What if - North Korean nuke attack on the US?

[Orionblamblam]

I think the SM-3s are only capable of SRBM and MRBM intercepts - ICBMs are just too fast to target with the missile as it currently stands.

 

[bobbymike]

It's not in America's long interest to launch any crushing nuclear counter attack if it could be avoided because in the long run, a crushing nuclear attack would prompt the proliferation of nuclear weapons to fence sitters capable of, but otherwise may not have not chosen, to go the nuclear route.

When the short term of effect of shock and awe of a massive nuclear retailation wears off, proliferation of nuclear weapons would devalues both the conventional and the nuclear arsenals of current nuclear powers, so in the long run it would constrict America's margin of effective superiority, and thus freedom of action.

So if North Korea were to deploy a nuclear weapon against US, it would be the perfect justification for the US to directly threaten the Chinese with nuclear retailiation to keep them out of the conflict, and thus ensuring a short war with little lasting quagmire, but the US should restrict itself to using conventional weapons in the actual persecution of the war.

It depends a lot on how those nuclear weapons are used. Unfortunately we are all influenced by the predominance of cultural products even when they are counter knowledge . Especially in nuclear weapons. This means the typical thought process of thinking about the use of nuclear weapons is massive destruction, annihilation and nuclear winter. Which would be the case if the USA responded to a successful or unsuccessful DPRK nuclear attack with multiple warhead airbursts against every North Korean city. Which would kill a lot of people and flatten a lot of real estate and look all “The Day After” but unfortunately not manage to kill Steve Guttenberg.

But in reality an American counter attack would see limited use of small nuclear warheads to destroy the KPA’s offensive military potential. Their nuclear facilities, hardened air bases, command centres and entrenched artillery concentrations. While this wouldn’t be nice to the North Korean countryside it would hardly be noticed around the world. It would open up the KPA and DPRK state to conventional military destruction. No doubt Greenpeace and the like would sh*t themselves with seismograph reports of ground bursts and slightly elevated readings from Japanese Geiger counters but the civilian disaster level would be lower than a nasty earthquake.

I would imagine that far from being a level to proliferation it would act as a counter. Because it would demonstrate that acquiring a nuclear arsenal would not have the effect of deterring World Power level military attention.

I agree with the counterforce idea. It would have it critics of course, as the A-bombs used on Japan still do today, but it would be (in my mind) practical and justified, I am sure people would call for more, other for less.

Maybe we should have built RNEP but of course the reason it was canceled is because it could be used in just such a scenario.

The zero nukes crowd don't really believe in deterrence. When they made their arguments as to why we didn't need RNEP or micro-nuke weapons (which were to deter countries like Iran and NK BECAUSE they would be useful) was that we had lots of bombs that could annihilate the North Koreans, but what they really wanted was for the US to have only large yield weapons that we would probably not use due to collateral damage.

They have even said when talk of going to 300 or so deployed warheads, "We would still have enough to wipe out their major cities" But in reality that would be a much harder choice to make, killing millions of innocent Norks because of their insane dictator. And of course they secretly know this and would probably immediately begin to protest against the use of a 475kt W88 for the very reason they orignally said was why it was OK to have so few in the first place.

 

[Orionblamblam]

That could be more damaging to US interests: neither Japan nor South Korea would want to deal with the problems of regional fallout...

Then *now* would seem to be a fantastic time for South Korea and Japan to invade and conquer North Korea.

This was written as sature, but there is much truth in it:

A Realistic Plan for World Peace
a.k.a
Nuke the Moon

North Korea nuking the US holds the very realistic probability of the US nukin' 'em back. Both South Korean and Japan know this. If they think that the prospect of good ol' American fallout landing on their turf is an undesirable prospect, then they can do any of a number of things to prevent it. If they choose not to, and Nork Nukes North Hollywood, then it will be an object lesson for the world if Japan and South Korea, who stood by and did nothing, get a dusting of strontium 90. The next time some whackjob threatens to nuke the US, their neighbors just might remember that the US is ok with callateral damage when it comes to avenging our citizens.

 

[chuck4]

What if North Korea actually launches a nuclear armed missile toward the U.S. and it actually hits the west coast and explodes? -SP

Easiest course of action would be... tell China to sort the Norks out for us, or deal with the fallout (literally) when we do it.

Chinese idea of satisfactorily sorting this out would probably be to invade the north Korea and push the Chinese zone of control to the 38th parallel. The whole reason they are propping north Korea up is to:

1.keep American influence away from the Yalu.

