Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 25, 2019

Majority Of U.S. Citizens Would Approve Preventive Nuclear Strike On North Korea

Today is the 69th anniversary of the Korea War. The war has not ended. It is the U.S. that rejects to sign a peace treaty. The continued state of war is the reason why North Korea acquired nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

To turn North Korea back into a non-nuclear state necessitates an end of the war, a peace treaty, and security guarantees.

But could the U.S. be relied on even when a peace treaty is signed? Or is it inherently too bellicose to ever be trusted?

When North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un will read this report, he will likely conclude that the later question must be answered in the affirmative:

More than a third of Americans would support a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea if that country tested a long-range missile capable of reaching the United States, new research has found, even if that preemptive strike killed a million civilians.

The survey of 3,000 Americans was conducted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and British research firm YouGov, and asked people to consider a scenario in which North Korea had tested a long-range missile and the U.S. government was considering how to respond.

The survey question is a bit weird as North Korea already tested a "long-range missile capable of reaching the United States".

Fortunately not all Americans are brutes:

Most did not want their government to launch a preemptive strike, but a large minority supported such a strike, whether by conventional or nuclear weapons.

“For many of these hawks, support for an attack, even in a preventive war, does not significantly decrease when the story says that the United States would use nuclear weapons that are expected to kill 1 million North Korean civilians,” the report found.

“As we have previously found, the U.S. public exhibits only limited aversion to nuclear weapons use and a shocking willingness to support the killing of enemy civilians.”

The use of a nuclear weapon against North Korea would have even higher support after it happened:

They were also asked whether they would “approve” of such a strike if the president ordered it.

People would “rally around the flag,” the survey found: while 33 percent of the public would prefer a nuclear strike that would kill 15,000 North Korean civilians, 50 percent said they would approve if one took place.

It is not astonishing that many of these people are so called 'conservatives':

Republicans expressed greater support for military strikes than Democrats, and Trump supporters voiced even stronger approval: a majority of them preferred a military strike in five of the six scenarios described in the survey.

Among supporters of the death penalty, support for a nuclear strike actually rose from 38 percent to 49 percent when the number of expected North Korean fatalities increased from 15,000 to 1.1 million; one such respondent explained that “it’s our best chance of eliminating the North Koreans.”

It would require a nuclear bomb with a 1 megaton TNT equvilent to create a million dead in Pyongyan. The city would be totally destroyed.

Estimate via Nukemap - bigger

More than twenty five million people live in North Korea. Those U.S. citizens who were surveyed and support to strike them, seem to believe that the North Korean survivors of a preventive strike could not or would not retaliate.

They of course can and would do that. The U.S. ballistic missile defense does not work. It would not stop a North Korean missile targeting Seattle, Washington DC or anything between those cities.

With a deeply disturbed Donald Trump in the White House, who's supporters would support him using nukes, Kim Jong Un will of course conclude that North Korea will have to keep ts deterrent. Other countries will think of building their own.

A detailed discussion of the survey and its results is here.

Posted by b on June 25, 2019 at 17:28 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Americans do not know geography. Americans have been taught contempt for geography and for anyone who knows geography. If even a small number of generals or diplomats knew where North Korea was relative to Seoul, to Vladivostok, to Tokyo, no one wold ever discuss a nuclear attack on North Korea. But the tiny number who do know a thing or two are entirely unable to educate their peers, who simply do not wish to know.

Posted by: oldhippie | Jun 25 2019 17:45 utc | 1

Were the 3000 people in Texas maybe?
Americans are spoiled psychopaths.
God is dead - Catholic Church killed him.

Posted by: jared | Jun 25 2019 17:53 utc | 2

The poll does not take into consideration the fact that China and Russia are enormous factors. The US is not going to be dropping nukes on North Korea because China and Russia will not stand by and watch. China can move 1,000,000 PLA across the border into North Korea in hours. While the US goes through its preparation, China and Russia SIGINT will expose the US preparation.

The Russians will launch bombers and subs and the Chinese will launch similar aircraft.

What these signals from the Russians and Chinese mean is the "preventive strike" will not be permitted. Costs come with every military operation, however benign it is described for public consent.

So, take a poll and add the Russians and Chinese to the mix. They are stakeholders.

Unless North Korea goes rogue and does something to start military strikes, Russia and China and North Korea are 'one'.

US Military understands the 'new era' of Russian and China's geopolitics and defense of Eurasia.

It's time the West spreads the word.

Just yesterday, the Russian Central Military District announced snap exercise to test readiness. This was Russia signaling to the US that attacking Iran or Southern-Central Russia or Central Asia was a redline. And probably, Russia was ready to deliver tactical and logistical support to Iran.

We would see, in the case of North Korea, similar mobilization and 'warnings' from Russia.

War is easy in polls and video games.

The stakes in Northeast Asia are enormous.

President Xi has taken Kim under wing. There won't be any rogue behavior. The Chinese and Russians have coordinated on the issue. The US has to deal with the 'new era'.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Jun 25 2019 17:57 utc | 3

12-16 years of indoctrination in America's skools are turning out some real dumbsh*t freaks. They are responsible for the 62 genders,,, pedophilia is good,,, no borders,,, feminazi freak shows,,,Think sex changes on 4 year olds is cool,,, think a tax will stop the climate change BS, and on and on and on. These are who they're polling. Soooooo

Why do the few that can still cogitate expect something different? Stupid is as Stupid does.

Posted by: ken | Jun 25 2019 18:09 utc | 4

I'm also wondering what works be Russia's or China's reaction (and their doctrine) should radioactive stuff be brought on their territory. Would that be considered as a nuclear attack on their territory?

Posted by: Wong Ming | Jun 25 2019 18:10 utc | 5


Allow me to say this at risk of being moderated/censored - Stop being an idiot.
I would bet you large sums of money that it was people with your particular politics aka mostly Trump supporters who made up the 33 or so % of people that would approve of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Pyongyang.

If you had bothered to read the report linked, you might have seen this:

To better understand the hawkish minority of the US public, we examined a number of key demographic traits and belief systems. Across all scenarios, Republicans expressed greater preference for the use of military force than Democrats. This trend becomes even more stark when we tease out those who support President Trump specifically. A majority of Trump supporters prefer the US strike in every scenario, except when confidence in the effectiveness of the US conventional strike is 50 percent. Still, it is important to note that preference for the strike even in this scenario remains at 44 percent among Trump supporters, compared to only 8 percent among non-Trump supporters (see Figure 3).

Indeed, the few who can still cogitate would seem to be the doves here and not the hawkish Republicans/Trump supporters.

Posted by: KC | Jun 25 2019 18:15 utc | 6

I would put even more money on home skoooled kids and their parents being in the 33% who are all for a pre-emptive strike so long as they are told "we" would win easily.

Posted by: KC | Jun 25 2019 18:17 utc | 7

I just Googled Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists. It came up as Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists. Here's their Mission Statement...

"The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change, and ..."

Sounds like a spin tank with a poorly ventilated room full of panic-merchants, to me. WaPo is Fake News and there are plenty of sane questions AmeriKKKans could have been asked, for example...

"If AmeriKKKa agreed to sign a treaty with North Korea and thereby end the Korean War, would it make you proud to be AmeriKKKan?"

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 25 2019 18:18 utc | 8

Wong Ming @5: Yes, good question.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jun 25 2019 18:22 utc | 9

Jesus H. ......

The Bulletin publishes content at both a free-access website and a bi-monthly, nontechnical academic journal. The organization has been publishing continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project scientists as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago immediately following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The organization is also the keeper of the internationally recognized Doomsday Clock, the time of which is announced each January.

Yeah...real "spin tank" there. In fact it would have to be one of the first in existence given that they formed in 1945.

Posted by: KC | Jun 25 2019 18:27 utc | 10

thanks b, but everyone here already knows how insane many of the american folks are... that is why i sometimes goes to pat langs site, to keep up with the insanity... why just yesterday pat was suggesting we look up his article called 'bureaucrats verses artists' and indeed i did.. i found a really good response from one of the readers too.. i quote it here for the moa readers who are interested..

