57% want America to take military action against North Korea
57% of American voters favor a military response to North Korea’s rocket launch.
Rasmussen reports that a majority of Americans want the U.S. government to take military action against North Korea after the communist country launched a long range missile (which landed in what was an epic failure in the middle of the Pacific Ocean).
President Obama condemned the rocket launch in the strongest words possible earlier this weekend. However, he said beforehand he would not order the U.S. military to intercept the North Korean rocket. Instead, Obama waited for the North to make the next move, and said after the rocket was launched that he would ask the United Nations to subject it to tougher sanctions than ever before.
Interestingly, a broad consensus exists among voters: 57% favor a military response, 28% are not sure, while only 15% oppose it. 15% is a remarkably low percentage. Support for military action is, as you’d expect, higher among Republicans (66%) than under Democrats (52%), but the difference is relatively neglible.
You have to wonder whether these percentages will stay the same in the coming days, or whether they will drop. Is it an emotional reaction from the public, or is this simply the way Americans believe the U.S. should respond to enemy regimes gone wild?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
This poll was taken two days before NK launched anything. My concern is that this poll was taken of “likely voters” (see the questions), which I find hardly adequate to get a good response from a cross-section of society on such an issue.
In 1950 President Truman removed General McArthur as commander in the far east, because the Korean War was going badly for the U.S. and McArthur wanted to use nuclear bombs to bomb North Korea. North Korea is not “going wild” to possess nuclear and missile capability. It just has a long memory.
That 57% of America can lead the charge then. Get in there folks! Charge!
What country are you from Ludek? We’ll toss a few your way
Those 57% (and their children) need to go first. Myself, I’m more worried about the actions of my own government (and the local banker) and getting ready for them.
What if – this was the result of a behind the scenes cooperation effort – one of the 3 capable (U.S., Russia and China) actually shot the dang thing out of the sky from orbit using lasers? Mayhap that was why everyone was so very calm afterwards, and unanimously calling for restraint.
Q.E.D. (Provided that ‘Interested’ is from the US, that is.) The threat of, or the actual violence seems always the country’s preferred modus operandi. What was it Madeleine Albright said? “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation.”!
(For the record, I’m from Down Under though born in Europe.)
Evidently, these Americans give little thought to the death, destruction and social ruin that an attack on North Korea would lead to. Its good to remember, what goes around comes around. We are in empire in decline. Our best bet is to show some maturity. There is always an alternative to war. So far N. Korea ha not attacked anybody and, while undesirable, launching a satellite is not a violation of anything. Israel which has hundreds of nuclear weapons has also launched satellites proving it has the capacity for intercontinental strikes. And unlike North Korea, Israel has attacked other countries, almost always under false pretexts. Israel continues to threaten war and to the use of nuclear weapons. Israel has threatened our diplomats with assassination and ruin, attacked the USS Liberty and killed many American sailors, and routinely spies on our nation, often sharing its largess with America’s enemies for profit. Clearly and despite all that Israel has done against our national interest, we do not attack them. A war in North Korea is not in our best interest.
and I care what Albright said…… why exactly? Especially given she was from the apologetic gov’t of Bill Clinton.
Not to worry – your European roots show
@Interested
Ah, a veiled reference to ’surrender monkeys”. huh? Shows where that understanding of the world is coming from… As for the “apologetic gov’t of Bill Clinton”, Clinton has a lot to be apologetic about: being no different from Dubya (other than being articulate) but pretending -just like the present Messiah on the throne- to be an oh-so-reasonable peacemaker while being just another Caesar of the Empire who can brook no defiance of his will (viz. the “humanitarian” bombing campaign against Serbia).
@Bill Clinton
Poland? Not a good example. If you are attacked, of course you fight! Just like the Serbs, Iraqis, Afghans, etc., etc. did and do, even if they do not necessarily like their own leaders. It’s very different from attacking (under false pretenses) a country which doesn’t pose you any threat. It was the US themselves who established the principle, in Nuremberg trials, that an unprovoked aggresive war is a war crime. (No, a possible future, unspecified threat is not a valid reason.)