2. Prevent the formation of a unified, nationalistic Korea, so as to prevent a unified, undistracted Korea from inciting ethnic trouble in chinese manchuria, where a high percentage of population is ethnic Korean.


To get the Chinese to sort out the north Koreans, they would demand to be allowed to do it in such a way as to protect these two goals.


Frankly this is not compatible with American interest because giving north Korea to the Chinese would be seen as a pretty severe stab in the back against south Korea. It would also be viewed by other American allies as evidence that America will sell them to the Chinese if the price is high enough, which will not be good for any further American alliances.


This means on the narrow issue of north Korea, it's either us or the Chinese. A stalemate is possible, as it has been for 60 years. Success by one side or the other is possible. A mutually satisfactory resolution between china and us is unlikely without expanding the issue to balance of power between the us and china and each other's interst in the broader region.


There are two ways out of this. They need not be mutually exclusive, in fact the second makes the first more likely to work:


1. We use our currently overwhelming superiority to force a solution in our favor by sheer nuclear intimidation before they grow stronger and can make the price ever steeper and the outcome uncertain.


2. We trade them north Korea for something else. They have to give up north korea becuase otherwise we lose south korea, and with it, all the other minor powers who could throw their lots either with us or the chinese, and right now are siding with us. For example, they give us north Korea, we agree The territory of former north Korea will remain a demilitarized zone for 50 years to satisfy their above stated goals, Or they give us north Korea, we won't tacitly support Taiwanese independence. Taiwanese independence is the deepest dread and the most horrendous night mare of the Chinese government because if Taiwan declares independence , either the communists fight, or they will be toppled right away by nationalist sentiments from the populis. They know if they fight, not only would they lose, they would also likely to be toppled a little later any way because china would lose access to world market, and with it such economic growth and prosperity that has kept the communist in power these last 30 years.

 

[2IDSGT]

What if North Korea actually launches a nuclear armed missile toward the U.S. and it actually hits the west coast and explodes? -SP

Easiest course of action would be... tell China to sort the Norks out for us, or deal with the fallout (literally) when we do it.

Chinese idea of satisfactorily sorting this out would probably be to invade the north Korea and push the Chinese zone of control to the 38th parallel.

Fine by me, especially if I were South Korean. Can you imagine the sheer scale of difficulty in bringing N. Korea out of the Stalinist age? It was bad enough for the Germans, and East Germany was the most developed of all the Communist nations in 1989 (but to this day, it remains one big construction sight). I say let China fix it up; it's their pet after all.

 

[chuck4]

What if North Korea actually launches a nuclear armed missile toward the U.S. and it actually hits the west coast and explodes? -SP

Easiest course of action would be... tell China to sort the Norks out for us, or deal with the fallout (literally) when we do it.

Chinese idea of satisfactorily sorting this out would probably be to invade the north Korea and push the Chinese zone of control to the 38th parallel.

Fine by me, especially if I were South Korean. Can you imagine the sheer scale of difficulty in bringing N. Korea out of the Stalinist age? It was bad enough for the Germans, and East Germany was the most developed of all the Communist nations in 1989 (but to this day, it remains one big construction sight). I say let China fix it up; it's their pet after all.

If I were south Korean I would be livid the Americans just sold my countrymen like cattles to the Chinese. I would not be thinking much of the Americans anymore.


Also, You think the Chinese would invest a dime to modernize north Korea? It's not their country. It would effectively be a subjugated territory and a colony with very strong nationalist feelings. They know every dime they invest in it they will lose when eventually they have to give north korea up.

 

[2IDSGT]

What if North Korea actually launches a nuclear armed missile toward the U.S. and it actually hits the west coast and explodes? -SP

Easiest course of action would be... tell China to sort the Norks out for us, or deal with the fallout (literally) when we do it.

Chinese idea of satisfactorily sorting this out would probably be to invade the north Korea and push the Chinese zone of control to the 38th parallel.

Fine by me, especially if I were South Korean. Can you imagine the sheer scale of difficulty in bringing N. Korea out of the Stalinist age? It was bad enough for the Germans, and East Germany was the most developed of all the Communist nations in 1989 (but to this day, it remains one big construction sight). I say let China fix it up; it's their pet after all.

If I were south Korean I would be livid the Americans just sold my countrymen like cattles to the Chinese. I would not be thinking much of the Americans anymore.

