Nuclear strike imminent

[commonsense822]

Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?

A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.

A non-nuclear response would be political suicide for any  Administration in power.  

While I agree with your logic that the Chinese would feel very threatened by any war on that peninsula, I'm not so sure they would involve themselves to the point of war with us -- again, that would be an economic disaster for them, as they'd see one-third of their exports die off immediately (again, assuming we could carry NATO in arguing for sanctions).  Additionally, any war between us and them would almost certainly result in our scrapping loan repayments, which could have deep consequences on their economy as well.

I do know that it would be a set of circumstances hard to suss out.

The point about fallout is a good one as well.  The prevailing winds there would carry the fallout over the Sea of Japan and perhaps as far as Japan itself -- and that would be a political shitstorm, especially after the anti-nuke feelings aroused by the tsunami-related disasters.

I'll have to see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that China is kind of backing away from the craziness of North Korea.  They are still allies, but I'm pretty sure they have made it clear that if NK starts going ape shit they aren't gonna be helping out.

In my opinion, I don't think we would need to use a nuclear attack.  I would much rather have the precision of non-nuclear military attacks, and simply up the payload of those attacks to do damage similar to that of the nuke.  Fallout being the big reason for that.  Pyongyang is a little south of the center of NK, while Seoul is almost at the NK/SK border.  That would be a bit of a risky maneuver.

[Navynukeman]

I don't think it is possible for N. Korea to be stupid enough to attack us... We can blow them off the map with 1 Boomer and they wouldn't even know where it came from...

[SilentFutility]

Other countries we consider allies are well within their striking range. Any military action we take against them is taken with the resolution to sacrifice those allies. If you don't think NK will huke SK if the US attacks them then you simply don't know enough about NK.

Also I am not exactly sure what makes you think that missile interception technology is perfect, because it certainly is not. One mistake and a city gets nuked.

I don't advocate a pre-emptive strike, I'm saying that if this developed into a full-scale conflict NK would be utterly destroyed, civillian casualties would be huge though, obviously.

The second point wasn't about missile interception, although I suppose it could have been worded better. I was saying that they don't have the capability to miniaturise nuclear wepaons into warheads, and their ability to even accurately use an ICBM is doubtful. I'm saying that the USA probably has absolutely vast amounts of intelligence and surveillance data on NK and that if a conflict broke out any kind of missile base or airbase would be taken out of action almost immediately.

North Korea simply aren't capable of launching a nuclear warhead at the US at the moment. Their only option for nuking somewhere is to drop a bomb from a plane, which would only be possible just outside their own airspace, which although devastating, would also be suicidal. Just about the only place they're capable of dropping a nuclear bomb is on the border with S.Korea, which would be in their own front yard. Perhaps their dear leader is crazy enough to do something that stupid, but in any case they're absolutely not a threat to the US.

I don't think it is possible for N. Korea to be stupid enough to attack us... We can blow them off the map with 1 Boomer and they wouldn't even know where it came from...

They physically can't. They have no way of getting their huge army anywhere near the US and nothing to hit the US with from where they're sitting unless their claims about being able to hit the sea around Alaska are true, which they probably aren't.

All they can attack are US interests abroad and US servicemen and women in bases in the region.

Although NK missile sites would undoubtedly be struck quickly, some sites are still going to have an opportunity to launch their missiles.  And although some of them would fail or be shot down, there's the distinct possibility that some of them would hit their targets.  And there is also plenty of artillery trained on Seoul.  In a military confrontation with NK, South Korea would definitely have civilian casualties, unfortunately.

This is true.

A full-scale modern war in which two countries completely fight it out until another is destroyed hasn't really happened before though, and it is difficult to imagine that it ever could without huge numbers of civillian casualties.

I do think that conflict with N.Korea should absolutely be avoided for this reason, but them starting one would be completely suicidal.

[Nonsensei]

I wonder how this discussion changes when held sometime in the future when North Korea has fully functional ICBM's.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll have to see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that China is kind of backing away from the craziness of North Korea.  They are still allies, but I'm pretty sure they have made it clear that if NK starts going ape shit they aren't gonna be helping out.

In my opinion, I don't think we would need to use a nuclear attack.  I would much rather have the precision of non-nuclear military attacks, and simply up the payload of those attacks to do damage similar to that of the nuke.  Fallout being the big reason for that.  Pyongyang is a little south of the center of NK, while Seoul is almost at the NK/SK border.  That would be a bit of a risky maneuver.

It's been the case for a couple of years now, and I think it's because of the economic argument.  China stands to lose much more by standing by NK than they do by abandoning them to the consequences of their actions.  The Chinese are outstanding practitioners of Realpolitik, and separating out emotions from policies.

I agree that a conventional attack is to be preferred.  My point was just that American public opinion, especially on the radical right, would blow it up into a scandal that would politically cripple the government, I think.  Having been in the former SAC -- the arm of the Air Force with the ICBMs and BUFFs -- I think that a few visits from the 2nd, 7th, and 509th Bomb Wings could have the matter done in perhaps a month or so.  Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but this is one case where that doesn't seem in our power to control.

[Seabear]

Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy. Not to mention nukes have kept us out of WWIII for 60 years.

