I think that China and Russia would have issues with nukes going off on their border. That said, I don’t think either country would do anything substantial except watch the fireworks. Russia has virtually zero control over N Kor. China ha ssome influence but regards N Kor as an embarrassment and a completely loose cannon. I’m sure Beijing doesn’t like the idea of a madman with nukes that are more than capable of hitting beijing.
We’ll send Greenpeace, the Sierra Club & Pam Anderson to attack them for kiling all those innocent caribou.
I don’t see this happening anytime soon, but -
The US response:
[ul][li]Saturation but non-nuclear bombing of every site in NK that has, might have, or might develop nuclear weapons or delivery systems. [/li][li]Saturation but non-nuclear bombing of every military or military-related site in NK. Kill their radar, destroy their ships and planes, and kill or isolate Kim and the rest of the “leadership”. [/li][li]A massive South Korean invasion of the north. The US will supply air and logistical support. [/li][li]If China says anything like what you suggest, send a clearly worded communique stating that the US will defend its interests using any and all appropriate means. Put it in diplomatic language, but the rest of the world can help (and they probably would) or they can STFU.[/ul][/li]That having been said, it is a pretty unlikely scenario, because North Korea has nothing to gain by acting as you describe. We already know they have the Bomb and are untrustworthy and dangerous. Threats are often more effective than actions. NK is more likely to try to get what it wants by threatening to sell nukes to terrorist groups than by using them itself.
The US is the world’s only remaining superpower. Using a nuke against her is taping a great big “Kick Me Hard” sign to your crotch.
Regards,
Shodan
Probably a combination of your options mentioned. First a nuclear response to the remaining suspected launch sites , command and control, and air defense sites. Followed up with a several month build up of forces and an eventual land invasion to erase the vestiges of North Korea
Nope , but China may actually give the americans more precise targetting info, so that the nuclear option can be more limited. The Japanese would probably request a more beefed up patriot component be installed , and its air defense squadrons augmented. The russians are out of the game ,and not a factor as they don’t currently have a land border with the Nor Koms
That would depend on the world wide big picture, its not just mobilizing troops , its getting the logistical train ready. As for minimum casualties , should a US state be nuked , I dont think that would be a political concern.
Again , should North Korea launch a nuclear strike, first it declares the truce null and void , allowing hostilities that ceased in 1953 , to start up again. Even if Nato invoked article 5 , I am not sure that its going to matter anymore ,with the pull out of american forces that are already projected , but it would shift European forces to areas that are nominally covered by America.
Russia is not a player in this , and may indeed as I noted above provide more precise intelligence to American forces regarding north korean military forces, china would most likely close its borders to the north koreans , and let nature take its course. I cant see France or Germany being players in this , other than to provide an embassy where the remaining north korean govt can send the surrender to.
Declan
Pffft. We’d thank them for their concern and wish them good afternoon.
Immediate strikes with all we have to offer, possibly with tactical nukes, on NK ground forces massed along the border and at 3C targets. Probably also a strategic nuke equal to or larger than the one the NKs use will hit somewhere, anywhere, on general retalitory principle.
An immediate US invasion is out of the question; the troops there are simply not configured for offensive operations, and they’d be attacking very heavily fortified positions. Getting carriers, amphibious ships, and the tons of gear and personnel needed for invasion would take weeks if not months.
SK, Japan, Oz and the UK will all help, and as a practical matter, those are the only nations whose military assets/basing rights make a difference. Japan’s air force may get involved, but no ground troops for political reasons. Not that it will matter because:
Just the opposite.
China has no desire for open war with their number-one market; for that matter they want to enhance their global stature, and becoming an open enemy of the US won’t help. Their only real interest on the Korean Peninsula is keeping a buffer between them and US troops; and they’re smart enough to know the DRPK as it has existed would not continue. OTOH, they have been looking to test some military hardware, and war-induced nationalist fervor never hurts.
The conclusion is obvious: declare solidarity with the US, and invade North Korea themselves.
The Chinese can build up and attack much faster than the US due to proximity and a higher tolerance for casualties. Within a week, tops, every Chinese soldier that can hold a rifle is running across the undefended border heading for Pyongyang. The troops at the southern border see the writing on the wall and desert in droves; a random general introduces the Dear Leader to Messrs Heckler and Koch and the endgame begins.
The South Koreans know immediate reunification would destroy their economy and don’t really want it. A separate NK governed under UN auspices is much more in everyone’s interest. China takes responsibility for the security of northern NK, thus still winding up with something of their old buffer state, a greatly enhanced national prestige, and some combat experience for their troops. The US (its aura of invincibilty damaged) is going to have a hard time refusing trade concessions and the like to the Chinese after they ostensibly went to war in our defense, and the EU, already seeking a shift in the global balance of power, will be happy to triangulate.
The good thing to come out of NK nuking Alaska is;
Now we can start drilling for oil there since the ecology will be all effed up anyway from the fallout. Not to mention, lots of tress will be out of the way for the drilling equipment to get in there. 
Can you say $.85 per gallon gas?
- Oil companies have been drilling for oil here for decades.
- ANWR will NEVER yield enough oil to make even a slight dent in gasoline prices.
Fortunately, the DPRK could never nuke Alaska, due to our newly deployed missile defense system.
[Peter Griffin ON]
Oooooh, crap.
[Peter Griffin OFF]
Joking, man joking.
- Hack her to death with a kitchen knife.
Both the US and Canada are probably ready to detect/intercept nuclear warhead missiles in North American airspace because of the Cold War. Obviously they weren’t paying as close attention to passenger jets, but that’s a different story.