Meh, it's not certain the Chinese would even want to keep more than a bit of the most northern parts. What better way to take South Korea out of the picture than saddling it with a massive reconstruction project and millions of new, impoverished citizens?

 

[Orionblamblam]

What better way to take South Korea out of the picture than saddling it with a massive reconstruction project and millions of new, impoverished citizens?

*What* massive reconstruction project? One way the South Koreans could deal with a defeated North is not to send a massive government force there to rebuild, but rather to maintain the DMZ and send *businessmen* north. Keep the Norks North, but bring them into the modern era via free enterprise, not government fiat. A great many South Koreans would go North, to return to where they were from; they'd take riches with them along with new ideas. As the Chinese themselves discovered, you can turn a collectivist economic disaster into an capitalist economic powerhouse by simply leaving people alone and lettign them keep what they make.

North Korea is undoubtedly loaded with natural beauty. Sell or lease that land to South Korean, Japanese, American, Indian, Russian, Chinese developers. Employ the locals, chisel the tourists, tax the crap out of the hotels.

This might be a slower approach than a massive government program, but who cares?

 

[Jemiba]

Just a question:
Still yet, I only read about an attack with nuclear tipped ballistic missile here. Is this really a "recommendable"
option for NK?

Their nuclear devices are often said still to be cumbersome, their ballistic missiles unreliable and too short of range
to reach a target within mainland USA, which probably would be the most favoured target.
A missile launch would be tracked by many states and would be regarded as an indisputable evidence.
So, what about putting one of their nuclear warheads in a container and bring it to the US via ship or maybe
even via aircraft ? Flags and registration, can be changed, bought and used, as seems to be appropriate and
I'm pretty sure, that no customs authority can be regarded as the failsafe guard of the homelynd with this
regards.
Could a nuclear detonation somewhere in the US trigger a military response immediately ? Where's the undoubted
evidence, that the bomb came from NK and not from Al-Qaida ? But where's one bomb, there already may be more,
so attacking NK may result in further detonations and in consequence to a kind of immunity.
What about the global freight traffic ? To put every container ship in quarantine miles away from the coast ? To
stop all air freight ?

Principally I just want to hear, why those ideas are completely nonsense ... :-\

 

[chuck4]

Just a question:
Still yet, I only read about an attack with nuclear tipped ballistic missile here. Is this really a "recommendable"
option for NK?

Their nuclear devices are often said still to be cumbersome, their ballistic missiles unreliable and too short of range
to reach a target within mainland USA, which probably would be the most favoured target.
A missile launch would be tracked by many states and would be regarded as an indisputable evidence.
So, what about putting one of their nuclear warheads in a container and bring it to the US via ship or maybe
even via aircraft ? Flags and registration, can be changed, bought and used, as seems to be appropriate and
I'm pretty sure, that no customs authority can be regarded as the failsafe guard of the homelynd with this
regards.
Could a nuclear detonation somewhere in the US trigger a military response immediately ? Where's the undoubted
evidence, that the bomb came from NK and not from Al-Qaida ? But where's one bomb, there already may be more,
so attacking NK may result in further detonations and in consequence to a kind of immunity.
What about the global freight traffic ? To put every container ship in quarantine miles away from the coast ? To
stop all air freight ?

Principally I just want to hear, why those ideas are completely nonsense ... :-\

Cumbersome weapons are also hard to smuggle out. So their best shot has to be to put it into a container or airplane bound for the US while inside Korea. This makes it immediately more likely that any explosion would be quickly traced back.

I wonder if there is any container traffic going in or out of North Korea at all. Even if they do have some container traffic, it's probably small in volume and easily tracked. If they try to get a nuke into someone else's container that would require they smuggle the weapon out first. It would also require they have an extensive operative network on the ground and lax security where they operate. It's not clear where they would have that and if it would be feasible to get the nuke there to put into some unsuspecting container.

As to putting a weapon on a airplane, I doubt there is any commercial air traffic between North Korea and any city it might want to bomb. There is certainly no commercial flight between the US and North Korea. Even diplomats and ex-presidents have to go through beijing. Any transfer of freight from a Korean flight to a foreign flight bound for US would likely undergo routine scans to detect a nuke.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What if North Korea actually launches a nuclear armed missile toward the U.S. and it actually hits the west coast and explodes? -SP

Easiest course of action would be... tell China to sort the Norks out for us, or deal with the fallout (literally) when we do it.

Chinese idea of satisfactorily sorting this out would probably be to invade the north Korea and push the Chinese zone of control to the 38th parallel.

