiculous situation bush got us into. there IS NO SOLUTION but to

end up with egg on our faces or start WWIII.

bush is an idiot. he should have stayed the course with NK instead of driving us off the cliff in Iraq and losing a grip on both Iran and North Korea.

[Drifter]

19. Follow up question ...

What if this nation was allowed to develop Nuclear Weapons because of the incompetence and neglegence of the President. Is is still Ok ?

Cheers
Drifter

[Dragonbreathp9d]

24. This poll is far too black and white, there is a lot of grey

I'm not going to partake

[BoneDaddy]

26. Idiots on both sides

Of course there may be valid reasons to take out a countries nuclear capabilities, it just merits very good reasons to do so. The far right Hawks who want to bomb everything are wrong and the doves who are so naive not to see the dangers of some people and governments are wrong. Christ on a stick, why do people look at the world so one dimensionally.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. I hate, I hate, I hate, push polls.

If the UN agreed that a rogue nation armed with nuke weapons and with belligerent intent were a threat to the rest of the world, it'd be unjustified to remove the threat?

The answer to the poll as worded is Yes. The problem is; the intent of asking the question is to use the sentiment as a proxy for questions for which the answer should be no, e.g. "should we nuke North Korea?"