But the bottom line is, you were kind of talking out of your ass when you said that a nuke wouldn’t screw up nearby countries. There’s a million variables and I’m sure you realize that weather prediction is not remotely an exact science as yet.
No (also, WMD is not just an American term or concept, so not sure why you think it’s ‘self serving’ unless you mean that in the broader superpower sense). As I said, officially (FWIW to you), the US only USES nukes to retaliate to any sort of large scale WMD attack. So, hit New York with a bioweapon that kills 100’s of thousands or millions? You get a nuke. Use a chemical weapons attack on Chicago? You get a nuke. Nuke LA? You get a nuke. For that matter, hit Tokyo or Seoul and you get a nuke as well…or London, Paris or any other US ally. Heck, we’d probably toss a nuke at someone who hit a non-US ally for that matter…and I expect other countries would probably be looking to do something similar. The idea is and has been a massive over reaction to any such attack because, in theory at least, the price would be too high for someone who isn’t totally insane AND an idiot to contemplate something like that on a large scale.
Could you point me to where this doctrine is described and/or officially acknowledged?
eta: and yes, I meant self serving in terms of Western or Super Powers.
Actually, I was just looking that up and…well, maybe things have changed. It seems in 2010 we adopted a new doctrine as part of a broader initiative under Obama (I think). The new doctrine seems to be that a chemical or biological attack from a NNPT signatory nation would not involve a nuclear response (but, of course, an overwhelming conventional response would still be in order). I don’t know what else is involved, but the new doctrine is Nuclear Posture Review which supersedes older doctrine, and not sure what all it entails. Also, for this discussion, it’s kind of moot, since afaik North Korea is not an NNPT signatory nation, having gone ahead and developed nukes and all.
Also, it seems that a nuke is still met with a nuke even with the above. But I think if it’s a bio or chemical attack its’ going to depend. Assuming Trump doesn’t get rid of this just because Obama put it in.
It’s also setting a precedent. Now, we idd kinda set a precedent back at the end of WWII, but we can say we didn’t know what we were doing then.
Nukes have not been used in military conflicts in the last 70 years.
Once one gets used, that’s a whole new line of military conflicts. Might start with a small one, but they get bigger. And the escelation difference between a 20kt nuke and a 150mt nuke is actually smaller than the difference between nuke and no nuke.
Define “screw up”.
We dropped a couple of nasty little bombs on Japan in 1945. Actually, I think their yield was higher than any NK has blow up so far. Yes, it was horrible but the area of damage was limited, nobody had to move out forever, and it didn’t trash the rest of Japan (unlike napalm, which had done a lot of damage by the summer of 1945).
I never said there wouldn’t be causalities - of course there would be - but I doubt the US would drop the equivalent of Tsar Bomba on NK even after the US suffers a nuke. A single nuke on Pyongyang is going to cause less damage outside immediate blast zone than the Chernobyl melt-down did. It would result in a smaller exclusion zone than the Fukashima accident both in territory and time.
Depending on the winds at the time fallout might avoid China and South Korea entirely. By the time it sails over Japan it would be so dissipated as to pose little to no risk. Given prevailing westerlies (which is the normal situation in the Northern hemisphere) if Pyongyang is hit the downwind problems like fallout are going to be either mostly or entirely within North Korea. This link explains why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not glowing in the dark. If the US did an airburst over Pyongyang or other NK city somewhat mimicking those blasts I think the point would be made without turning the area or the areas downwind into death zones.
Of course, if the US did a ground burst to maximize maiming and death that’s another story and would be a dick move.
Fact is, we’ve all been breathing leftover radioactive fallout from the atomic testing in the 50’s and 60’s for the last half century. We’re not all dropping dead and our children aren’t all three-eyed four armed monsters. It probably has caused additional cancers, but they’re lost against the base background rate of cancers that occur without the help of man-made radiation.
Countries can normally be relied upon to act in what they perceive is their own self-interest. Yes, even North Korea. The US has zero interest in causing collateral damage to its allies in the area and lots of interest in avoiding the same.