Then there are the missile boats... Trident subs each carry 24 ICBMs, and each missile can carry up to 12 MIRVs. So a single Ohio class sub can target up to 288 distinct targets with ~400Kt warheads. The SSGN version houses 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles in each of the 24 vertical launch tubes, which can bring the party to 154 different targets with no warning at all. Thats just ONE sub...

So when I hear NK is gonna start a nuclear war, I want to laugh my fucking ass off. They aren't gonna do shit except posture. And if they do, fat boy Un can look forward to a life of luxury in an underground bunker beneath a crater-riddled (conventionally created, or otherwise) North Korean wasteland. Great success!

Don't let anything but fear and common sense stop you, NK

[commonsense822]

I'll have to see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that China is kind of backing away from the craziness of North Korea.  They are still allies, but I'm pretty sure they have made it clear that if NK starts going ape shit they aren't gonna be helping out.

In my opinion, I don't think we would need to use a nuclear attack.  I would much rather have the precision of non-nuclear military attacks, and simply up the payload of those attacks to do damage similar to that of the nuke.  Fallout being the big reason for that.  Pyongyang is a little south of the center of NK, while Seoul is almost at the NK/SK border.  That would be a bit of a risky maneuver.

It's been the case for a couple of years now, and I think it's because of the economic argument.  China stands to lose much more by standing by NK than they do by abandoning them to the consequences of their actions.  The Chinese are outstanding practitioners of Realpolitik, and separating out emotions from policies.

I agree that a conventional attack is to be preferred.  My point was just that American public opinion, especially on the radical right, would blow it up into a scandal that would politically cripple the government, I think.  Having been in the former SAC -- the arm of the Air Force with the ICBMs and BUFFs -- I think that a few visits from the 2nd, 7th, and 509th Bomb Wings could have the matter done in perhaps a month or so.  Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but this is one case where that doesn't seem in our power to control.

Gotcha, right there with ya then.  By the way, never hear of Realpolitik before and just gave it a quick Wikipedia read.  Definitely some good stuff there.

[stromboli]

I'm no fan of North Korea; but their saber rattling plays into the hands of our saber rattlers and I ain't buying it.

They're constantly keeping the tensions up one place or another to justify the reliance on the military and the continued use of secrecy. If they really want to solve these problems they will allow many more views to be presented which is the way democracy is supposed to work. If we started by setting a better example without constantly threatening people that get out of line it might work better.

Yeah. The whole justification for armed forces, other than dealing with terrorists or actual attacks, is becoming weaker all the time. The whole thing is silly, just like us having 6 times the armed forces of the next most powerful country.

[Hydra009]

Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy.

Yeah, but that whole collateral damage thing is a big drawback.  It's a bit like destroying a hornet's nest with a backpack's worth of C-4.  There's something to be said for using enough force and only that much.

[GurrenLagann]

Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy.

Yeah, but that whole collateral damage thing is a big drawback.  It's a bit like destroying a hornet's nest with a backpack's worth of C-4.  There's something to be said for using enough force and only that much.

But that's the point. Who decides how much force is "necessary", and how do they justify it? This isn't a slippery slope; it's a greased precipice. Once you grant that we can limit ourselves to what is absolutely needed, there's no telling where our military leadership - in the shitstorm that would follow an attack - would place such a limit.

[Hydra009]

But that's the point. Who decides how much force is "necessary", and how do they justify it?

Typically, military people and typically with weapons designed specifically to take out the target you're taking out.  I dunno, seems pretty straight forward to me.  

Is this really an issue that merits serious discussion?  Or more than one position?   :-s

[robandrob1]

I think a more likely extreme scenario is North Korea stepping up its co-operation with other rogue states (Iran) and attempting to supply terrorist groups with fissile material.  If they gave Jihadists enough material for a dirty bomb and it went off somewhere would we be able to prove North Korea gave them it?  Would there still be room for plausible deniability?  The latest nuclear test was believed to be Uranium device, the same type of nuclear material that Iran is busy enriching.  If the Ayatollah's wanted to buy a couple of Uranium nukes how could we prove that they didn't develop the weapons themselves?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy.

Yeah, but that whole collateral damage thing is a big drawback.  It's a bit like destroying a hornet's nest with a backpack's worth of C-4.  There's something to be said for using enough force and only that much.

Exactly. I think we're all too quick to deal out death and judgement on people,but we must remember that when push comes to shove, I'm willing to bet that millions of North Koreans would simply want to flee their leader and get as far away as possible from him/them.

Even with decades of indoctrained and propaganda for the Kim cult of personality, eating grass and being forced to work down a mine thanks to the expansion of a nearby political prisoner camp to include your village will probably make you inwardly hate the powers that be.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

By the way, you do realise that there are 25 million innocent people living under dictatorship in that country, right?

I think that's the point that is continually lost on this thread, unless people wish to see them as collateral. Its not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.

[Seabear]

So basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.

Its not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.

No more than it's "their fault" that people were born in the US

Fucking. Double. Standard.

PS. The US could respond with a limited nuclear response using tactical yield warheads on cruise missiles to take out strategic military and government targets with very little civilian collateral damage. Conventional bombing has its share of collateral damage too, you know. Especially in places where regimes use it's own people for shields.