"Lang is what we draft soldiers use to call “Lifers”; people who define their life by their love of guns and bombs etc. Reading him daily over the years brings to mind Kissinger’s denigration of military men’s intelligence or Hitler’s comment that Generals don’t understand economics. Not intelligence in the sense of IQ ( I have learned a lot from him; smarter than me no doubt). Rather intelligence in the sense of not being able to see reality through the lens of their love of shoot ‘em up bang bang.
For example, he really would have us believe that there is something wrong with “Intelligence”. They make mistakes. Not the reality that they provide the rational for the wars he is so proud to have been a part of. He is proud of his killing deeds in Vietnam, which was largely the result of what: failed intelligence in the Gulf of Tonkin? He is proud of the role he played in the killing Kaddafi’s baby daughter. Was this the result of failed intelligence about terrorism? Come on Pat your are like the Robert Duval character in Apocalypse Now who “loved the smell of Napalm in the morning.” Intelligence has not failed the likes of you. It provides the rational for you to do what is you live to do – killing. You spent your adult life killing or being responsible for killing people whose only crime was to be sitting on oil.
When you were doing your killing in Vietnaum, draftees like me were saying “hell no I won’t go”. There was a saying at the time: “What if someone gave a war and no one showed up”. If people like you would stop showing up we would not have troops stationed in 125 countries in the world today. Guys like you show up because you love the shit and you could care less about the accuracy of Intelligence. Intelligence is the opium of the people. It gives them a reason to pay people like you to act out your childhood fantasies about war.

Posted by: james | Jun 25 2019 18:30 utc | 11


Ending the Korean War would be a BAD thing?

Posted by: Evelyn | Jun 25 2019 18:34 utc | 12

I'm curious what the results would be if the question is phrased as "would you approve a nuclear strike on (insert uncooperative country here) if there was a very high likelyhood of a retaliatory strike destroying 2 or 3 major US cities?"

And then follow up with the question "given your previous answer, would it be sensible for (insert uncooperative country here) to obtain nuclear weapons capability?"

I'd pay money to see the results of that poll.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 25 2019 18:37 utc | 13

As an american, this is no surprise at all. Over 120 million americans vote for the two war parties. The military is all-volunteer even though there is nothing defensive about it. All the weapons companies here are packed with americans who view them as their dream job. Hollyweird is a pro-war propaganda machine. Our major news organizations are led by intelligence agencies packed with happy americans. There is no point whatsoever to claim that the U.S. regime is somehow working against the majority of americans' will when it's obvious that is a lie. Talk to nearly any american and they'll happily trade places with any war-loving official here just for their money. When you criticize this regime, you can't say it's something separate from the majority will of the people here. The majority of people here just don't give a shit about who or how many people are murdered in their wars.

Posted by: SharonM | Jun 25 2019 18:46 utc | 14

# 4
The destruction of critical thinking BEING the global strategy, after a generation or two (the same here in france), the lack of capable people is specially sensible at the decision level. That's what makes it so scary. not so much the u.s. crowd. Even if a majority of americans would disapprove a nuclear strike, that would'nt make a difference. only, again, a "vietnamese" experience could change their mind now. they don't learn. let's hope they can stay in their agressive/vegetative state, as the opposite would mean war.

Posted by: Alain | Jun 25 2019 18:49 utc | 15

Actually it doesn't matter what citizens think of initiating a war, they have no influence, but just to be sure they can be convinced to go along with anything. Goering explained that process.

"Why, of course the people don't want war . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.." ---Hermann Goering, 1946

But Washington won't conduct an initial attack on Korea any more than it will on Iran, because the US 'forward basing' strategy has put counter-attack targets close to the subject country.

In South Korea, Camp Humphreys is a recently completed ten billion dollar mega-base, image here, with 30,000 Americans only fifty miles from the border. It is vulnerable to conventional ballistic missile attack, and now by rocket fire. What is new with the 300mm mobile rocket launcher is its accuracy, its mobility, and ability to rapidly fire multiple projectiles at the target (1 truck x 8 rockets x 6 launchers in a battery = 48 rockets impacting…then 18 launchers in a battalion = 864 rounds on target), and there is the difficulty of shooting down a rocket vs shooting down a ballistic missile.

What were they thinking? Or . . . what, were they thinking?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 25 2019 18:53 utc | 16

@7 KC - What's wrong with home schooling? Not trying to derail the conversation, but my daughter was homeschooled and lots of the homeschooling, in my experience, see through mass "education" in the United States. Mass indoctrination is more like it. I think that the opposite of what you say is true. The homeschoolers would be more likely to oppose military intervention. At least that is my family's opinion, and I would like to think, the opinion of many other people in the home schooling community.

Posted by: roza shanina | Jun 25 2019 18:56 utc | 17

Honestly, though I am fairly disappointed in america and americans, this is a bit hard to accept.
Considering the source (WaPoo), I want to be skeptical.
I can imagine that WaPoo views the public as animals that need to be controlled and are to be taken lightly.
It appears there is a thawing of relations between North/South Korea.
Does not make sense. I am hoping this is somehow not correct.

Posted by: jared | Jun 25 2019 19:00 utc | 18


I was responding to another comment who was bashing public education. But I don't necessarily disagree with you based on my own anecdotal experience with home schooling parents (and my work on behalf of a for-profit home schooling foundation), but in response to ken, who grouped public education (which the right has been continually trying to roll back by ruining it - different topic that I don't think anyone here really cares about) in with the typical Trumpian bugaboos ("feminazis, open borders, pedophilia, etc.) I felt the need to convey the possibility that he was wrong on that too.

On that note when can we expect your response to ken @ #4, since he seems to be a home-schooling parent with all sorts of backward views that would have been corrected in the public school system? Or do you agree with him?

Posted by: KC | Jun 25 2019 19:01 utc | 19

random thoughts:

- as much as i like caitlin johnstone's writing/analysis i have to disagree when she says things like "The Fact That Americans Need To Be Deceived Into War Proves Their Underlying Goodness". i'd say it's more like "a fair share of 'americans' are a sociopathic death cult who look for any excuse to cover their horrible behavior". without getting too philosophical, i'd just point out the high crossover between bloodthirsty conservatives and "people" on the keto/paleo diets and oil festishists. anything that interferes with getting everything they want ALL THE TIME is worth murdering as brutally as possible. "dur hur bacon" and "globul warming LOL it snowed this wintur!" come from the same mentality as "dur hur dead kureeuhns".

- also funny how the same scum right types who whine about san francisco or l.a. are 100% okay with genociding anyone who poses the slightest imaginary threat to their modern "sodom and gomorrah".

- anyone who thinks you can just nuke a random location and then go back to normal life is stupid enough to justify placement in a concentration camp if not outright euthanasia. sound harsh? how about the planetary-wide extinctions and fallout that would result from the use of even a single high yield weapon? or the refugee crisis that makes the syrian exodus look like a high school trip to mexico for spring break? or the highly probable retaliation from china for dropping a megaton or so on their doorstep?

there are 7 billion people in the world so we need to start making the tough choices about who deserves to continue sucking up resources and who would make a decent compost. MAGAtards, war profiteers, neocons and vulture capitalists are holding us back so does anyone have a reason to keep them around? didn't think so.

Posted by: the pair | Jun 25 2019 19:02 utc | 20

@ jared -

That's an interesting take since WaPo was not the source - they only reported on it.