[QUOTE=k9bfriender]
It’s also setting a precedent. Now, we idd kinda set a precedent back at the end of WWII, but we can say we didn’t know what we were doing then.
[/QUOTE]
Again, we are talking about a US response AFTER a nuke is dropped on a US city. That would kind of be unprecedented in and of itself, even taking into account the US use of nukes during WWII, the US having been at war with Japan at the time and all. I feel like this point keeps getting overlooked in a rush to condemn a US response or whatever it is people are doing with this line of reasoning.
Same thing. Yeah, they haven’t been. But if they were, then they would be. And it wouldn’t just be the mean old US who would take this line either. Nuke a Chinese city and you are going to get a nuke in return. Same goes for a Russian city, or a UK city, or a French city. Hell, nuke an Aussie city and you are going to get a nuke in return. And not just from the US.
Right…exactly. Though I think it’s a bit ironic that you are using this argument when that’s the whole premise of this thread. 
North Korea and the US are in different situations, and can be held to different standards.
North Korea is essentially a rogue state, if they use nukes, it’s closer to an act of terrorism than it is to an actual state sanctioned war. Their use would set a precedent that rogue states sometimes do stupid stuff.
Our retaliation, however, matters. Using nukes opens up the battlefield for actual state actors to start using them on the battlefield. If we needed the use of nukes to defend ourselves against further acts, then that’d be one thing, but we don’t.
Yeah, maybe that’s why China said if the US attacks first they’ll back North Korea but if North Korea attacks the US they’re on their own.
At present, no, we don’t need to nuke anyone.
However, if North Korea drops a nuke on the US then YES, the US will need to defend itself against further nukes from North Korea. Which is why China pretty much said that if NK is stupid enough to nuke the US they’ll stand back and let retaliation happen. Because if someone was stupid enough to nuke China then China sure as hell would retaliate in kind, for the same reason - to defend itself from further nukes. As would Russia and every other nuclear power on Earth.
It’s even more insane than either Kim or Trump to think that the US wouldn’t retaliate in kind if NK drops a nuclear bomb on US territory. The only real question would be “how many?”
With all due respect, are you qualified in any way to describe the radiation levels and fallout? You realize that modern bombs are much more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy? That Chernobyl led to many years of restrictions on food production throughout Europe - some continuing until very recently?
Where have I heard this before?
[QUOTE=General Buck Turgidson]
I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
[/Quote]
I’m basing my guesses on information that can be easily found on the internet. I’m not claiming to be an expert, just offering my opinion which is, as always, subject to change with further information.
If you have some factual information to add please do so.
Some US bombs are more powerful. Some are less so - so-called “tactical nukes”. We have no reason to use a multiple-warhead mega-nuke on NK. So why would we? Please, offer a rationale for doing so if you have one.
Chernobyl is way different than a nuclear bomb. Less explosive damage, more radiation and longer-lived radiation hazards.
If it’s all easily found on the internet, you have a noticeable lack of cites. Just to start, how about a cite for this:
eta: and modern tactical nukes can still be many more times powerful than FM and LB.
We certainly should and will retaliate, but we do not need to, and IMHO, we should not use nukes for that retaliation.
Even if there is no fallout that reaches any of our allies, it’s still a bit rude to drop nukes in our friend’s back yards if we don’t need to.
I know if I were Japan or South Korea, or even China, I would much prefer North Korea to be leveled with conventional weaponry.
They would not go to war or anything like that over it, bit it could sour trade relations.
[QUOTE=k9bfriender]
North Korea and the US are in different situations, and can be held to different standards.
[/QUOTE]
Um, no…they really wouldn’t be in this case. If NK nuked a US city then no one would expect the US to be held to some ridiculous double standard of a measured, non-nuclear response. Even the Chinese wouldn’t touch that.
