I think if NK is the one firing the first shots, especially if it’s a nuke, they are done for. They would certainly be facing the full power of the US, Japan, and whatever is left of the South Korean forces. I think there is also a pretty good chance that China and Russia would probably come in on our side and attack NK from the north. I don’t know how much damage they might do, but their country would pretty much cease to exist, probably within a week or so.
Heh.
No.
Squibs happen:
Buster Able - Yield: “Less than a pound.”
Upshot–Knothole Ruth - Yield: ~ 200 tons, left 200" of the test tower standing.
Upshot- Knothole Ray - Yield: ~200 tons, They used a SHORT tower, to avoid the possiblity of an embarasing stump being left behind.
Castle Koon - Yield: Thermonuke; secondary failed to ignight
Short Granite - Yield: 250KT - 1/4 of the design yield of 1MT
2006 DPRK - Yield: “Less than 1KT”
North Korea by attempting to launch a preemptive nuclear missle, regardless of the outcome, is proof that the North Korean government is a clear and present danger to the whole of humanity and any and all response by any government, regardless of if that government was targeted, is justified. They have signed their own death warrant for themselves and their people and anyone left alive in North Korea after the justified response is only alive through the grace of the world community.
I assure you, any obtuseness is genuine!
So, to clarify, is your meaning that we should definitely shoot back, because that’s what you’d do to someone with a gun who tried to fire it at you? If so, I think that’s too simplistic an analysis.
If you meant something else, please elucidate.
If they launch a nuke, however successful - or not - there’s no “un-ringing” that bell. That’s a declaration of lethal intent on a grand scale, and we’ve got no idea what the next attack might be. So, you either choose to sit back and take whatever they do next, or you stop them now.
Yes, it is very much that simple. Any other stance would be an abdication of the nation’s duty to defend its citizens.
Ok, it sounds like I understood you perfectly, then. Where’s the obtuseness?
I still disagree.
It’s not that simple. What’s the chance that attacking NK leads to a full on nuclear war between the US and China? I hope the answer is pretty small, but I know it’s not zero.
In the discredit of the self-defense metaphor.
Yes, it is. Nuclear attack MUST be stopped - you Do. Not. let another nation do that. Period. Again - if someone has attacked you with lethal intent and lethal capability, you’re a fool to allow them a second chance - maybe a dead fool. You STOP them. Or you get away. But, since land masses can’t run away… The ONLY way to gurantee no second chance, and no potential stack of dead citizens is to remove their ability to launch a second attack. You don’t whinge and waffle about ‘ooh, someone else might jump in;’ you are under dire threat. You act.
You will note that I did not say “Nuke them,” although that’s certainly a potential option. I said remove or cripple their military and infrastructure. And do you REALLY think China is going to get into an existential war with the US on a nuclear level in defense of North Korean first-strike? Hardly. Conventional, maybe, but that’s an entirely different story.
Not enough. You have to respond with a volley of live nuclear missiles, nothing less. Otherwise, future dictators (like, oh, the government of Iran) might try it again in the future. Russia might be tempted to use a nuke tactically. You have to show the USA is not just bluffing, that if you try to use a WMD on the USA, they respond back 10 fold or more.
Maybe, if Trump is in a saner mood, the USA just uses small yield tactical nukes to totally destroy any and all nuke capability NK has or ever will have.
A regieme change is sufficient to do the trick, supposing it’s fast and brutal enough.
I disagree with the metaphor. I explained why I disagree with it. Doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.
Run with it; maybe we thought it was a test launch, okay?