Source (as linked by b):

Posted by: KC | Jun 25 2019 19:03 utc | 21

The survey is not particularly reliable.
There are 6 scenarios posted:
1) conventional attack, 90% success rate, 10% NK retaliation, 13.5K Americans dead (305K South Koreans, but Americans won't care about that).
2) conventional attack, 90% success rate, 10% NK retaliation, 313.5K Americans dead
3) conventional attack, 50% success rate, higher NK retaliation, 313.K Americans dead
4) nuclear attack, 90% success, 15K Koreans dead
5) nuclear attack, 90% success, 1M Koreans dead
6) nuclear attack, US ship attacked with fatalities
The appendix in the article isn't working, so no idea what the American casualties in 4-6 are.
However, it seems likely given the results that American casualties aren't mentioned in these last 3 scenarios.
In the first 3 scenarios, none of them have either Approval or Preferred ratings at 50%.
Then there's the last bit: Who conducted the poll? If it was an audience of the BAS - it can be assumed that the respondees are either mainstream liberals or angry hawks coming to troll.
I would want to see the who conducted and the full how of the poll before drawing any type of conclusions.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 25 2019 19:08 utc | 22

It is also interesting to see how "prefer" and "approve" - there are consistently a lot more approve than prefer. This seems odd to me - generally stronger viewpoints are less commonly held.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 25 2019 19:10 utc | 23

Fear of MAD relies on all parties believing the others are sane.
The only move,if that belief is gone, is a massive first strike on the insane party before
he turns on you.
Having gamed that exact situation,every single time that first strike was launched,the small chance of survival against the certainty of the maniac launching on you next with no chance of survival.

Posted by: Winston2 | Jun 25 2019 19:13 utc | 24

@17 KC - Yes, my comment was more on the sad state of education in the United States. There are many different reasons people choose to home school. Fortunately, I met mostly good, sane people during the experience.
Sorry about the mix up. I should have read all the comments. I should be working... I can't help my MoA addiction.

Posted by: roza shanina | Jun 25 2019 19:16 utc | 25

Well, what can be surprising when the exceptionals believe they are the only one technically capable
and the others are just camel or donkey drivers?

Ignorance and a lack of imagination are bliss and lead to self-destruction.

Posted by: CarlD | Jun 25 2019 19:20 utc | 26

I think polls say exactly what they are paid to say

I think many of my fellow Americans are brainwashed into having faith in the US way and believing a nuclear war can be won.

Were all the Germans behind Hitler?

I am happy to see this huge social contract issue of private/public finance being forced into extinction/evolution by external forces.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 25 2019 19:27 utc | 27

And Caitlin Johnstone recently penned an article about the innate goodness of Americans that need to be fooled into supporting war. Yes, of course, Americans are always conveniently naïve and never question as long as they don’t get drafted or face blowback on their own precious property. America is a collection of hustling, selfish morons: you complain about American leadership, but as George Carlin said “what do you think, did these people [politicians] just fall down from Mars?”

Posted by: Joe Blow | Jun 25 2019 19:33 utc | 28

People think I am exaggerating or waxing hyperbolic when I characterize Americans as psychotic and deeply deranged, but I am simply stating a fact. The problem isn't just the American government. People who say "I don't mind Americans, it is their government that I don't like" don't understand what they are talking about.

We can debate why Americans are such horribly damaged goods, but the fact of that damage is self-evident and cannot be disputed.

As for Americans' attitudes about nuclear war, many would voice support for one regardless of who the "enemy" was stated to be (I kid thee not: even France or Canada, and don't even mention Germany or Japan). In fact, even if you included the destruction of most of America's cities as a consequence of nuclear war I'd bet at least 25% would still support attacking some random country they know nothing about such as Elbonia.

There is nothing even remotely surprising about this survey.

I like to think that if America received a massive, nation-sized bitch slap that it would be sufficient to re-ground the individuals in the country in reality, but I suspect something like that would just compel them to descend deeper into delusion and hysteria.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 25 2019 19:40 utc | 29

I agree with the comment that the US (and those who identify with it around the world) are a death cult.

Posted by: paulll | Jun 25 2019 19:44 utc | 30

Offtopic, but interesting and important:

I'm on the phone and can't (don't know how to) insert link, but Reminiscences of the future blog, Andrei Martianov, has posted an important quote from Patrushev, re Iran. Please somebody post it...

Posted by: albagen | Jun 25 2019 19:47 utc | 31

America's politicians and media spout murderous sadistic fantasies directed at "enemy" populations all the time, so the internalization of such rhetoric by a sizeable minority is not particularly surprising. Persons like Tom Cotton, Lindsay Graham, and Max Boot can say whatever psychotic thing they wish with no negative consequence. The negative consequences are reserved for the "peaceniks" like Tulsi Gabbard.

Posted by: jayc | Jun 25 2019 19:47 utc | 32

Western msm now spread the claim that iranian president said Trump was "retarded" he never said that!

A lot of Western media is reporting that Iranian President Rouhani called Trump "mentally retarded." This is inaccurate. Regarding Trump, he just said "no wise person would take such an action [the new sanctions imposed]."

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 25 2019 19:49 utc | 33

Pretty Clear And Without Double Meaning.

Posted by: albagen | Jun 25 2019 20:04 utc | 34

correct link

Pretty Clear And Without Double Meaning

Posted by: albagen | Jun 25 2019 20:06 utc | 35

Disturbed or not, Trump understood much better than his critics that US antiwar sentiment always was wafer-thin; he has been underestimated. Yanks don't like losing wars, and they criticize (but not too loudly) the other party's wars as part of the domestic horse race. That's about it: conservatives want to go to war with Iran, liberals want to do Russia first. So what will it be, are we going to kill billions or mere millions? To Americans, war on the DPRK must seem like a mere roundoff error.

People always mumble that security guarantees for the North should be part of any denuclearisation deal. Methinks that Little Kim likes his current "security guarantees" just fine.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 20:10 utc | 36

Majority Of U.S. Citizens Would Approve Preventive Nuclear Strike On North Korea

If that was the result then I doubt if the "poll" accurately described the real-world situation. In my opinion the North Koreans now possess a retaliation option which makes them immune to any US nuclear attacks whatever. And also to massive conventional attacks.

If a poll is given to even the most bloodthirsty US citizens which equates the destruction of North Korea with a high probability of their own death, I'd predict they'll be much more cautious with their response.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 25 2019 20:14 utc | 37

As Ma Laoshi points out @35, what "security guarantees" can America offer that are as good as an atomic bomb? This is particularly problematic for American negotiators as America's guarantees are not worth the hot air they are announced with.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 25 2019 20:18 utc | 38

When I feel this certain I always worry that I'm stepping in it. That's a warning that I might be :D

From Wikipedia's "Demography of the United States":

The United States is the third most populous country in the world with an estimated population of 328,915,700 as of May 20, 2019.

From outside the US I can with confidence say that outrageous polls can be found anywhere.

Have they done a poll on how many people answer polls truthfully?

1. Government and media vilifies nation(s) etc. for half a century plus.
2. Pollster calls you on your telephone and essentially asks if you agree with all those governments of "yours" on this issue over that time, perhaps all the way since you were born or way before that.
3. Most people might answer yes or similar (for all sorts of reasons).
4. I am not surprised :D

Maybe most of them really mean it but if they didn't I don't see any reason why that would be reported. I know I would say no but I also know that I am not at all representative of anyone except me (and sometime not even that since I can change my mind or be in doubt).

Do I believe in and trust the pollster, whoever paid for the poll, and whoever published the poll? Nope. They can write anything they like, paper (and digital) is nice that way, anyone can write whatever they want and it becomes a reality all onto its own.

(People complain about the internet, about video games, about movies, but a lot of people still don't seem to be entirely aware that books and any writing can be pure fiction even if it claims otherwise although the same has always been true for speech).

Then there's the issue of how convenient it is to reinforce an idea by publishing poll results that support or normalize it or simply mention it to goad people into being more likely to talk about it or give cover to mass dissemination and popularization.

The message I get from that poll is that someone wants everyone to think a nuclear attack is okay or not such a big deal, and perhaps also that US citizens are bloodthirsty morons (and thus everyone is played like a fiddle, everyone gets something to chew on, everyone gets their hate on —not much different to choosing between for example Democrats and Republicans or Pepsi and Coke).