Again, no. Today, they are held to a different standard…ranting and raving about nuking a major superpower is pretty much handwaved away, and has been for decades. But just look at how that perception has changed as they have actually developed their missile program. Taking the further step of nuking a US city? Sorry, but YOU might hold the US to some other standard, and perhaps there are some folks who would as well, but the US would nuke a NK city and otherwise destroy the country. If we didn’t then it would throw our resolve into question on everything. Plus, the US populace would demand it. If you followed along after 9/11 this should come as zero surprise, and that wasn’t even a nuke. I can’t even imagine the US public reaction (or, hell, the reaction in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, China, etc) to the North Korean’s actually blowing up a US city with a nuke. :eek:
Are you receiving this transmission? A NUKE HAS ALREADY BEEN USED. Possibly millions of US citizens would be dead or dying. Sorry, at that point we DO need to defend ourselves in as quick a fashion as possible. That means a nuke. Possibly several. And I seriously doubt it would ONLY be US nukes raining down on North Korea either.
It would definitely be only US nukes. A long longshot would have the America strong arming the UK into launching a few also as a “coalition of the willing” type thing. Who do you imagine joining in?
Um…that NATO organization I’ve heard about springs to mind. Granted, not a lot is known about them, but I seem to recall something about mutual defense of any party attacked, or something along those lines. I don’t think the US would have to be ‘strong arming’ anyone…we’d probably have to hold them back.
I really don’t think you or several others in this thread are seeing how serious it would be if the North Korean’s nuked the US (or anyone else). You seem to be thinking that this would be some small matter that the mean US would be over reacting too (‘hey, it’s just ONE freaking city of millions…you have others. Chill out, US…’). Absolutely zero world powers would be amused or not think this didn’t warrant a nuclear response back. It would be a huge precedent that NK would be setting, and the response would be critical. Otherwise, what’s to stop the next country from using a nuke?
Look at a map.
Winds in the Northern Hemisphere are usually from the west. Hence, “prevailing westerlies”. Korea is in the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, on any given day, the winds most likely are going to be blowing west to east.
East of Pyongyang is 1) North Korea, then 2) Sea of Japan. It’s about 1000-1200 km before you reach Japan. The fallout from the Castle Bravo test only extended about 480 km. So I don’t think we’re going to irradiate Japan (again). And there’s no reason to use a bomb that big, the US could certainly opt for a smaller one.
That leaves South Korea and China. If you did drop something like Castle Bravo on Pyongyang the fallout, given the right wind direction (southwest) could potentially reach Vladivostok. We’d better find out how Putin feels about the situation before we do that. Or maybe not use a bomb that big.
For shits and giggles here’s a link to Nukemap which lets you play around with nuclear blasts on cities of your choice. Dial the kilotons up and down, play with windspeed and direction. What the hell, dial up to 15 megatons, the Castle Bravo size, and play around with that. If you do that and set the wind direction to the northwest yes, the fallout could (ironically enough) reach Hiroshima but shitting on Vladivostok and Hiroshima (again) is exactly why I don’t think the US military would use a bomb that big. Use a 15 kiloton bomb - Hiroshima size - and even with a surface detonation the fallout won’t reach as far as South Korea, much less anywhere else. But Pyongyang would be a mess and no longer a functioning city. The damage would be worse that what was seen on August 6, 1945 because that was an airburst, a ground burst is much more damaging to the landscape and generates more fallout.
Have fun playing with Nukemap.
The thing is, China knows just as much about this stuff as the US does, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some back-channel discussions about size of bombs and the like to reassure the Chinese their risks will be minimized. Hence, a possible factor in China saying if NK bombs first they’ll stand back and let the US retaliate. Hell, we can even minimize the risk to Seoul. The US has built tactical nukes down to under a kiloton - we could pretty much “dial in” whatever yield is desired. If those sorts of calculations haven’t been done already, which they probably have because that sort of war-gaming is one of the things militaries do.
I don’t think anything in the NATO treaty obliges a nuclear launch. IIRC, only France and the U.K. have nukes and if you think France is launching nukes in solidarity, I would say you’re dreaming.