What would be the response to a North Korean Nuclear attack on Alaska?

Great Debates
41

Well, that was the OP’s position…that they touch off a nuke in the hinterlands. If there were to nuke a city, then all bets are off.

Thats not the plan, but that is the practical result if NK were to get froggy. If you looked crosseyed at their current power grid (such as it is) it would collapse. Same with their food supply, much of which comes from foriegn nations. They are that close to total collapse IMO.

Its one of the main reason such scenerios are so far fetched IMO…NK is on the brink. They simply get more milage from acting crazy than from doing crazy things. Little Kim might be a nut ball of the first order, but he’s smart enough to realize that if he wants to keep screwing his myriad concubines and pretending to be a hollywood style producter he needs to keep it real. Having that wild and wooly look in his eyes has gotten NK a lot of free stuff from as far back as Clinton…and will continue to do so. At least until he finally pushes the NK people one step too far and the whole thing blows up in his face. Going to happen sooner or later.

-XT

42

Step 4: Profit!

43

The only problem is that the guidance system on north koreas bottle rockets is such that you could aim at some hinterland area , and still end up hitting a city

But your point is taken

Declan

44

I think THIS is the answer to the question. The US could just say to China “feel free to overrun North Korea.” The Chinese seem to have to common sense not to launch nukes at the US.

45

Hijack, but could he be? Could the president be impeached on the basis that a lot of people disagree with the military option he choose?

46

Given that in such a situation, Tokyo or Seoul could be obliterated by another nuclear attack, are you sure that Japan or Korea would immediatly and blindly approve any US decision without further consideration?

47

Such an attack would kill several tens of thousand Americans and Canadians instantly. They would die when their heart pacemakers quit, the airplanes they were in crashed and from the continent-wide disruption in power and communications.

Every PlayStation between here and New Vice City would be fried. All sorts of damage to other, more critical electronics.

We (the world) could not allow a regime that would do such a thing survive. Further we could not take them down in a ‘nice’ way for fear they would pop another nuke over (fill in the blank). We would have to break their back in a manner of hours.

We might be able to do that with conventional weapons. But would you be willing to bet (say) Tokyo on your getting the job done right the first time? With nukes a lot more Koreans would die, but many fewer Japanese, Chinese, Americans and whatnot.

In any case, it would not be nice.

48

South Korea and Japan would be fully aware that they were the next targets on North Korea’s list. These two nations would be the first ones asking the US to invade North Korea and offering to help.

49

Invasion would not be fast enough to prevent then taking a few cities with them. I see no real choice but to resort to using big bombs.

50

Saw a great documentary (IIRC, on Worldlink TV, my new favorite station), describing Kim Jong Il’s leadership of North Korea.

Many Clinton-era State Department types were interviewed, who said that their meetings with him suggested that diplomatic solutions could be reached if given enough time. But the change in administration and Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech pretty much put the kibosh on that path.

His main problem is that his country hasn’t a dime to its name. His other main problem is that, unlike some other totalitarian dictators, he is both crazy AND stupid.

His most recent attempt was to open up negotiations with Japan for aid. Unfortunately, he decided that a good way to get the warm fuzzies going at the bargaining table would be to admit that a 13-year old girl, the victim of one of several unsolved high-profile kidnappings in Japan, was in fact, as suspected in her case and several others, taken by Korean agents. She was forced to teach Japanese in North Korean military schools for a number of years until her suicide in the 1990s. Kim Jong Il thought that coming clean about her case would demonstrate NK’s willingness to open up new diplomtic relations.

Of course, the talks broke down in a hail of Japanese demands to know the fate of over a dozen other kidnapping victims suspected to be Korean prisoners, and NK walked away with empty pockets. A short time later came the revelation that some underground bunkers, previously spotted in spy satellite photos, which NK had SWORN had no nukes or nuke-related programs in them, did in fact contain nukes, and that Kim Jong Il would use them himself or sell them to the highest bidder.

Given that, nukes or not, NK is jonesing for some cash, it is unlikely that he would hit one of the world’s richest nations right in the pipeline.

But suppose he did.