@Bill Clinton
I agree with you about Albright – it is no matter of pride to me that she was born where I was!
A knowledge of one’s own country’s history would not go astray for anyone who wants staunchly to defend it. I do not subscribe to the “my country right or wrong” ethics. There are things I criticise in both, my native, and my adoptive country. We all should heed what the quote from Theodore Roosevelt (in Michael’s post above) says!
Oh Please we should at least try to be not so transparent. Our unmanned
launch vehicles are all dual use military boosters. We were doing exactly
the same thing before the shuttle. We should be looking real hard at the
criminals on Wall St., in Washington and Tel Aviv that are busily looting the treasury and destroying the economy. The American people should be seeing right through this crude Wag-the-Dog theater and focus on the real
problems before us. These criminals are so disparate to start a war, any war to further distract us while they rob us blind they will stop at nothing. North Korea a threat? Give me a break. At least try to make it believable.
We need a war to get out of the depression. Charge!
Being someone who desires, nay, craves the complete and total destruction of the U.S., I cannot support an attack on North Korea strongly enough. Listen to your people Obama! Bombs away! Don’t be weak! Be a real man! Attack! Kill! Murder! Be an American!
It’s frightening that a majority of Americans want to attack a country for testing missiles. What is wrong with Americans? I’m no expert but I’m sure that America tests missiles too. What is more provocative? Testing missiles, or starting wars and invading nations? Have Americans completely lost their minds? Are Americans so out of touch with reality that they believe a tiny poor country like North Korea is a threat to the 500 pound gorilla that is America? And what bothers me so much is this attitude that America has the moral right to attack any nation that has not attacked her. In this case, N Korea only tested missiles. I’m afraid of America and Americans. Their super power status has corrupted the hearts and minds of average Americans. The true danger to the world is not North Korea, but a superpower that thinks it can do anything it wants with impunity. That is “provocative”, not some stupid little missile test.
57% want military action .. of that 57% around 0% want to be in the action. A nation of chickenhawks. If Korea caused 50,000 US casualties back in the 50s you can bet they will take out a huge chunk again in the event of an attack.
And to KM we have become the arrogant power you describe. Not to mention a bunch of idiots who believe in Iraqi nukes and other fantasies that are spoon fed to us.
I bet the same people who supported during the Iraq invasion. Only problem they are not the one fighting. If America attack NK you can forget about China buying stocks and bonds. China could demand to pay all the money owed to them. Where America getting the money to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan’s war? Where are you going to get the money for the bail-outs? Easy to attack but the major question should be ask; What happened after?
This would be a big mess. If you attack North Korea they will get their revenge on South Korea. With the massive big army and rockets firing into the big city’s…please america for ones dont attack somebody, when your not willing to pay the price yourself!
I think the problem might be that Americans have become so accustomed to hegemony that they assume military action is an easy and cost-free way to respond to countries that they just don’t like.
Fortunately, strategic decisions of this magnitude rarely are influenced by public opinion. Military leaders do not offer counsel to policymakers based on polling data and you can be quite sure that they are honestly outlining the potentially grave strategic consequences of a military action against North Korea. North Korea would pretty much destroy Soeul in its death throes, and 10 million dead is too high a price to pay to lash out against a dyspeptic and dying regime.
What do you mean “as you would expect are Republicans” Open your history books because the vast majority of wars were entered under Democrat Presidents.
Winston Churchill said it best, “The best argument against a democracy is to listen to the average voter for five minutes”. It certainly applies to the folks who think an attack against the N Koreans would be just dandy. Most people don’t know that the Bush administration had all the preparations ready to attack N. Korea in April of 2003. When they got around to telling the S. Koreans about a week before the proposed attack, the answer back was something like this,”WTF are you thinking,if you attack them, they will attack us. We will lose hundreds of thousands dead and Seoul will be destroyed”. The attack was called off. I would have to guess that the 57% who want to attack are those who think professional wrestling is real but they can’t understand why no blood is ever spilled in those violent take downs.