Someone paid money to achieve that, it was worth something to them.

And then there's weighing the poll... how many factors do they take into account to get a "representative" score? What are the error bars for each? Error bars are multiplicative so tiny nudges on ten out of a hundred should be able to give you anything you want. There's always somewhere to hide the manipulation whether or not there was any actual polling done.

By the way 3000 respondents isn't a lot compared to almost 329 million people. It is close to asking 1 in 1 hundred thousand …at least around here that is lottery odds for the smaller payouts :P

That's what we're getting worked up about, minimum lottery wins ;)

Pollsters are the telemarketers of the-powers-that-be :)

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 25 2019 20:18 utc | 39

This poll seems off to me.
I read pretty much anything and everything and there is an article in (yes I know it's a rag) (the link is too long to post) on a call by Ben Shapiro for a strike on Iran and the comments (which are rough) it lists and received (also rough) to me represents a good example of the crowd this poll supposedly questioned.
The issue being discussed in the article is a strike on Iran but my guess is they would have felt the same about a strike on NK; the readership is violently opposed. Could be wrong, maybe they would be up for a NK strike, but worth consideration.

Posted by: frances | Jun 25 2019 20:26 utc | 40

Hoarsewhisperer @8

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are famous for the "Doomsday Clock". They have a long history of warning about the proximity of nuclear war (the "Doomsday Clock" has been maintained since 1947). MSM now ignores the "Doomsday Clock".

There is nothing to suggest anything other than their intention is to investigate the American citizen's predilection for support/acceptance of a nuclear war launched by their (the US) government. The scenario (around North Korea) is merely incidental.

"The Doomsday Clock" is currently set at 2 minutes to midnight, as it was in 1953 (which is the closest to midnight that the clock has been set).

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has probably tried to get greater attention by incorporating climate change issues, but their main focus is the liklihood of nuclear war.

If a war is launched against Iran and it doesn't go well (it won't) then the use of nuclear weapons is (imo) a virtual certainty.

The "Doomsday Clock" is a powerful image which TPTB definitely do not want in the media. You may have read "Watchmen" by Alan Moore, or seen the movie; the "Doomsday Clock" is depicted throughout with po-faced white-coated scientists moving the hands of the clock ever closer to midnight.

Your characterisation of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is unfair. Their report is intended as a warning.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 20:27 utc | 41

@james, #11 // @SharonM #14
Yes, I have also concluded that the war machine is the sum total of the people for whom it's "just a job". Lots of Nuremberg-lite defenses from the ranks of the pros. Keep at it and give them no quarter. It also exposes Putin's Syria strategy (does he even still have one?) for wishful thinking: reining in bullies by being extra nice to them--didn't South Park once show how ridiculous that is? If you don't dare punch the orcs in the nose, they won't care about anything else you do; in fact they'll hardly notice.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 20:33 utc | 42

I see a number of commentators do not believe the poll.

I remember when CND was active, the Greenham Common women, the protests against war the biggest of which was the 2002/3 protest against the war against Iraq in 2002/3.

There is nothing like that now in the US, UK or any western nation. It is obvious that the restraints on government (in terms of starting wars) have never been weaker. It is not because we are stupid, or unaware, or misled - we know that we will be complicit (posting on MoA isn't a mitigating factor). The US/west are getting ready to attack Iran, to commit a war crime, and we are going along with it.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 20:37 utc | 43

@ James no. 11

I also recall that Lang supported the 2011 Nato bombing of Libya, at least initially.

Posted by: sleepy | Jun 25 2019 20:39 utc | 44

Ma Laoshi
I have noticed Russia tends to hope for the best and plan for the worst. Hoping for the best is public, and planning for the worst is done quietly and out of sight.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 25 2019 20:40 utc | 45

albagen @30, 33 &34--

Patrushev's comment was posted to the previous thread where it was discussed briefly. Yes, his clarification of Russia/Iran relationship is extremely important given what Putin has said relative to Russia's defense perspective regarding nations determined to be allies. It would seem this is the third time over the past several months when high ranking members of TrumpCo were told in no uncertain terms that Iran rated protection under Russia's nuclear umbrella, which is why I stated Trump's Obliteration Pawn would soon be toppled and his King put back into check (Yes, it's a long running narrative/theme I'm using as metaphor), which is what Patrushev did.

As for the topic of this thread, events ought to make it absolutely crystal clear that The Outlaw US Empire is not to be trusted about anything of importance. Such status ought to remain until the point where the United States of America finally ceases to be an Outlaw Nation and has proven it can be trusted again--a point that will take decades to occur once it's no longer possible for an oligarchy to retake control of the nation: perhaps not until the 22nd Century. Yes, that's a long time for Koreans to wait for a Peace Treaty since they'd like to begin reunification now.

IMO, a better poll would ask in what ways should the USA help Koreans reunify.

An even better poll IMO would be: Since the current Iran crisis was triggered by Trump's withdrawal from JCPOA, is his belligerence toward Iran justified?

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 25 2019 20:41 utc | 46

@Hoarsewhisperer #8
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is drawn from people from the universities and National Labs etc. Can I still trust any US institution? No I can't; not any more. But they're not some crude Beltway outfit on the payroll of Abu Dhabi etc. One difference with the "spin tanks" is that they actually know something: at least on the side of nuke and missile physics, their expertise is probably as good as anyone's. You couldn't say the same thing about your typical rent-a-jew "Middle East Security" wingnut-welfare outfit.

See also ADKC, #40: if these folks give a dire warning, I'd at least hear them out.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 20:42 utc | 47

#6 KC

You said:
"I would bet you large sums of money that it was people with your particular politics aka mostly Trump supporters who made up the 33 or so % of people that would approve of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Pyongyang."

My particular politics? LOL....... NOT!

I haven't voted in years. No one on either side was qualified nor gave one hoot about the nation. Same goes for the upcoming election. No Sir,,, I don't fall into the two party system. Both have the same agenda,,, just a different approach. As for Trump,,, he is remarkably ignorant for a supposed business person.

Now for those indoctrinated kids graduating from our skools. I would imagine that 33% might be rascally Republicans. And equating today's Republicans with those of a generation or so ago is not wise and doesn't mean these new Republicans somehow escaped Corpgovs / media indoctrination.

The USA has done nothing but wage wars around the planet since the end of WWII. None, Zero, Zip, Nada was necessary for the security of this or any other nation. Today I tire of the never ending talk of war, invasions, regime changes, color revolutions and so on. As a Vietnam vet I hauled many a dying and dead Americans back to hospitals. 58,000 dead,,, 100s of thousands wounded, and today we import their clothing and other goods. So they died,,, why?????

The fact that war is constantly talked about and considered proves to me that skools and media are indoctrinating the children to be warmongers.

Thus I am not surprised many would actually entertain another war against another nation that did absolutely nothing to us.

And you may call me an idiot all you want,,, I agree with the 1st amendment of a Constitution that has been eviscerated.

Posted by: ken | Jun 25 2019 20:43 utc | 48

American civlians along with politicians support nuclear strikes on North Korea but it is North Korea that must remove any nukes. YOu cannot make this up!

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 25 2019 20:44 utc | 49

Tucker Carlson is wrong. Trump will need to run as a War President to win reelection. Americans have a deep thirst for another war as the Empire fades and crumbles. A costly, extravagant and foolish war is exactly what we need to lift our spirits and prolong the illusion that we are supreme. A war with N. Korea or Iran has the full support of the MSM, the ruling elites, the majority of Congress and MIC. There are no anti-war protests anywhere in sight.

Americans don't have a history of ever electing a new President in the midst of a war no matter how unpopular the war or the incumbent. Timing the onset of war with Iran is now the only question to maximize its impact on Trump's bid for a second term. He must win a second term to avoid criminal prosecution by his potential replacement.

His personal survival is at stake and this will override any misgivings he has about starting a new Middle East conflict. It's his only way to stay in power given his current approval rating.