We need to retreat 20 years or so back into Cold War Think. No nation on Earth, regardless of their current opinion of the US, is going to give a nuclear attack any sort of ho-hum. Nukes change everything. If KJI demostrated through this maneuver that he had nukes with that sort of range, it would indicate that there was a clear and present danger to:

[ol]
[li]The United States (nukes: check)[/li][li]China (nukes: check)[/li][li]Russia (nukes: check)[/li][li]India (nukes: check)[/li][li]Pakistan (nukes: check)[/li][li]South Korea, an ally of the US (nukes: check)[/li][li]Japan, an ally of the US (nukes: check)[/li][li]Australia and/or New Zealand, protectorates of Great Britain (nukes: check)[/li][li]Several Polynesian islands, some of whom I believe still have ties to France (nukes: check)[/li][/ol]

And perhaps several former Soviet Republics (no maps handy to compare distances), who may still have leftover nukes as well.

In other words, Kim Jong Il will have scared the living shit out of the entire nuke-possessing world. After some EXTREMELY delicate and fast negotiations, these nations could likely agree to cut their losses and turn much of North Korea into a large, buzzing hole in the ground. Or at least combine forces and take over the country.

51

Its not the reason that counts , in an impeachment , its the votes.

I think Nixon had a quote that explained it , but can’t recall it at the moment. But yes , some responses , depending on the scale of the attack and the amount of casualties would be grounds for impeachment.

Declan

52

Your scenario isn’t based on reality at all–not that the OP is, mind you.

Are you aware that best estimates put the NK nuclear force at 4-6 weapons? Given the semi-fictitious ICBM delivery systems outlined in the OP–and the fact that Kim has already nuked the territorial US–why would you assume such an unstable character wouldn’t fire the next one at a US or Japanese/ SK city?

Your suggestion of starving the NKs into submission or waiting for a massive conventional U.S. counterpunch would INVITE a blistering NK followup attack. Remember, Kim has several additional nuclear birds in his arsenal. Do you really think he, after having already nuked Alaska–and patently knowing that the US is amassing a devastating blow that will likely kill him, his lieutenants, and everything Daddy has built–do you really think this nutcase would hesitate to striking lash out with everything in his arsenal?

And do you really think tens of millions of Americans–glued to their TV sets as saturation news reports focus of the irradiated Alaskan wilderness and reports that the NKs have several more nukes–do you think they would sit there and say, “Gee, I hope those US bombers can counterattack and knock out the NK nukes within, oh, maybe the next 72 hours.”

Once Kim crosses the nuclear threshold, nukes the US anywhere, and still has more nukes in his possession, the US would have no choice but to respond with a major, but surgical, nuclear strike. The entire US defense doctrine is based on knocking out as many nukes as possible while still in their silo/bunkers. The doctrine specifically is based on the notion that the US should not be a nuclear “sponge.”

In short, as Kim was weighing his options and feasting on the international press reports, a US boomer parked off the NK coast would slide open several of its SLBM tubes and unleash hell on NK. End of story.

53

I’m aware of this estimate, sure. If you follow the logic of the OP (such as it is) then NK is trying to blackmail the US…why else launch against an unpopulated area? So, it follows that they aren’t going to immediately follow up by nuking a US, Japanese or SK city, no?

Huh? Did you actually read what I said? My ‘suggestion’ was to attack the NK’s missile silos, triple C, power, infrastructure, etc with conventional forces…not ‘starve them out’. The PRACTICAL result of this would be the people would starve as they are that close to the brink. However, the TACTIAL targets would of course be the nukes…and we could take those out with conventional weapons as easily and as quickly as we could with nukes.

As to the rest…I think that if someone is going to nuke some caribou in Alaska instead of a city then they aren’t going to immediately launch against a city…what would the point have been? Again, the OP’s scenerio is far fetched and not very realistic. I was working off the ‘logic’ of that.

Ya, I think thats exactly what they would think. Do you REALY think that the majority of Americans are going to be happy about the US nuking another country when there were viable alternatives?? What reality do you live in?? Do you REALLY think that the nations that are next to NK are going to be happy about the US knee jerking to nukes when there were viable alternatives, especially when the first strike was against an unpopulated area??