Really, it’s pretty obvious that NK would get smeared decisively if they decided to attack the US or a US interest in the region. NK is a state-based threat, which means the command structure is clearly defined, it has an obvious base of operations and can be leaned on through diplomatic/economic means. Nuking a US interest (or anyone) by a non-state-based proxy sounds a bit more viable. I mean, who is NK looking to destabilize?
If it happened, I’m curious about whether the US population would tolerate a Hiroshima-type response.
Side comment : Nope, Germany/France don’t have more pull with Russia and China. The USA have much more pull because China/Russia have more interests dependant on the good will of the USA than on the good will of France. If only trade interests, for instance.
Of course, on occasions, Russia or China might be in agreement with France or Germany for various reasons, like it happened recently, but these reasons aren’t “we would rather piss off the USA than France”. It’s just because the other country happen, for possibly totally different reasons, to have the same stance on a particular topic. Then they become circumstancial allies on this issue. Let’s try to send the german chancellor to explain to Putin that what is going on in Chechnia is a bad thing, and you’ll see how much pull Germany has with Russia.
In the case of a serious crisis in North-Korea (though this one is particularily unlikely), the Chinese government would act according to its self-perceived interests. And anybody willing to have some influence on their stance would need to have something particularily valuable to offer (or something particularily nasty to threaten with). The USA is much more likely to be in such a position than France.
Closer to “demand.”
I would have to say “utter disbelief” if an NK nuke went off in Alaska. They’d have to get it there by boat. They don’t have a missile that has enough throw-weight to get a 1st generation nuke much past Japan. Maybe they’d use a commercial airliner on a 1-way trip.
If they wait long enough, perhaps the Bering Land Bridge will reappear and some poor schmuck can shlepp two of them across on one of those bamboo pole thing-ies.
As my first post hinted, the non-nuclear option wouldn’t be viable as a first response.
It would take many, many hours before the U.S. could coordinate an effective conventional strike–knowing that such a strike would need to neutralize NK’s nuclear forces. With NK’s military intel warning him, Kim would have no reason to sit on his nuclear birds, knowing that everything he had might be obliterated in the coming US conventional counterattack.
In short, the only hope the US would have against further nuclear attacks is to incinerate the NK birds in their tubes/hangars.
Imagine the public’s reaction. Any US president who didn’t do so would be impeached.
What would be the American response to a N. Korean nuclear attack on America?..
If Bush were still president, he would issue a response saying that “North Koreans are a country of peace. This little incident doesnt mean anything, in fact North Koreans may still enter the US by the thousands, millions, or billions, it matters not to us”. “In fact” Bush will say, " North Koreans will soon be eligible for Social Security and welfare benefits, if only they can make it here. Thats why I’m president, in order to help all newcomers, whether immigrant or illega alien".
As my first post came right out and said, a non-nuclear response would BE our reaction. I seriously doubt nukes would even be seriously looked at. What would the rush be?? Just how many missile tubes do you think NK has anyway??
A few thousand caribou dead don’t exactly make for an urgent situation…if NK was doing more than just trying to blackmail us, they wouldn’t attack into unpopulated areas of Alaska as their first strike…they’d hit targets in South Korea or Japan as their first strike.
The US certainly would respond, but we’d respond with conventional forces, most likely Air Force and Navy air assets, cruise missiles launched from subs, ships and planes…things like that. And such things could be in the air and hitting NK’s nuke tubes with conventional bunker busters just as fast as nukes could fly from America (we have carrier battle groups in the pacific, air assets in South Korea and Japan, and subs gods know where).
Again, you wouldn’t need to nuke NK to throw them over the edge. Simply cutting off food shipments and hitting the few power generation plants would push NK over the edge. I’m guessing that one more major famine and NK is going to explode internally anyway. All one needs to do is look at the myriad dead trees in the northern part of the country (because the people who were starving were eating the bark and killed the trees) or read about the state sponsored messages on how to prepare grass (no joke) and you get the idea about how close to the edge NK really is. And thats during peace. Throw in a few surgical air strikes on whats left of the NK power grid and cut off supplies and bobs your uncle (no idea what this means…one of my English friends says this all the time and it sounds so cool when she does).
-XT
A nuclear response would be the first reaction, but not in the first 24 hours , if its just one nuke , (if they basically shot their wad). What they do have , has been the product of close to thirty years of defense planning on their part. Just using conventional explosives may not have the penetration.
So , here we have a situation where the nor coms , throw a nuke at juneau or nome , or say Elmdorf AFB, the purpose , just to throw the States off balance, then follow up with more shorter range missiles at japan and south korea.
Nukes would be the fastest response
If its just the one nuke , then emm, the administration (who ever) has options for a response , but in combination with attacks on neighbors , you want to take em down fast and hard.
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.
And they will probably be used to blast engress routes for the Bones and Spirits.
But the plan is not to commit genocide on the north korean civillians.
Declan
No nation is going to support North Korea if it launches a nuclear attack in American territory. The Chinese will send them a telegram saying: “So long and thanks for all the kim-chi” and that’ll be the friendliest diplomatic message they receive. Every other nation on Earth will give the United States the kind of support we got in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
The American response (aided by the Republic of Korea, NATO, and maybe Japan, Russia, and China) will be to forcibly impose a regime change in Pyongyang. The threat of a second nuclear isn’t going to stop that. And in the face of provocation like that, it won’t make a difference if the President is Bush, Kerry, or Nader; it’ll be a clear case for invoking the Bugs Bunny Doctrine: “Of course, you realize, this means war.”