To that fact, he has built himself a perfect box that leads only to war with Iran. His hilarious efforts to try appear reasonable after tearing up a peace treaty, declaring economic war, violating sovereign territory, calling for regime change, and suing for peace by demanding they surrender weapons they never had in the first place is textbook theatre designed to make war the only alternative.

One the plus side, if a major war is what you grave, the sophisticated defenses of Iran will make this an excellent tool-sharpening drill for bigger encounters with Russia and China.

Posted by: RenoDino | Jun 25 2019 20:47 utc | 50

@Hoarsewhisperer #8 // @ADKC #40
Should've also mentioned that Iron Maiden's "Two Minutes to Midnight" is in reference to their Doomsday Clock. Now I'm a Baroque music guy but I have to say: this image of the Reaper licking his bony chops in anticipation of bulk delivery of fresh souls--Heavy Metal was created to set that to music. Chilling.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 20:47 utc | 51


What? You have never heard of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? Its a legitimate organization you know?

Posted by: Zanon | Jun 25 2019 20:47 utc | 52

@Peter AU 1 #44
One of the benefits of posting on MoA is the counterpoint of people more optimistic than myself. A bunch of things I wouldn't mind being wrong about.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 20:52 utc | 53

@43. The Colonel loved the attack on Libya. He was all set to go over there....saw himself in a jeep at the head of the 'rebel' army liberating Tripoli. That's when I got banned from SST.

Posted by: dh | Jun 25 2019 20:54 utc | 54

A majority of Americans support mass murder and genocide?

Who would have thought?

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jun 25 2019 20:59 utc | 55

@ 30 @45 karlof1 mentions, it was discussed some on a previous thread, but hereis the link to the article you refer to if others are curious to read some of Patrushev's comments..

@ 41 ma laoshi / @ 43 sleepy / (@53dh and etc).. thanks.. it's an important consideration.. someone like pat lang has had his whole life to see how it works and still doesn't get it.. he might have a high iq, but it is all for naught as i see it.. the guy is essentially braindead when it comes right down to it on some really key levels... and, he is a mouthpiece for encouraging a particular outlook in others, some of who hang out at moa, so it is worth ragging on as i see it..

Posted by: james | Jun 25 2019 21:02 utc | 56

ken @47

"The fact that war is constantly talked about and considered proves to me that skools and media are indoctrinating the children to be warmongers."

Yes, this is what is happening. It has been happening since 2001.

An 8 year old child in 2001 is now an adult of 29 years. There will be a flow through of 20 years of "war children" into adulthood (and more to come) that will be far larger, prolonged, influential, etc. than the effect that the baby boomers had. I suspect that the US has brought to bear it's leading and long acquired understanding and expertise of psychology and behaviourialism onto the "war children". I suspect that this is the great culmination of the US' psychological experiments on individuals and groups and that the NSA are in control of this experiment (what else do they actually do?). The intended outcome? A generation more prone to violence but also more compliant?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 21:06 utc | 57

@James 55

Link leads to an empty page

Posted by: CarlD | Jun 25 2019 21:06 utc | 58

The poll is useless except as an indication of the fantasies of the neo-cons. As an early poster points out a nuclear attack on Pyongyang would also be an attack on both Russia and China. And they would not tolerate it. The US government must be aware of this.
The United States hasn't won a war since it beat Grenada, including a couple of dozen Cuban construction workers. That is why there are US troops and US paid mercenaries all over the globe-they are there to make sure that the slender gains of elaborate and expensive military campaigns do not dissolve as angry victims rise up against their oppressors. Iraq is a perfect example of this. It is just a matter of time before the helipads in the Green Zone evacuate the last remnants of the occupation regime/ally.
But perhaps Pyongyang, known a century ago as the Jerusalem of East Asia, has a special appeal for impatient 'christian' zionists tired of waiting for Armageddon.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 25 2019 21:17 utc | 60

that's a rather disconcerting poll... Especially if you believe that citizens can have any effect at all on decisions by the Political/Military Elites or the president or the executive branch of the US government.

consider this new poll, which is much more optimistic, meaning more anti-war, about another country where the likelihood of attack is even more pronounced recently, Iran:
Poll Shows Strong Majority of Americans Oppose Attacking Iran

....A majority remained against an attack in all parties, and all age groups, with 67% of Democrats calling for non-military options, 54 percent of independents, and a slight majority of Republicans.

Poll: 24 percent of voters want military action against Iran

....A large number of participants, 19 percent, said they were unsure what they wanted the U.S. to do next.

...The majority of voters, 58 percent, preferred a non-military response to Iran's shooting down of a U.S. spy drone. Forty-nine percent of voters said they wanted a negotiated end to the recent hostilities while 9 percent said that Trump should make no action.

....Sixty-seven percent of Democrats said they wanted negotiations or no response while 54 percent of independents said the same.

The poll also found that older participants, those 65 and above, were the age group most averse to going to war with Iran. Sixty percent said they wanted the U.S. to seek a negotiated end to hostilities while another 4 percent wanted no American response.....

Posted by: michaelj72 | Jun 25 2019 21:20 utc | 61

American students, beginning in kindergarten are immersed in fake history with USA always the benevolent actor against an aggressive dictator, communism, brutal regime, etc.

As someone above pointed out, the poll and its results are intended to soften up the participants and anyone paying attention to it to the idea of a nuclear bmob attack, not on NK, but upon Iran.

As Iran is on the minds of "politically astute" FOX and CNN viewers, a poll with the same queries regarding Iran would not produce the high degree of positive responses sought. That would hit to close to home. It's too real and seems much more possible.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Jun 25 2019 21:22 utc | 62

polls are meant to massage peoples brains.. i think everyone knows that... these ones appear to have been paid for by the neocon koolaid drinkers which is quite typical.. keep on doing a poll until you get the results you want, then release the info to the public..

Posted by: james | Jun 25 2019 21:28 utc | 63

@james #55
Oh Pat Lang gets it alright. It's not his brain that died, you see: while I don't literally believe in the soul, it may yet be the best word to use. Military training doesn't just teach you how to clean your rifle; it nurtures the sociopathic side we all have, but which many others of us try to fight. He got out with a nice senior rank and all his limbs still attached, so why should he care about the dumb fucks who didn't know to shoot him first?

John Helmer is not exactly a rah-rah type nor a dogmatic Kremlin booster, but he also concludes that only force can protect the Russian Federation, because the orcs just.don' about anything else.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 21:29 utc | 64

Further to the very salient post by Don Bacon (16) , the following is a short (<2Min)
video of life at US mega base Camp Humphreys, 80 Km from the North Korean Border.
It would be a prime NK target if hostilities broke out - no need for sophisticated
rocket technology - a truck containing a rudimentary nuclear weapon would suffice.
Its also an indication of the cast iron grip the Pentagon has on matters South Korean.

Posted by: DavidKNZ | Jun 25 2019 21:33 utc | 65

Zanon @51

I am not surprised that Hoarsewhisperer was unaware. Many are. This is because the "Doomsday Clock" has been virtually expunged from the media (even the internet*) as has the CND image. Even "Hair" a movie which has great songs, vocal performances, dances, story, etc. that should put it in the class of the best musicals of all times is virtually unknown (because it has a strong anti-war message). (*Re: the internet - You can find these things if you look, but you are not going to come across them by accident or tangentially.)

When was the last time the MSM reported on the "Doomsday Clock"? Even though it is updated annually, with accompanying press releases and when we are living in times of heightened tension!

It is more helpful and honest to admit that this "knowledge", "history" is being hidden and eradicated and to ask those that should know or have forgotten (like Hoarsewhisperer and, I would include, myself) to reflect on why they don't know or have forgotten? IMO it is the eradication of the history of the peace movement and that this is required as part of the war agenda. Don't be embarrassed about not knowing or having forgotten; be angry instead!

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 21:36 utc | 66

@Bevin #59
In very recent years, the US has had not one but two Saigon helipad moments: in Libya and Yemen. Once the means of coercion and bribery had crumbled, the local constituency who believed "Wait, the Americans are our friends, because freedom" -- let's just say those voices didn't carry the day.