I of course disagree. In fact, I think that our BETTER choice is surgical strikes with conventional weapons, as they are generally more precise and accurate. Sending over ICBM’s (which is the only ‘fast’ alternative that couldn’t be done by conventional arms) isn’t a way to take out nukes…its a way to destroy population centers…ICBM’s (even US ICBM’s) are just not accurate enough to destroy hardened missile silos unless you saturate the area. However, bunker buster type strikes are tailor made for such missions.

Or they could pop conventional tomahawks instead and have the same effect. Why do you suppose it would HAVE to be nukes?

-XT

54

"Nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure."
–Ripley
–From one of the Alien Movies.

55

I just thought of something reading this. Could it be that NK does now have the technology to get a missle to the U.S. with a fair amount of reliability, and that’s why they’re resuming the nuke program?

56

No , but they probably do have a program that will hit Japan , which would mean that the japanese have probably been advocating a peaceful solution.

To hit an american Target , somewhere on the left coast, you need an icbm like the Titan or Atlas , for a nation thats primarily using liquid fuel sluggers. Thats just to get something high enough , then their nav and penaids have to come generations forward.

Last I would say that so far their nuclear doctrine has been fairly incoherent, depending on what they want to achieve , a slower build up of a few devices a year would be more consistent. By reprocessing the spent fuel, they give the appearance of wanting to build alot of nukes really quickly.

And the consequence of that is that America actually stops being the primary threat , and that honor goes to china, who would probably raise a few eyebrows in peking , over the amount of nukes the north koreans actually have.

Sooner or later , the thoughts probably going to click in someones head that Peking can be blackmailed just as easily.

Declan

57

Definately. If another country nukes us, the average American opinion is going to be that that country needs to be wiped off the map.

58

The question has to be, what is the purpose of having nuclear weapons? If the NKs just want to prove they have one or more nukes, an above ground test on their own territory would do that nicely. Since many countries have conducted above ground tests on their own territory this scenario makes the most sense.

The only reason to nuke Alaska would be to prove they have both nukes and ICBMs. But even the dumbest and craziest dictator has to realize that this is very likely to end in either a conventional bombing and invasion or a nuke and pave scenario. This is an act of war, no country could sit still for it. Even if the point was to show that NK had nukes and wasn’t afraid to use them, they would have to figure that the best response by everyone else would be to destroy the NK regime no matter what the cost. Nuking Tokyo in revenge wouldn’t seem much of a comfort to Kim Jong Il when Chinese troops send his head in a box back to Beijing.

A comparable situation would be a guy holed up in house, claiming to have a gun. The cops could storm the house, but they’ll usually wait him out. But when the perp starts shooting the cops have no incentive to hold back, they will immediately shoot back. What have they got to lose? If the perp starts to execute hostages the SWAT team goes into action right then and there. Even if they can’t prevent the first few executions what other choice do they have?

So the best strategy for the perp is to make wild threats, claim to have all kinds of weapons, threaten to execute everyone and everything, and make demands. But the perp has to know that the minute he starts to carry out the threats the SWAT team is going to take him out. He knows that the goal of the SWAT team is to prevent the executions and try to de-escalate the situation. But once the bullets start flying they have nothing to lose by storming his position.

So, nuking Alaska is the dumbest thing NK could do. It would end the regime. Maybe they’re so crazy they don’t care, but in that case there isn’t anything the US/Japan/SK/China/Russia could do anyway except absorb whatever nuclear strikes the NKs dish out before we annihilate them, either nuclearly or conventionally.

59

Exactly…its definitely a far fetched scenerio. I guess the only debate is to speculate on the US response to such an unlikely event, as we’ve been doing. And even thats all guess work. My guess, as I’ve said before in the thread, is that if NK nuked an uninhabited area of the US causing either zero or a minimal loss of life, the US response would be conventional. However, even a conventional response by the US is like a ton of bricks falling you your head. It would certainly be more than enough to take out NK’s remaining nukes (if they can be taken out at all), as well as destroy the country. And this is not even counting the SK response, China’s response, Russia’s response, etc. China in particular could strike NK targets in a very short time frame with either conventional or nuclear forces.

-XT

60

Take a closer look at a map. North Korea and Russia have an about 20 km border. There is a major rail link through that border, so it has some importance.

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?