Let’s just pretend we shoot down a North Korean ICBM, or even just one lobbed at Japan or South Korea. What difference will that make?
It probably wouldn’t make any difference to our response.
We would flatten North Korea without suffering any damage instead of after suffering damage. It probably would it not matter to South Korea which would suffer a great deal of damage from what we did to North Korea.
Regards,
Shodan
It won’t hit a civilian target and kill a lot of people?
Here’s a question - if NK launched a ballistic missile at SK or Japan, would it necessarily be nuclear-tipped? Do they have conventional short-range or intermediate ballistic missiles?
I’m wondering if they launched a few missiles and we shot them all down, would we be able to tell if they had nuclear warheads or not? Would we be willing to launch a full-scale nuclear response to what may have been a conventional attack?
Make a lot of difference if you live in Seattle.
*“Let’s willfully allow a North Korean nuke-tipped ICBM to slip through and kill a million Americans in Los Angeles, and cause trillions of dollars in economic damage, so that we will have a stronger moral justification for our subsequent counterattack?” *I cannot envision any President suggesting that to his or her advisors.
Not sure what you mean by “pretend.” If North Korea launches one missile at the USA, and it hits an American city, we then say, “There were *two *missiles, but we intercepted one of them?”
All the difference in the world.
Suppose someone shoots you with a gun. The bullet enters your body and causes severe injury. When you get to the hospital, the doctor lies to you, saying, “There were *two *bullets fired at you, but only one actually penetrated your body.” Does that improve your situation in any way?
My question regards the difference between shooting down a nuclear missile fired by North Korea, or not shooting it down. Either way we need to destroy them, it doesn’t matter how many missiles or how many were shot down.
(Bolding mine.) Could the Pentagon’s missile defenses fend off a North Korea nuclear attack? | PBS News
It will be bye-bye Seattle and Portland vs. bye-bye North Korea.
I’m not at all clear what point you are trying to make here, TriPolar.
Simply put, if we suspect that North Korea has developed the capability and is seriously contemplating a nuclear missile launch on the U.S. or its allies (as opposed to its normal bluster), then the U.S. military will do anything in its power to intercept the missile or missiles. This might include stationing vessels with AAW capability off of the North Korean cost.
If any North Korean missile makes it through to their target, all bets are off–North Korea will be promptly reduced to a parking lot.
If all missiles are intercepted (or fail on their own accord), then it is a decision the President has to make regarding how best to respond.
My only point is that it shouldn’t matter whether or not we can intercept an ICBM. Our ability to do so is an interesting subject in itself, but shouldn’t change our response to a launch.
Nixon?
Ah, I see now what point you are making.
That said, I would think there might indeed be a difference in our response to an attack from a rogue, 3rd-world nation such as North Korea, especially if its attack failed, as compared to an attack from a country such as Russia or China. The latter countries, should a nuclear war erupt, pose an existential threat to the U.S. Currently, North Korea does not.
I actually think the most likely response to a successful nuclear attack by North Korea on a U.S. city, or that of one of our allies, would result in a proportionate U.S. nuclear response (likely the complete elimination of Pyongyang and all known military targets in the country, with priority placed on all known North Korean missile sites).
On the other hand, a failed North Korean nuclear attack might well “simply” result in an immediate conventional (but still overwhelming) response. That’s because we really have no way of knowing, much less proving to the world, that a given intercepted or failed North Korean missile actually contained a working nuclear warhead. (I suppose if such a destroyed missile was somehow recovered, the presence of nuclear materials could be detected, but that’s a pretty big “if.”)
I understand now. It’s akin to how attempted murder is typically punished less severely than “successful” murder.
So I would hazard that successful North Korean nuclear strike on America gets a nuclear response and an unsuccessful North Korean nuclear strike on America gets a conventional response.
Yes, but. It may not be in the best interest of future peace and to get the country on it’s feet to destroy Pyongyang. It would send a message though. Who, though, is going to get the message?
I agree completely that anything remotely military in NK will disappear.
This would be the time to get rid of the NK artillery that threatens Seoul. Not necessarily with nukes. Thermobaric weapons or FAE’s (fuel air explosives). Using too many nuclear weapons would have consequences for Japan and SK.
It would take many of them of course, and Seoul would certainly take some hits, but I think that the destruction/disruption would quickly make NK’s aging artillery a moot point.
I suspect that ‘we’ are pretty sure where Kim Jong Un is at any time. An inglorious smart bomb or bunker buster or two would end his and his family’s reign.
A nuclear response shouldn’t be necessary anymore, we should be preparing to more effectively destroy their military capability without salting the ground with radiation anyway.
But… this is not like simple attempted murder where someone is caught before the act, if we shoot down a missile it’s like someone who missed their first shot but is still armed and in a position to shoot again. We can’t wait to find out how many more nukes they have, or whether they’ll start to fire all their conventional weapons at Seoul. The president will barely have enough time to call China and tell them that one way or another North Korea will not exist tomorrow and give them a chance to take care of it.
That makes it exactly like attempted murder. Someone stopped before the act might be charged with (say) conspiracy to commit murder, but not with attempted murder.
Attempted murder can be charged when someone takes “a substantial step towards committing a murder (e.g. purchasing a gun or other deadly weapon and writing about their intent to kill).”. They’ll try to plead down to conspiracy, but they can be charged that way. I am saying what you are though, just because the bullet, or missile as the case may be, misses, there’s no pleading down just because no one was harmed. And further, we can’t really arrest North Korea and try them for attempted murder, they’ll still be out there ready to shoot again. If this was about criminal law we should have arrested North Korea already for attempted murder.
I wonder if the US really would pick up, recognize and react to a NK missile launch? That’s the way the system is suppose to work, but in reality, someone is taking a dump and away from their station when something like that happens. It just works out that way unless we’re on high alert expecting something.
Probably be a terrible day for the US if it were a complete surprise.
Even when not on high alert, the US military uses multiple people to monitor anything that’s actually considered dangerous to the country along with lots of automated systems. They’re not going to have one guy looking at a radar screen and hope that a launch doesn’t happen on his lunch break.