[wingsof liberty]

I agree. The unfortunate problem with using nukes is the fallout that would contaminate other countries freindly to us. Thats a hole we would have a tough time digging ourselves out of. If there was such a thing as a nuke with no fallout and any destruction from a detonation was localized, then this might be more feasable.

[sure_fine]

preemptively TOTALLY destroy all known, and suspicious weapon sites, that alone would probably end it

I think th NK people have had about enough

[Taylor42]

In talking with a buddy of mine whose an Air Force Intel weenie, he says that if Norh Korea even looks like they are about to explode a weapon, we will create a parking lot for China.

[Abathar]

""If there was such a thing as a nuke with no fallout and any destruction from a detonation was localized, then this might be more feasible.""

There is one, I believe it is the neutron bomb, it kills the people without destroying the infrastructure and the huge amount of fallout associated with a "standard" nuke. If memory serves me right we have these things designed and all the components laying around but one of the SALT treaties keeps us from assembling them. The Russians feared these things greatly, especially in Eastern Europe during the cold war. They could kill the troops and a week later forces could move right back through the area with minimal exposure.

[AFPhys]

During the 50s and 60s, HUNDREDS of atomic and thermonuclear bombs were detonated ABOVE GROUND and we're still here to talk about it. Some were over ten times the yield of the largest we have in our inventory now.

A few nukes would not result in enough "fallout" to get your panties in a bunch about.