I'm regarding this as a philosophical discussion. As you know during the campaign, President Trump floated the last idea in the poll. Links: List of Countries With Nuclear Weapons 1969 EC-121 Shootdown Incident Scarborough: Trump asked adviser why US can't use nuclear weapons Regarding N.Korea how do you feel about this country having nuclear weapons, and perfecting missiles that could deliver these weapons to their neighbors or even the opposite side of the world? Why should countries like N.Korea and Iran not be allowed to defend themselves as we, and all of those in the nuclear club do? (for discussion) Should a preventative conventional weapon strike be conducted against N. Korea to stymie their nuclear ambitions? What if this triggers a renewed conflict between North and South Korea, dragging the U.S. and possibly other major countries into the conflict? My opinion is that if Trump authorizes a conventional strike and North Korea backs down, he will be a macho hero. However if it triggers a renewed conflict between North and South Korea, and a nuclear bomb happens to go off in Seoul, vaporizing a portion of the 30k U.S. troops in S.Korea, I predict he'll be vilified as a dangerous idiot. You may not know that in 1969, speculated to be in honor of Kim II-Sung's birthday, a pair of North Korean Mig 21s shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121 reconnaissance, electronic warfare aircraft in International Airspace off the coast of Korea. In official statements, they viewed the U.S. as imperial aggressors. Surprising or not, the U.S. wanted no part of war with N. Korea in 1969, and did not retaliate. However, this illustrated that North Korea was irratic and aggressive. Now that was 48 years ago. Is North Korea still this dangerous? I am of the opinion that Pandora's box has been opened, and that at a minimum, it will be very difficult to control who gets the capability. But that countries who seem to be involved in regional conflicts should be hindered as much as reasonablepy possible from gaining the capability. Yes, an intentionally vague statement. The problem is that because we are humans, the more countries who acquire nukes and the ability to deliver them, the higher the odds that they will be used. Regarding the poll as a general standard, I picked never first, but if they are used, second would depend on the circumstances and the spectrum of the attack. I don't really want us to be part of or be responsible for Armageddon. Update: Considering the morality of (possibly) snuffing the planet, and my last statement above, I changed my vote.