57% of Americans want military action now do they? I’d like to know how many of them actually plan on doing any of the fighting? Never mind that it’s “okay” for America to have nuclear weapons but not other countries of course.
I have my doubts about this poll and I can’t imagin the American people being as stupid as to want an attack on North Korea.. Don’t we ever learn?.. Any attack on North Korea means an attack on South Korea and probley Japan.. I believe we have 35,000 or more troops in South Korea and I can’t belive Americans would put them at risk over another pre emptive strike..
@Michael Merritt The U.S. must respond strongly so these lawless people will understand that there is still a United States of America – which will protect her people against thugs who are threatening with such weaponery. However, Mr. Obama won’t – especially if it doesn’t appear to be in “his” best political interests. He is a globalist, not a nationalist, ie. one who loves and places America first. God Bless America.
The U.S. must respond strongly so these lawless people will understand that there is still a United States of America – which will protect her people against thugs who are threatening with such weaponery. However, Mr. Obama won?t – especially if it doesn?t appear to be in ?his? best political interests. He is a globalist, not a nationalist, ie. one who loves and places America first. God Bless America.
@Michael Merritt
It doesn’t say too much about our IQ does it? Our economy is tanking largely because of that other war we are currently losing; our health care, education and social services systems are in terrible shape and our response: yes, lets believe everything the media tells us and respond with military might to a country run by a sociopath.
omigod; i wish they would have asked me. I agree with the post cited the legacy of the Korean “police action” and Macarthur’s belligerent desires. Let the Japanese and the Chinese, the South Koreans and the Russians worry about THEIR neighbor. North Korea is a long freaking way from an ability to inflict any harm upon the U.S. The referenced poll is highly suspect, in my view. The U.S. is bankrupt. Any military response against anyone is simply an exacerbation of our bankruptcy. Were such a response to be self defense, no problem….put in on plastic. But when was the last time we acted in self defense? Pearl harbor…..was that self defense? We goaded and lured the Japanese into the pearl harbor attack.
Civil war? OK, the south was acting legitimately in its self defense.
This whole notion is totally bizarre. The U.S. government in Washington and around the world is more dangerous than all the crackpot dictatorships in the world put together, and even the major powers put together!
The actual questions from the survey seem to _imply_ that North Korea is planning to use the missiles to launch a nuclear attack against the U.S. And, when asked that way, most people favored military action. If the survey asked the questions in a different way–without implying they were planning to attack us–I wonder how many people would have answered differently?
@Interested
Land Down Under is Australia.
As far as the questions being biased, I don’t see that.
Come on, 57% wants to take actions against them, I don’t think it’s been that high since WWII! I’d like to see the country UNITED against a common enemy again.
First i want to say i am a proud American. I have been reading the comments about North Korea as well as other opinions of the Iraq war. Regarding North Korea, America in my opinion does not feel as though North Korea it’s self is a threat to my home land. What my country, as well as my self is concerned about is our allies in Eruope. We are concerned about North Korea selling nucular bombs to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other enemies of the U.S and NATO. As far as North Korea testing possible nucular bombs, i agree that would not be a big deal if it was from a country that did not have a toltarian/crazy leader. But if North Korea does develope more sophisticated nucular bombs that not only travel 3000 miles, but can also be hand carried into public places or driven to other countries the world may change for the worst. Eventualy it would be possible for them to fly a nucular bomb all the way to America, and that worries me. On top of that, any democracy would have to worry about North Korea selling the nucular technology and materials to terrorist. Who knows how many lives may be lost. None of the super powers have released a nucular bomb since World War 2. I will not argue that the Iraq war was not ony miss leading, but a waste of money and trying to find terrorist. I do how ever agree that Sadam deserved to die. My conclusion is this. America, Great Britain, France, Russia, and India have nucular power but have not used it except World War 2. I believe if North Korea will use nucular power through they’re military, or what they had sold to terrorist.