Very telling of our media that these events aren't generally known as such. Combine ever-expanding message control with fading military prowess (at least relative to others), and that precious tether connecting you to reality starts to unravel.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Jun 25 2019 21:42 utc | 67


Yes,,, never have I heard so much 'war talk'. In the 60' & 70s many anti-war demonstrations.... today zero. Some attribute that to the fact there was a draft,,, maybe so but I also think the schools and media were fairly antiwar as many colleges of the day sponsored demonstrations.

In my first post (#4) I did not come across the way I wanted and caught some flak. Imo the school children are heavily indoctrinated today to the point where they are now demanding the Constitution be thrown out because it is somehow racist. This can only be a result from being indoctrinated. It's so bad the school in S. Florida where a shooting occurred was allowed to go to Washington to push gun control. These were high school children. We should not politicize children nor indoctrinate them with different agendas.

Schools should school and school only.

Posted by: ken | Jun 25 2019 21:43 utc | 68

@RenoDino | Jun 25, 2019 4:47:00 PM | 49

Trump will need to run as a War President to win reelection. Americans have a deep thirst for another war as the Empire fades and crumbles .... Americans don't have a history of ever electing a new President in the midst of a war no matter how unpopular the war or the incumbent.

Why wasn't Lyndon Johnson reelected? According to you, he was a war president and therefore guaranteed another term. So why did he move out of the White House?

The answer, of course, is that Vietnam was becoming a quagmire, and the number of Americans returning in body bags was reaching a maximum in 1967-68.

LBJ actually started his reelection bid, but he was humiliated early. Contrary to your assertion that he would have won the vote, regardless of how successful the war was, Johnson was placing FOURTH in the primaries. Humiliating. So he quit.

The lesson for Trump, of course, is that he would be seriously risking his reelection if he starts a war -- regardless of what the Zionists like to think.

Posted by: Cyril | Jun 25 2019 21:56 utc | 69

For All--

I've posted a machine translation of an article in Russian reviewing Patrushev's critical Jerusalem talks That can be read here. The most important point was already provided above--Iran's indeed considered an Ally by Russia, and all that implies--but there are other important points made that deserve learning about and incorporating into our understanding of relations between Russia, Occupied Palestine, and the Outlaw US Empire.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 25 2019 21:57 utc | 70

WHO ARE SURVEYORS ??? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and British research firm YouGov, The whole thing saems "too convenient" specially supicious anything publihed by the Washington Post.

Posted by: opereta | Jun 25 2019 22:01 utc | 71

I doubt the survey. I am an American living in a conservative area, and I doubt even here a majority of us would approve of a preemptive nuclear strike under the stated conditions. Remember it's in the MIC's (and thus their pet media's) interest to make Americans seem as warlike as possible to each other in hopes it'll catch on. But in fact most of us, even extremely conservative ones, are moving away from the whole war idea. Polling is an art, one that can be skewed artfully in any direction desired, with the application of sufficient skill and resources. And the war state has the resources to apply the talents of the most skillful personnel existing.

I doubt the survey.

Posted by: Alan McLemore | Jun 25 2019 22:05 utc | 72

I feel the Doomsday Clock would never reach midnight, simply because of its predictive purpose. In the eye of the forward looking scientists, the world is less than 120 seconds from it's own doom.

Lysander @13- The divide in this nation is such that I can say with relative sincerity a large bloc of American citizenry would be just fine with retaliatory bombings, as long as those targeted cities were blue state Democratic hubs.

Posted by: Summer Diaz | Jun 25 2019 22:07 utc | 73

I have written down some superb opinions from the last 4 days of conversation here on MoA and asked coworkers for their opinions...and they shrugged their shoulders and said "huh?"...and I live right down the street from FE Warren AFB. I am not optimistic.

Posted by: JerichoCheyenne | Jun 25 2019 22:10 utc | 74

To my mind, there has been a disturbing misreading of this poll by many of the commentators on this blog.

The reason why the poll is about North Korea (which is really just incidental) is that when the poll was being prepared it was the conflict "issue" that had most recently concerned the US. The articles that respondents were asked to comment on were all plausible variations but did not reflect an objective truth about the North Korean issue; the survey was designed to tease out American attitudes about the use of nuclear weapons (i.e. it is not really about North Korea). The preparation and the designs for the polls were careful and time was taken; it was not a rushed opinion poll; it was intended to follow a scientific method.

Some suggest that the poll would be different if it was undertaken now about Iran; now that would have shown a spike, of some sort, in public opinion affected by the current situation and would lose relevance next week; but it would not have been possible to apply the same method in such an unplanned, short space of time; commentators are suggesting an entirely different type of poll for a different purpose. Again, the survey is not about North Korea or Iran but about the underlying attitudes of Americans to the use of nuclear weapons.

To those that consider the survey to be funded by neo-cons, how does this conclusion fit in with a neo-con agenda?:

"Economists, political scientists, and scientists working together developed the intellectual arguments in favor of nuclear arms control in the early 1960s and convinced the public that agreements were worth pursuing. Physicists and computer scientists were critical in increasing public support for the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the late 1960s and scepticism about the Reagan Administration’s “Star Wars” program in the 1980s. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs received Nobel Peace Prizes in part for their successful efforts to increase public awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons.

"This survey experiment shows that this mission has not been accomplished. It is time for a renewed effort at mass public nuclear education."

Answer: It is not at all what neo-cons support!

Perhaps commentators could at least read the report before attacking it?

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 22:13 utc | 75

ken @67--

Schools indoctrinate; that's their function within society. They also so somethings known as socialize and enculturate, which are words having the same meaning as indoctrinate. I know those things since I once was a teacher. As for the Constitution being racist, how would you describe the 3/5s Clause, how relations with Native Americans were characterized, or the qualifications for holding office? I'm not asking you these to get a dig in at you; rather, I'm asking you to ponder and try to come up with an answer you can truthfully give to a 6th, 8th, 10th, or 12th grader, which are those grades when US History and/or civics are taught. An even tougher issue/question is that of Race--is there just one Human Race or are there somehow several that are still able to sexually reproduce? (Hint, a different Race implies different species and all that entails.) Then the hot topic nowadays: How does one obtain one's gender? It's not as simple as XX/Xy thanks to how testosterone and estrogen are applied in the womb. (An excellent explanation of how it all works and the dangers of chemicals to the process is within Our Stolen Future.)

Teaching isn't easy, and today it's harder than it ever was within the USA. And it doesn't look to get easier anytime soon.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 25 2019 22:18 utc | 76

Reno-Post 49

Johnson lost because by 1968 it was clear that the Vietnam war was a losing proposition. There were weeks when hundreds of American boys returned in body bags. In the US, presidential popularity peaks at the beginning of any war, no matter how ill conceived it may be. Prior to W's catastrophic invasion of Iraq, the population was driven into a jingoistic frenzy. The day he unleashed "Shock and Awe," the man who was AWOL during the Vietnam war was "standing tall in the saddle." Anyone in the mainstream media who had the temerity to ask a critical question soon found themselves jobless. Trump will succeed as a "war time" president if he can time it so that the body bags don't start returning in significant numbers until after the election.

Posted by: David | Jun 25 2019 22:19 utc | 77

A poll of 3000 people
In a country of 328,915,700
where 33% want to nuke a far country
comes to 3.0098897681077552698153356619949e-6 % of the population

Must be the same amount as are on keto/paleo diets.

DISCLAIMER: I've been doing keto for three years now, but still hate war as much as I did when I saw a picture of a Vietnamese girl who was my age at the time, running down the road with her clothes burned off.

And I still have only one Axiom about WAR:

no one ever wins.
Not even the winners.

But I guess maybe next year my high-fat diet will turn me into a slobbering neocon hawk?