Fine by me, especially if I were South Korean. Can you imagine the sheer scale of difficulty in bringing N. Korea out of the Stalinist age? It was bad enough for the Germans, and East Germany was the most developed of all the Communist nations in 1989 (but to this day, it remains one big construction sight). I say let China fix it up; it's their pet after all.

If I were south Korean I would be livid the Americans just sold my countrymen like cattles to the Chinese. I would not be thinking much of the Americans anymore.

I know! could you imagine a world where North Korea and China were joined at the hip!? : I know I can't

 

[chuck4]

They won't be joined at the hip. North Koreans are the most xenophobic people on earth. It would be a military conquest followed for a never ending geurilla war funded and supported by the south against the Chinese occupiers.

 

[starviking]

I think the SM-3s are only capable of SRBM and MRBM intercepts - ICBMs are just too fast to target with the missile as it currently stands.

Pic of the impact of an SM-3 on Reconaissance Satellite US-193 cut for space.

Come on OBB, whilst the shootdown of a non-manouvering, low-orbiting satellite in a well-characterised orbit is a big achievement for the SM-3, it is nowhere near the level of capability needed to hit an ICBM.

 

[starviking]

That could be more damaging to US interests: neither Japan nor South Korea would want to deal with the problems of regional fallout...

Then *now* would seem to be a fantastic time for South Korea and Japan to invade and conquer North Korea.

Easier said than done!

North Korea nuking the US holds the very realistic probability of the US nukin' 'em back. Both South Korean and Japan know this. If they think that the prospect of good ol' American fallout landing on their turf is an undesirable prospect, then they can do any of a number of things to prevent it. If they choose not to, and Nork Nukes North Hollywood, then it will be an object lesson for the world if Japan and South Korea, who stood by and did nothing, get a dusting of strontium 90. The next time some whackjob threatens to nuke the US, their neighbors just might remember that the US is ok with callateral damage when it comes to avenging our citizens.

I think the US would find itself with few friends in the world if it adopted that strategy.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

That could be more damaging to US interests: neither Japan nor South Korea would want to deal with the problems of regional fallout...

Then *now* would seem to be a fantastic time for South Korea and Japan to invade and conquer North Korea.

Easier said than done!

North Korea nuking the US holds the very realistic probability of the US nukin' 'em back. Both South Korean and Japan know this. If they think that the prospect of good ol' American fallout landing on their turf is an undesirable prospect, then they can do any of a number of things to prevent it. If they choose not to, and Nork Nukes North Hollywood, then it will be an object lesson for the world if Japan and South Korea, who stood by and did nothing, get a dusting of strontium 90. The next time some whackjob threatens to nuke the US, their neighbors just might remember that the US is ok with callateral damage when it comes to avenging our citizens.

I think the US would find itself with few friends in the world if it adopted that strategy.

This is one of those cases where I don't think the US would care. there are also these things called alliances, where all the friends join in on pounding the bejesus out of some tin pot scumbag dictator who just attacked the free world with a nuke. There would be 3 sides:

the US and its allies and any other country that wanted a piece, North Korea, and the rest of the world that doesn't say a damn word (to include china, which would if it wasn't colluding with NK would quickly denounce it, lest they be implicated) North Korea would have zero support if it made an attempt to vaporize a million+ people. None. nada. And Japan and South Korea would gladly step aside and take some rads, if it meant the US nuking NK would rob them of the chance to attempt the same on the ROK and Japan.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think the US would find itself with few friends in the world if it adopted that strategy.

This is one of those cases where I don't think the US would care.

Indeed. North Korea nukes the US... they're going to find that we really, REALLY don't mind going full-bore Eurasian* on 'em.

In the aftermath, if any nation wanted to make sure that *they* don't get nuked if they tick us off, and want to make sure that they get consideration in avoiding fallout if someone else ticks us off, there will be a simple solution: petition the US for statehood.

*Translation note: The worst aspect of American history come of as a Boy Scout Jamboree compared to what Europeans and Asians have done to themselves and others over the centuries. Might come a time when the US says "screw it" and decides to see how the other half lives, but with nukes.

 

[bobbymike]

I think the SM-3s are only capable of SRBM and MRBM intercepts - ICBMs are just too fast to target with the missile as it currently stands.

Pic of the impact of an SM-3 on Reconaissance Satellite US-193 cut for space.

