If NK lobs a nuke will the US retaliate in kind?

In My Humble Opinion
81

Yes. They can be more powerful. They don’t have to be more powerful. One of the reasons for creating them was the ability to chose the yield at will.

Well, OK, that’s your opinion, duly noted. Frankly, I’m not enthused about lobbing a nuke back to NK, but neither you nor I get to make the decision. It’s been mentioned upthread already that there’s long been a notion that a nuke will always be answered by a nuke. I also have trouble imaging the current Commander in Chief exercising restraint in this matter. Whether or not you or I think a nuke is an *appropriate *response it’s my opinion that the most likely response to a nuclear attack on US territory would be another nuke.

Yes.

But I think governments understand the need of an attacked nation to protect itself and respond to attacks.

Personally, I think there could a big psychological victory in using conventional weaponry to flatten someone who lobbed a nuke - look, we can kick your ass without needing atomic power! It would certainly alter the mystic of atom bombs. Maybe some of these “rogue nations” will be less enthused about acquiring them if in the end it makes no difference and the US can obliterate them with conventional weaponry. (Which we probably could, if we really wanted to do so and stopped giving a damn about how others see us.)

But I don’t think any of the above get a vote if the US gets nuked.

If there’s a nuclear exchange, even a limited one, I’m not sure trade relations would be on the top of my list of concerns.

Frankly, even a purely conventional war between the US and NK would sour a lot of things.

82

As has been mentioned, radiation from a nuclear weapon is a much different type of radiation than from Chernobyl, and much faster decaying.

And yes, the US has much more powerful bombs now, but the US would not be required to use their most powerful (and certainly would not use everything available both because it’s very unnecessary overkill and because then we’d be without nukes to counter the next nation that might attack when we were vulnerable). Also, these more powerful bombs are actually cleaner (I’m not calling them clean - it’s relative) than the oldest ones because they are more efficient - and consume more of the material in the explosion.

Could someone tell me what we know about NK’s military facilities - trying to determine the likelihood of ground v. air burst, and that depends on their facilities. If surface burst isn’t needed to destroy facilities, then there’s no reason to use it, and that would limit fallout a bit.

83

From what I’ve read, the NK military hardware is largely dug in - in reinforced bunkers, underground, in caves, etc. If you’re going after military capability in NK you’ll need surface bursts, or ground penetrating bursts.

If you “just” want to reduce cities to rubble you can use airbursts.

84

Obliges? No, nothing obliges them to launch nukes. Hell, nothing obliges them to do anything I guess. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the US would have to force compliance of our NATO allies in the event of a nuclear weapon used against us. Another coalition of the willing, as you put it. Bend the French and Brits to our evil will…muahahahahahaha! Damn Americans, always over reacting and all that.

No, I don’t think that would be the case. I think that NATO, including even the French, would pretty much be on board with, lets say, a vigorous defense. Whether that would include them launching nukes, well…don’t know. My WAG is the US wouldn’t want them too, but that they would offer to. Everyone sticking their nuclear finger into the North Korean pie would probably work out well, however.

As to my dreams, I can assure you that they don’t include a US city nuked so we could force France to launch as a show of solidarity. That’s more a nightmare. As to my thoughts on this, well, you know them. I base them on policies that you can look up for yourself wrt the US response to the use of a WMD against ourselves or one of our allies (yeah, we probably wouldn’t have to be lead reluctantly to battle if, say, London or Paris were nuked). As for the UK and Frances response, that will be a lot more speculative. My gut feeling, however, is that such an attack would be met with the strongest response by NATO, as well as our other allies, not handwaved away as you seem to be indicating with mouthing about a measured response by us while they wait on the sidelines, curious to see what happens next. It would be a watershed event that would galvanize the world, IMHO and probably change forever the attitude of kicking the can down the road (something I support, btw…I think it was the right move. I’d change my mind, however, if LA went up in nuclear fire).

YMMV, but you might want to look into this more and do some research of your own. You seem to be basing a lot of your speculation on your own feelings on this. You aren’t going to get a cited answer about NATOs response, but you can probably get some idea by looking at their own policies wrt nuclear attack…which is what I’ve done wrt the US response. Like I said, some of what I ‘know’ is out dated…I have hardly kept up. But it’s not just coming entirely out of my ass either, and, basically, an Obama era policy doesn’t really speak to what Trump might or might not do. I honestly don’t know. In the end, it would be up to him what our response would be to something like this. But there would be tremendous pressure on him to Do Something™ in light of this…as there would be on other countries, especially those allied to the US. You might want to consider that aspect as well, before you think I’m just making all this stuff up or just dreaming…

85

Don’t be silly. The treaty obliges everyone to come to the others’ defence. That doesn’t mean everyone who signed the treaty agrees to following every insane doctrine the U.S. has decided on.

86

You don’t be silly…flying monkeys aren’t going to fly out of lil’ Kimmy’s ass to attack Guam. I can’t believe you think that…

Oh, wait. You didn’t say that? Funny…I didn’t say that everyone needs to follow US policy or doctrine nor that they are obliged to nuke anyone either. Straw must be on sale or something. Of course, you are serious in your strawman while I was just kidding, so there is a difference. :stuck_out_tongue:

So, not going to take my advice and actually look, ehe? Just going to wing it. Ok…well, this is IMHO after all, so knock yourself out.

87

One of the rules of the Nuclear Club; your cities and citizens are fair game in a war with a nuclear power. If the NORKs attack the US mainland, I don’t see anyone anywhere objecting to the US doing the same to them, or vice versa. NK wants nukes, then this is them rules. Its not about being insane. Ask any decision maker in Russia/China/UK/France/India/Pakistan/Israel and they’ll tell you the same.

I don’t see French/UK nukes being used. If only since if there is infact a nuclear exchange, there is a chance, no matter how small of the matter spreading out into becoming a general Global Nuclear war, and I suspect the US would want them to keep their nukes in reserve for that.

88

[QUOTE=AK84]
One of the rules of the Nuclear Club; your cities and citizens are fair game in a war with a nuclear power. If the NORKs attack the US mainland, I don’t see anyone anywhere objecting to the US doing the same to them, or vice versa. NK wants nukes, then this is them rules. Its not about being insane. Ask any decision maker in Russia/China/UK/France/India/Pakistan/Israel and they’ll tell you the same.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, exactly.

I agree. I didn’t say they would use them, I said they might OFFER to use them. They will want to show a lot of solidarity in this event, not just because they are allies with the US, but to demonstrate resolve in this sort of crisis with all of NATO. Our other allies will want to do the same thing. This kind of event would be taken VERY seriously…unlike a lot of folks responding to this thread.

I did want to add an apology to CarnalK for my last post. It was out of line. That’s what I get when I post drunk. The flying monkey thing seemed funny at the time is all I can say. :o

89

It seems that Comrade Kim has blinked.

90

What happened, Trump threatened to send in Chuck Norris and at that point, kimmy bent the knee.

What they are gonna say, China and Kimmy had a come to jesus talk, and tells kimmy that he is going to have an heart attack, if he does not calm down and de-stress, and being the nice people they are, they would supply the heart attack and deal with the next pop up kimmy.