Posted by: laughingsong | Jun 25 2019 22:26 utc | 78

@63 ma laoshi.. yes - no problem with his brain, but a very serious problem somewhere else as you say - soul- or whatever.. it is part of the usa military indoctrination process it seems... regarding your @66, wasn't somalia another one of those examples? i lose track given the constant war mantra emanating from the usa..

@74 adkc.. from your link - "The survey produced some reassuring results. Most Americans, for example, do not want the United States to launch a preventive war against North Korea. But our survey also showed that a large hawkish minority lurks within the US public; over a third of respondents approve of a US preventive strike across scenarios. For many of these hawks, support for an attack, even in a preventive war, does not significantly decrease when the story says that the United States would use nuclear weapons that are expected to kill 1 million North Korean civilians."

and a bit further down "The final piece of discouraging news is how deeply misinformed Americans are about US offensive and defensive military capabilities." and further on "We also found that Trump supporters are particularly likely to hold these dangerous misperceptions." and lastly

" This polling exercise demonstrates that the majority of Americans do not want President Trump to return to threats to attack North Korea. But the polls also highlight, for better or worse, a strong retributive streak in US public opinion. And the data confirm that some Americans lack any sense of a nuclear taboo, and some appear to hold a kind of atomic attraction.

The results also display how poorly informed the public is about nuclear weapons, missile defense, and North Korea. Scientists and social scientists are unlikely to be able to change the moral and strategic instincts in the hearts of the American public. But they can communicate the facts and, therefore, influence the calculations of an informed public."

selectively quoting.. my apologies.. adkc link is here again -

Posted by: james | Jun 25 2019 22:36 utc | 79

Summer Diaz @72

The "Doomsday Clock" would appear to be predictive but it is not. It is intended to be an objective assessment of where the worlds stands at that particular moment in time. It follows that the "Doomsday Clock" could only be ever moved to midnight the day after a nuclear war has commenced (but I doubt that would be a priority for anyone left alive).

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 22:37 utc | 80

that link is the same link b shared at the bottom of his post fwiw..

Posted by: james | Jun 25 2019 22:38 utc | 81

It seems to me that the third of Americans in polls who would support attacking North Korea is the same thing as 2/3 of Americans NOT supporting attacking Iran in other polls.
1/3 of Americans are gung ho pyscho killers, ready to attack any target they are pointed at, like the pit bulls they like to train to attack on command.
5% of Americans are anti-interventionists, opposed to just about any attack on any target, no matter how much propaganda is slung their way. Those are the four or five people you see standing on the street corners, holding up peace signs, as the rest of the country waves flags, cheers on the explosions of the capital city of the target, and screams "USA, USA".
The swing population, the 62% who oppose the newest war until properly prepared with marination in war propaganda, are the targets of the Mighty Wurlitzer, now including the schools, as pointed out above. They are being primed to tip more easily into full-throated roars of approval for mass murder.
The liberals, who used to be slightly more resistant to war propaganda, are having their minds turned to mush by the trans propaganda now being pushed, in which Winston Smith's are taught to look at men and swear out loud to Big Brother that they now see women. This is especially being pushed in the schools, because children's sense of reality is more malleable.
Once they have been conditioned to change pronouns on command, support censorship and physical attacks on dissenters, and the rest of the agenda, they will much more easily be swayed to attack other countries. Especially if women and transwomen are allowed to "serve"! Inclusiveness is so very important to imperialism.

Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 25 2019 22:47 utc | 82

ken @67,

I hate to attack someone's religion but I'm going to be blunt: the Constitution was designed to create an aristocracy accountable in only the most superficial, ineffectual way to the people at large. Those who were scared of mob rule were only concerned for their own wealth, and propagated infantilization and learned helplessness for the non-"opulent" as a matter of national identity.

Hard pass. It's well past time to scrap it and copy any of the hundreds of national charters that give REAL rights to the whole people. Take, for instance, Iran's constitution, which envisions something more than a continent-wide labor camp run by planters:

the plan for the national economy must be structured in such a manner that the form, content, and hours of work of every individual will allow him sufficient leisure and energy to engage, beyond his professional endeavor, in intellectual, political, and social activities leading to all-round developmentof his self, to take active part in leading the affairs of the country, improve his skills, and to make full use of his creativity;

Americans are the proudest, most arrogant slaves on the planet. Their pride and arrogance is exceeded only by their master.

Summer Diaz @72,

As a tankie I totally understand them. Bourgeois liberals are right wingers with pretensions of nobility and they need a good punch in the mouth for what they've done to the rest of us while enjoying the privileges of their class.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jun 25 2019 22:56 utc | 83


Allow me to say this at risk of being moderated/censored - Stop being an idiot.

Posted by: KC | Jun 25, 2019 2:15:51 PM | 6

Easier said than done. Although there is a hope that Ken made wrong and reversible choices of chemicals to ingest.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 25 2019 23:05 utc | 84

@wagelaborer #81
"Inclusiveness is so very important to imperialism."
Wow, that's a statement I've never heard of before.
Nor do I agree with it.
England's height of colonialism was the Victorian Age - were the Victorians considered inclusive?
What about Belgium's King and the Congo?

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 25 2019 23:10 utc | 85

ADKC we're all different and see things differently, one thing the muslims got right for sure is that each human is its own universe.

I don't keep track of MSM but RT had a report on the Doomsday Clock being updated during the last year or so.

The following is anecdotal but it can't not be. I grew up with the Doomsday Clock as well as Iron Maiden and Watchmen and a lot more. I listened to a lot of thrash (and speed, death, and black) metal and bands like Megadeth (named from the metric called megadeath), Nuclear Assault, and Overkill are a few off the top off my head with names more or less directly referencing nuclear weapons. Possibly Suicidal Tendencies and Annihilator as well but maybe not. Nuclear war was a common theme among others in names, titles, lyrics, and covers.

Nuclear annihilation without warning was part of ordinary life, where I grew up any warning was and is a bad joke: barely time enough to die from a heart attack or start a cigarette before any warheads would arrive. Nuclear weapons, war, and MAD were simply facts just as much as trees, birds, or taxes.

Don't get me wrong on the following; I don't doubt that there are a hell of a lot well-intentioned, nice, good, and so on people involved in all the peace movements and likely also BotAS but the clock is still Public Relations nonsense and I have to say that no peace movement (unless the music counts and that would be …an unusual claim lol) gave any kind of positive impression. To me it seemed they were all unintentionally extremely good at making a lot of people almost instinctively shy away from them; so no, silence or lack of protest did not and does not constitute approval. All the people who didn't march around didn't want to die either.

You know who loved either courting them or playing off the peace movement, for or against, and still do? Politicians. The circus has been in town longer than any of us.

So I still don't think the poll is worth its weight in bytes and I still see no reason to trust their motivations or anything at all because the vast majority of people who hear about this poll won't ever hear about never mind read the report and they know that nor does any kind of spin change the result they said they got and the result is what attracts interest and is used.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Jun 25 2019 23:21 utc | 86

Jonathan @82

I am not an American but I do have concerns about the foundations on which the US society has been built, principally genocide and slavery. But, this is for adults to deal with. It is bizarre for it to be considered acceptable to teach children to overthrow/scrap the US constitution; it is a cowardly act by adults who refuse to put themselves on the line. It is also likely to backfire as children grow up and perceive that they have been manipulated.

However, I do not believe that that is what is really going on. I believe a compliant (not a revolutionary) generation is being raised (see my post @47). I think you will be sorely disappointed at the outcome as will anyone who relies on children to sort out their problems for them.

karlof1 @75

You have done great work in analysing the event around the attacks on the tankers, so please don't take the following too much to heart. Your description of what it is like to teach is truly bizarre. I have heard such descriptions from other teachers. This is nothing like the experience I had when I was at school. I did come across a course of a similar nature in further education (in my late teens) and every single prediction, about what society was going to be like, turned out to be completely wrong. I am retired now and the wonderful things promised only appear to exist as abstract concepts taught to even younger children. I understand that you worked hard as a teacher; forgive me for suggesting that you wasted your time (I also wasted all my working life doing something of no consequence).

