The idea that China would just shrug at the US nuking their neighbour is absurd, tactical nukes or not. Presumably with little to no warning since people are talking about an immediate attack.
I assume by “tactical nukes” you mean “fantasy nukes delivered by invisible flying unicorns”.
Stranger
Let’s everyone dial the outrage back a little, this is not the Pit.
Worst than that…North Korea has a substantial chemical arsenal. They might not be willing to just sit on the nerve gas if they’d already committed to a nuclear first strike.
The collateral damage from destroying those with nuclear attacks might actually be the least deadly option.
I don’t seem to think you understand the implications of what I’m saying, which is weird because I’ve hammered the point like 50 times. Nuking the offensive capabilities of North Korea would be a net saver of the life of South Koreans by possibly several orders of magnitude. I actually specifically said that yes, tens of thousands of South Koreans may die from both the direct damage and fallout of such a strike, but that we’re talking about the fate of tens of millions if NK retains its offensive capabilities.
If you’re trying to make some sort of “you think South Koreans are more worthy of saving than North Koreans” play here, then yes. The lives of allied troops of a non-aggressor nation which we are both ethically and legally bound to protect are more important than the lives of citizens of a country who both attempted a nuclear attack on the United States and threaten a far worse non-nuclear attack on our ally. Any argument to the contrary is quite odd. Even so, we’re not even talking about a “kill 10 of them to save one of us/our allies” sort of dilemma, we’re talking about a strike which, given the unique situation around Seoul, would be a net saver of life by orders of magnitude.
How does that disagree with what I said? I went on at length at focusing the attack and using the minimum necessary force to ensure the elimination of the offensive capabilities of NK.
And you (and many others) don’t seem to understand that framing this in a “the only response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear response” context is, while emotionally appealing to a sense of vengence, ultimately counterproductive. Not only will it directly harm an ally we have agreed to protect (including potentially delivering fallout directly over the national capitol) but presuming that the North Koreans have made a concerted effort to conceal their remaining weapons stockpile and protect a means of delivery, simply attacking Pyongyang or the head of government is likely to assure a greater retaliatory response. And that is the problem with nuclear deterrence in general; that it only works until it doesn’t, e.g. someone makes an error, or gets bad information, or subverts the system, and then it almost ensures escallation because there is more risk in trying to protect and retain retaliatory capability than to simply use it.
Never mind the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who would die in minutes, and more over subsequent months and years due to such a careless exchange; the fact is that responding to a nuclear attack in like fashion neither protects against future attack (unless you can precisely locate and eliminate launchers) nor obtains any kind of justice.
The scope of nuclear war–the sheer destructive power and number of deaths that can result from a single decision–is literally unimaginable. Seeking to increase that scope as an act of vengence is not justifiable by any but the most perverted standard of ethics or morality.
Stranger
There’s always the invade Iran option.
We should placate North Korea beforehand to forestall an attack.
I say we declare an “Everyone Dress Like Kim Jong Un Day”. Men, women, children, dogs - everyone wears the Great Leader’s outfit for a day, to show respect.
A quick straw poll here at Ulsan and the thing that all of the nationals here are grumbling about is the projected cost to South Korea of rebuilding the North and feeding the population following reunification of the country and integrating a low tech population into a job market which already has rising unemployment.
Dammit I missed an important qualifier out there. The straw poll was carried out round the office with my Korean colleagues who are a tiny fraction of the 1.1 million people in Ulsan Metropolitan district who were not polled.
Doh!
Can we send them Dennis Rodman?
StG
Three words: Rods from God
'nuff said
We probably don’t have that available, “Stan the man”. :dubious:
Let’s hope the Skunk Works have been busy.
I chose “I’m a US citizen NOT living in Hawaii, and I want a MULTI-lateral non-nuclear military response” because I don’t live in Hawaii, and this is what I think would happen.
I would also predict that the US wouldn’t have to be involved, as there would be so much international outrage that the rest of the world would take care of the problem. The biggest problem would be coordinating the forces from around the world that would want to bitch-slap the NK leadership. Even the Swiss might decide they want a piece of the action.
Kim is dead in less than an hour, and NK becomes a colony of China (because they will get there first with the most), and serves as a DMZ between China and SK.
The thing is I have no doubt that Obama’sn administration has its response determined and already filled in its procedures to cover any of Kim’s crazy action
But my procedure would follow along these linesof a confirmed failed norther attack
I would say it would be obvious to know thatI would want pyangpong turned ito a glass field also the next biggest town Hamhung, Also every outlaying island or similar acreage where young miss kim was holding the hand of an equally starry eyed mr park would be oliterated. The DMV with its milion of mines will also be annhilated
There would be no tacitical devices or low yeild strategic weapons used. The weapons would completely destroy the northern part of the peninsular
Everything would be vaporised. No strategIc or tactical weapons but major yeild neuclear devices with many warheads on many thousands of missiles.
And not just one wave. Several days of campaign of terrible annhiliation to show the Indians, PAKISTANIS ,iSRAELIS, CHINESE AND FRENCH as well as UK just what fate has in store fora nation that preemptively makes a first strike. Korea turned its badge in when it made a nuclear attack (failed or not) It has to go so tthe others can be reminded of the consequence
And sure there would be no North Koreans left to take the lessons learned, But its immaterial as their government crossed a bad line, But China, russia,Iran AND isreal will get the nessage along with France and the UK
That the first use of nuclear weapons guarranteee yout utter annhiliation
Aside from your poor spelling it is clear that you have no notion of either the actual effects of nuclear weapons or the US arsenal of weapons and delivery systems.
Stranger
If possible, a decapitation strike with nukes. If not, a saturation strike, to cover all the bases. Do it before their second or third missile has a chance to possibly work.
When France or the U.K. (or anyone else, for that matter) gets a nuke launched at them (whether it works or not), I’ll listen to their opinion on the matter of proportinate response.
Japan is the only other country whose opinion on the matter I would give any credence. For them, I would very seriously consider taking the nuclear option off the table.
“At least geneb got… Terre Haute…”
No, actually.
The population of North Korea is about 25 million, roughly half of that of South Korea, and has a per capita GDP of less than 1/10: $2,400 versus $32,000. That doesn’t even begin to address the complete lack of infrastructure in the North, and the potential cost even without rebuilding any war damage is staggering.
We just did this back in January in Great Debates and recently again in GQ. This assessment was cited in both threads as well as Roger Cavozos’ assessment of the possible number of casualties from an attack by North Korea on Seoul.
The TL,DR assessment is that there would be a maximum of 80,000 casualties, even assuming conservative estimates for return fire and unlimited ammunition. The often told story of countless millions of possible deaths is simply not true.
My thoughts is that the best response would be a multinational response, but barring that, unilateral would be next.
I don’t believe that a nuclear response is automatically necessary, and don’t believe that the lack of a nuclear counter attack would necessarily be less of a deterrence for any other rouge state or terrorist organization. A regime change would absolutely be a requirement.
However, any steps upto and including nuclear response would be permitted to prevent another launch. That would be required exactly is something which I don’t know. As their long-range missiles require launch pads, one presumes that a conventional attack would successfully deny a second attempt.