Come on OBB, whilst the shootdown of a non-manouvering, low-orbiting satellite in a well-characterised orbit is a big achievement for the SM-3, it is nowhere near the level of capability needed to hit an ICBM.

Actually that is the planned capability;

WASHINGTON -- A top official on Tuesday said the Defense Department was looking “very hard” at whether to move forward with development of an ambitious ICBM interceptor, which has been hampered by a lack of sufficient funding from Congress and doubts about the technical feasibility of the project. The Standard Missile 3 Block 2B interceptor has been bedeviled by congressional appropriators, who have refused for years to provide the funding levels sought by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency for the project. “The reality is that with the underfunding of our [budget] requests from Congress for FY 2012 and the continuing resolution, our ability to deploy the [2B interceptor] has slipped at least two years,” Defense Undersecretary for Policy James Miller said at a missile defense conference organized by the Atlantic Council.

 

[starviking]

I think the SM-3s are only capable of SRBM and MRBM intercepts - ICBMs are just too fast to target with the missile as it currently stands.

Pic of the impact of an SM-3 on Reconaissance Satellite US-193 cut for space.

Come on OBB, whilst the shootdown of a non-manouvering, low-orbiting satellite in a well-characterised orbit is a big achievement for the SM-3, it is nowhere near the level of capability needed to hit an ICBM.

Actually that is the planned capability;

WASHINGTON -- A top official on Tuesday said the Defense Department was looking “very hard” at whether to move forward with development of an ambitious ICBM interceptor, which has been hampered by a lack of sufficient funding from Congress and doubts about the technical feasibility of the project. The Standard Missile 3 Block 2B interceptor has been bedeviled by congressional appropriators, who have refused for years to provide the funding levels sought by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency for the project. “The reality is that with the underfunding of our [budget] requests from Congress for FY 2012 and the continuing resolution, our ability to deploy the [2B interceptor] has slipped at least two years,” Defense Undersecretary for Policy James Miller said at a missile defense conference organized by the Atlantic Council.

Nice if they get it - but the capability isn't there yet, and will take years to develop and deploy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nice if they get it - but the capability isn't there yet, and will take years to develop and deploy.

Good thing then there is ground based mid course defence...

 

[starviking]

I think the US would find itself with few friends in the world if it adopted that strategy.

This is one of those cases where I don't think the US would care.

In the aftermath, if any nation wanted to make sure that *they* don't get nuked if they tick us off, and want to make sure that they get consideration in avoiding fallout if someone else ticks us off, there will be a simple solution: petition the US for statehood.

That's pretty out-there. Also, the US isn't the only nation with a nuclear deterrent - if it threatens countries with nukes then it'll get threatened back.

 

[starviking]

Nice if they get it - but the capability isn't there yet, and will take years to develop and deploy.

Good thing then there is ground based mid course defence...

True, but the point was the SM-3's capability. However, has the GBMCD achieved IOC?

 

[starviking]

I think the US would find itself with few friends in the world if it adopted that strategy.

This is one of those cases where I don't think the US would care. there are also these things called alliances, where all the friends join in on pounding the bejesus out of some tin pot scumbag dictator who just attacked the free world with a nuke. There would be 3 sides:

the US and its allies and any other country that wanted a piece, North Korea, and the rest of the world that doesn't say a damn word (to include china, which would if it wasn't colluding with NK would quickly denounce it, lest they be implicated) North Korea would have zero support if it made an attempt to vaporize a million+ people. None. nada. And Japan and South Korea would gladly step aside and take some rads, if it meant the US nuking NK would rob them of the chance to attempt the same on the ROK and Japan.

I can't speak for South Korea, but after living in Japan for some time I can say they would not "gladly take some rads" - it is not acceptable collateral damage.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I can't speak for South Korea, but after living in Japan for some time I can say they would not "gladly take some rads" - it is not acceptable collateral damage.

Then why don't they do something about North Korea?

 

[Orionblamblam]

In the aftermath, if any nation wanted to make sure that *they* don't get nuked if they tick us off, and want to make sure that they get consideration in avoiding fallout if someone else ticks us off, there will be a simple solution: petition the US for statehood.

That's pretty out-there.

Not really. Many people envision a one-world government. Why not Washington? If the world is to be united, it might as well be under the US Constitution as anything else.

Also, the US isn't the only nation with a nuclear deterrent - if it threatens countries with nukes then it'll get threatened back.

Please note that the US has *already* been threatened with nukes.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This topic is locked, at least for a breather.