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 25 2019 23:23 utc | 87

No surprise there. Ever read the comments over on Breitbart? Like the walking dead if they were able to comment

There is a large minority that are part of a cult, posing as Christians, but they are Christians in name only. CINO’s. The illuminated elites goal to destroy or pervert all monotheist religions is pretty much accomplished . The current war on Islam will soon finish off the 3rd leg of the monotheistic stool

Many of the secular folks who voted no have embraced the poison of cultural marxism. So enamored of their own pleasures and concerns they might not know where NK is, but fear a nuclear strike could interrupt power to their vibrators or streaming services .

Morally the US and EU people are in the gutter which is exactly where the satanic cult of the enlightened elite want them

In any event, NK and Iran are convenient enemies. Neither can pose any great threat to Americans or Europeans at home, so attacking them is just more entertainment to enjoy.

China and Russia could threaten them, but out of self interest will stand aside in the event an attack does happen. Perhaps the US cuts a deal and stand aside while they take Taiwan and Eastern Ukraine while the US deals with Iran. NK is probably safe due to its proximity to Seoul , China and Russia

Posted by: Pft | Jun 25 2019 23:43 utc | 88

ciue@ 84
I was being sarcastic, as I channeled the liberal zeitgeist, in which as long as the CEOs of the merchants of death corporations are women and/or people of color, and as long as the US military pays for hormones and plastic surgery for the men who decide they are actually women, it's, as they say, "all good". They wear rainbows and cheer on such soldiers, ignoring the devastation they cause to targeted victims.
Perhaps you don't have such people in your country.

Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 25 2019 23:44 utc | 89

@ ADKC who wrote
(I also wasted all my working life doing something of no consequence)

I am 70 and have been living a line in a Bob Dylan song "Its Alright Ma" from the late 60's you may want to consider.....Those not busy being born are busy dying.

I, for one, appreciate the educational efforts that karlof1 provide to knowledge hungry MoA barflies and encourage him to continue wasting his time doing so.....please and thank you

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 25 2019 23:45 utc | 90

So, Russia considers Iran an ally ....

With that kind of support, I see even less reason why Iran would engage in a highly risky campaign of "stealth attacks".

PS No doubt USA already knew or suspected a Russia-Iranian alliance that went beyond the alliance of convenience in Syria. Still, they pushed the propaganda that Iran was behind the shipping attacks and Western MSM have suggested that such Iranian attacks would continue.

Note: We had a report (on an earlier thread) that Russia was going to include Iran in its Russian-SWIFT system and could also engage in oil trade.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 25 2019 23:48 utc | 91

@wagelaborer #88
Fair enough, and my apologies.
My personal view is that this focus on multiculturalism/inclusion is simply a liberal oligarch's version of "divide and conquer".
Or to put it more bluntly: get half of the poor to kill the other half, so the top can be secure.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 26 2019 0:03 utc | 92

@Jackrabbit #90
Russia can built whatever SWIFT alternative it wants, but ultimately Europe and China have to be willing to use it - to the point of endangering both their SWIFT ties and their trade with the US.
The problem isn't operational - it is geopolitical.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 26 2019 0:04 utc | 93

Sunny Runny Berger @85

I have made the point that there is no peace movement anymore; that there is no real protest movement that will act in a brake on war. Unfortunately, that means the responsibility for stopping the war now lies with me and you (there's no one to do it on our behalf).

You're wrong about the "Doomsday Clock" it is a very powerful image and still largely untainted and uncorrupted.

You are blaming the peace movement itself for your failure to get involved or do anything? They've all gone away, so you're free to do whatever is it the peace movement was stopping you from doing.

I don't really know what it is you are trying to say. The peace movement almost certainly believed they were representing, and had the support of, people who were not actually present marching alongside them. Maybe they began to believe they were isolated and had no support and just stopped marching. Maybe they all got too old and died.

Trusting or not trusting is irrelevant (or, at best, secondary). Have you considered that there are people who didn't/don't want you to trust the peace movement or the "Doomsday Clock"?

Every person chooses what they believe, or don't believe in. When you say you don't trust the report you really mean that you don't believe in what the report says. Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that you have actually read the report.

Essentially, the report boils down to saying a substantial minority of Americans would countenance a nuclear preemptive (first) strike.

You obviously believe that there would never be a nuclear war? Forgetting that there has already been a nuclear war. To remind you this was a war crime committed by American against the Japanese in 1945.

Posted by: ADKC | Jun 26 2019 0:07 utc | 94

ADKC @ 40, 42 and elsewhere:

I noticed that this YouGov poll was conducted as an online survey.

Online surveys are likely to miss the views of Americans who may not have regular access to the Internet, and those Americans may include the very poor, the homeless, prisoners and other marginalised groups. For various reasons of their own (such as, some of these people being vets with war-related health issues) the people in these groups may have the most negative views of war and its effects.

Plus who knows if online anonymity and the design of the online poll (multiple choice? a range of choices from 1 to 10 or strongly disagree to strongly agree?) may influence a person's opinions when filling out the survey?

Posted by: Jen | Jun 26 2019 0:07 utc | 95


Conscription was a big nono, armies have become professional.

Boomers boomed, the world opened and they were rewarded with the profits, it keeps them quiet. Glam-rock and tecno anyone?

Cold war "ended" with the Berlin wall, dissolution of USSR.

China moved towards state capitalism and opened some.

Global communication increased dramatically, figure in the 80s even we were on telex and seconds of delay on simple long distance phone calls.

The mindset is absorbed in this social global reality, the wars are described as of containment, sanitised, distant.

Individualism, state control of social infrastructure, dissolution of patriarchy to a less criticisable matriarchy or technarchy or neutrarchy or something , atomisation of society, etc.

2003 was to me the obvious point of inflection, it was kept out of direct public theater by being theatre , it set a precedent. These wars "aren't ours", we don't count, the government is not ours, nor our countries ( from point of view of would be opposition, a great cognitive dissonance).

Nuclear weapons, "but they keep the peace, or do you want to go back to before, the first four and half decades of last century?"

We just have to behave, and it will be good, it's just a shame that large shooting stars put me on edge, my bad.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 26 2019 0:08 utc | 96

Psychological seeding: In the same way that the limpet mine episode was designed to put the question out there "Could Iran be guilty?", this survey is designed to put the question out there "Could nuking Iran be an option?". Neither the limpet episode or survey are quality pieces of work, so they can be dismissed as a serious policy position or threat, but the residue is the question and once that seed is sown, it becomes easier to build into a wave of opinion. And, in this case, who better to sow that seed than an organisation that appears to be working against nuclear war.

Posted by: aspnaz | Jun 26 2019 0:14 utc | 97

Board of Directors at YouGov who undertook the poll, for anyone who is interested.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 26 2019 0:15 utc | 98

ADKC @86

Thanks for your reply! Prior to retraining to teach, I worked in the Food Services Industry for 25 years doing everything from dishwashing to multiunit management to fine dining. My collegiate training was termed Social-Studies/History Secondary Education with an ESL endorsement. Overall, I earned four degrees all of which became useless in my life's path--I only taught for 5 years, between the ages of 45-50, and at the collegiate level, never in Secondary schools. I'm a child of teachers going back 3 generations. And where I grew up, was socialized, enculturated and indoctrinated was close to unique to the general American Experience. I learned later in life that I was quite fortunate, and that fortune mostly continues to shine. But a great deal of sadness also occupies my life living within one of the alltime greatest oppressors of humanity and being fairly well handcuffed when it comes to changing that reality. Now, back to our show!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 26 2019 0:19 utc | 99

In regard to today's thread on indoctrination/education/obedience training in the US. It might be interesting to consider how the corporate media refers to the current crop of young people as" generation Z"! They usually go on to report that generation Z is bewildered and depressed!

Posted by: NOBTS | Jun 26 2019 0:19 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.