# What would be the response to a North Korean Nuclear attack on Alaska? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695 "2004-08-26T23:20:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Alan\_E\_Sheets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc29f/32.png) [@Alan\_E\_Sheets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_E_Sheets)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695/61 "2004-08-30T19:55:05Z")
Viable? I don’t think it would even be legal. I can’t find a cite, but I remeber reading somewhere during my basic officer training that the US is mandated by law to respond to an NBC attack in kind – and since we don’t have B’s or C’s deployed it would have to be nukes. > [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > As my first post hinted, the non-nuclear option wouldn’t be viable as a first response. > > . ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_E\_Sheets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc29f/32.png) [@Alan\_E\_Sheets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_E_Sheets)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695/62 "2004-08-30T20:02:55Z")
It would have to be one hell of an augmented SCUD. Nobody since 1946 has been able to augment a SCUD (a direct decendent of the Nazi V2) to have more than a maximum range of 400 miles and a throw-weight of 2 tons. Neither are enough to meet the scenario at hand. [QUOTE=duffer] Originally Posted by Declan What they do have is a modified version of the scud missile ,thats been augmented with a second stage, and they have tested a version with a modified sam 2 surface to air missile as the third stage. Alaska is the extreme range of the missile currently with a small conventional warhead. It might be fantasy now , but some time in the future , it will become enough of a reality.QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_E\_Sheets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc29f/32.png) [@Alan\_E\_Sheets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_E_Sheets)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695/63 "2004-08-30T20:08:08Z")
I think the writer was talking about an EMP burst – but that kind of thing requires that the device be detonated at about 200 miles above the ground. Further, a 1st generation nuke would only have a few hundred mile radius effect range when mesured from the point on the surface directly below ground zero. Probably wouldn’t touch CONUS. > [@Pleonast](#): > > . > > I can’t see how a single nuclear burst over Alaska could cause such widespread disruption. The power grid is not _that_ highly connected. And the EMP would be mostly limited to line of sight (i.e., not affecting the lower 48 states). Can you explain your reasoning? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695/64 "2004-08-30T22:02:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Fortunately, the DPRK could never nuke Alaska, due to our [newly deployed](http://www.military.com/NewContent/0%2C13190%2CSecrecy_073004%2C00.html) missile defense system. > > [Huh?](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec01/nmd_7-16.html)[What?](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/national/main559397.shtml) [It](http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021211-055557-4842r) [doesn’t work?](http://slate.msn.com/id/2084665) And, unfortunately, those links you gave don’t even really even tell the worst part of the story…which is not just that the system has performed inconsistently in tests but that the tests are so artificial in so many respects that they are nowhere near a realistic operational test of the system. See [url=]here for a nice interactive graphic courtesy of the Union of Concerned Scientists detailing these artificialities. The whole thing reminds me of that Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert is selling lottery tickets for half price that have only a tiny bit smaller probability of winning the jackpot. Of course, it turns out (as a customer complains) that they are yesterday’s tickets to which Dogbert replies, “And, your point is…?” Likewise, I’d be happy to sell you for 1/1000th the price, a missile defense system that has only a tiny bit smaller probability of intercepting a North Korean missile. But you shouldn’t be surprised if it looks remarkably like a BB-gun. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695/65 "2004-08-31T00:53:33Z")
Not one person has responded to my utterly original scenario. ☹ Closedminded bastards. \*in post #25; feel free to look! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2004, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695/66 "2004-08-31T07:35:20Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Not one person has responded to my utterly original scenario. ☹ Closedminded bastards. I was just about to agree with you. Those of you too young to hide under desks while at school may not remember MAD. It still makes sense. The only way to prevent every other fruitcake from trying the same thing is to hit them hard. Since few people would be killed, the thing to do is to target all the nukes first (and we don’t have to be all that precise) and the large NK army with tactical nukes second. That should avoid the China problem, minimize civilian casualties, and prevent the obvious NK next step of going after Seoul, the only possible reason for the proposed lunacy. You guys think they are going to sit there waiting to get clobbered? Parking most of their troops in SK would be the obvious thing to do. And no way China is going to risk a city and 30 years of economic growth to protect a psycho. I don’t think we want them in NK, they’d never leave. I hope there are plans for this already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-the-response-to-a-north-korean-nuclear-attack-on-alaska/261695.md?page=3)