North Korea doesn’t want to use a nuke. Instead they want a seat at the table, and they think having a nuke gives them a better chance of that. I think they are mistaken about that. But I don’t see them using one as it would lead to their destruction, and consequently no seat at the table.
I agree that the US would likely not use one, even in retaliation. If North Korea shot first, I suspect that “the international community would step in and offer support”. By that I mean that:
They would make it clear to the US that using a nuke would be a non-starter.
Just maybe China would step in and take care of the problem once and for all - at a cost to us. China would very much like to be viewed as the Big Man in the world (they already know in their hearts that they are). But something like this would seal the deal, the US would forevermore be beholden to them - that’s something China could live with.
I think blowing up the Iran deal has a bigger effect on the odds than NK blustering, and both of them are probably a smaller impact than the general instability of having a deeply unwell man as the leader of the free world.
NK has nukes. It has missiles. It has had them for some time. I don’t see that US posturing makes a big difference in the likelihood that they use them. And I have a hard time believing that Mattis would allow the slaughter that would accompany any kind of military action big enough to go nuclear.
Iran, on the other hand, does not have nukes. But they could get them if the sanctions regime falls apart. And even if the intended use is deterrence, just like NK, the mere fact of having them increases the odds of a launch appreciably.
In the end, I think Congress probably will not blow up the Iran deal because many of the critics were just posturing for AIPAC. And even if they do, it may be that the other nations continue the deal and so Iran will remain in compliance. So I’d say the odds of nuclear Iran only go up 5% or so, which affects the overall risk of a launch <.1%. That’s not insignificant, given the magnitude of the consequences. But I don’t think it’s on the order of 1% much less 10%.
I think it likely, nea probable that there’ll be a nuclear and detonation of a US nuclear weapon on suitable deserted location in international waters somewhere in the north Pacific. Just to definitively demonstrate that regardless of the size of the current POTUS’s fingers they are big enough to push a button. The talk brashly and put a gratuitous bit of stick about, I’m a bigger mad dog than you, variant of foreign policy.
As to a nuclear first strike on some population centre that’s much, much less likely but definitely non zero.
Let us say there is 99% chance of U.S. being involved in atleast one nuclear launch in next 2000 yrs.
so, there is 1% chance of U.S. not being involved in any nuclear launch in next 2000 yrs.
2000 yrs has 250 eight-year periods.
so, if x is the probability of US getting involved in a nuclear launch in next 8 yrs. :
(1-x) raised to power 250 = 0.01
x=0.018 (=1.8%)
If we take 90% as the chance of U.S. being involved in atleast one nuclear launch in next 2000 yrs., x=0.009 (=0.9%)
And Trump is also a smart guy. Now Americans would not be worried about a ‘mad’ North Korea. They will now know that North Korea won’t launch nukes without the US attacking it first.
Seems like a (slightly) older thread that has a new life, but I’d go with this, though I’d say the odds have shifted from maybe 1% to 1.5%. It’s pretty damned low though…certainly not freaking 25% or some of the other guesses in this thread.
I’d put it as near certain. Heck, if he somehow gets through his term without doing so I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump’s last act in office is to launch a nuke at somebody just to say he had. It’s not like killing a few million people for an ego trip would bother him in the slightest; they aren’t Trump, and therefore don’t matter in the slightest.
As for retaliation, I’d expect a basically 100% chance that* any* President would retaliate to a nuclear attack with one of their own.
My guess is the odds have shifted from .0001% up to about 1%. I may have been overly optimistic about where we were previously, but I don’t think we were at all close prior to Trump.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 to 10%, but hard to quantify. I don’t think Kim will strike first, although a nuclear warhead 500 miles off LA is a possibility. Trump just might retaliate with an attack on the NK directly. Then the fat’s in the fire. Trump seems to me to be deteriorating almost daily.
But you’re missing the value of saying “25%”. You get to put out a VERY SCARY NUMBER, but maintain plausible deniability when it doesn’t happen. Hey, I said there was a 75% chance of it not happening, so I was right!!