Although if one assumes the regime is not always highly rational under all possible circumstances, then his very cogent last sentence is less of an obstacle to launch than it ought to be.
“If I’m going down I’m taking you with me” is fairly common psychopathic thinking. IMO that’s the thought process which has the greatest likelihood of actually triggering NK doing what we really don’t want them to.
Which puts the outside powers in the paradoxical position of wanting to ensure the current incumbent of the Kim throne dies peacefully of old age and is replaced smoothly by his heir apparent. Over and over UFN.
They have yet to demonstrate that they even have nuclear weapons. Bombs, yes, they have those, but a bomb isn’t a weapon unless you can deliver it to an enemy.
Just the other day I was on Youtube which handled this very question: Basically, with the range and payload characteristics of their best ICBM, and the size and weight of their probable dimensions of nuclear device, the only US territories in danger are Anchorage, Alaska and Guam.
I think it’s rather smug and dismissive to call people “scared children.” We’re human. we all are prone to panic (except for Internet Tough Guys, of course) when we perceive a large threat. Especially if it’s one we feel powerless to fight.
and someone lobbing nukes at this country is indeed a large threat most of us are powerless to fight.
It is more appropriate to criticize politicians and the media for encouraging such fear. I think they have greatly exaggerated what new capabilities NK recently demonstrated. Most of us seem to have forgotten that they actually launched a satellite into orbit way back in 2009. Of course that was a tiny satellite, but it still demonstrated that they could fly a small payload to anywhere on earth.
If you live in LA you’re right to be directly concerned for your safety. If you live in Kansas you aren’t. Though the incremental contribution of NK to the risks in an Angeleno’s life is still negligible compared to that of crossing the street given their traffic.
On 9/11 the bad guys destroyed a hundred million dollars worth of buildings and stuff. The US populace then “retaliated” over the next six months by taking a trillion off the US stock market and recessioning the US’ real economy, throwing a couple hundred thousand US people out of their jobs. We self-inflicted a million-fold damage on ourselves over what they inflicted on us.
We didn’t do that on 12/07/1941. We did do that on 09/11/2001. Both groups were human and subject to all the same foibles individually. What we do collectively is up to us, our collective national character, and our “leaders”; be they government officials, media figures, or whoever has the biggest TwitFace following.
Those who aren’t thinking about the difference between the reaction to these two dates are probably doomed to going along with the herd. IMO the more the herd thinks now, the greater the likelihood of them doing the smarter, better thing.
In a crisis, people do what they’ve rehearsed. If that’s nothing, they’ll do nothing. You’re 100% right that fear is the default. My argument is we don’t have to settle for the default.
You (any you) are free to choose to be one of those nothing/default people. For me, I’ll be beating the drum for as many people as possible to not be those people.
Just the other day I was on Youtube which handled this very question: Basically, with the range and payload characteristics of their best ICBM, and the size and weight of their probable dimensions of nuclear device, the only US territories in danger are Anchorage, Alaska and Guam.
[/QUOTE]
That video is dated April 12 and may no longer be accurate. The Hwasong-14 missile, successfully test-fired for the first time on July 4 (and again on July 28), appears to be more powerful than the Taepodong-2 mentioned in that video.
I’ve tended to think that if it comes to it, any first strike by the DPRK would be upon Japan. It reduces the likelihood of delivery failure and exploits the uncertainty as to whether the US would actually go nuclear in response to an attack purely upon a third party.
Poor Japan. They’ve experienced this twice already.
It would present a dilemma, wouldn’t it? Any retaliation could result in the devastation of Seoul and major political and economic problems worldwide. That might be considered acceptable if they struck US territory, but Japan?
On the other hand, not responding militarily seems just as unacceptable.
And look at who we have making these decisions.
I would hope that there are already plans for such a scenario, and that CIC Cheeto would listen to career military and state department people.
It might be good to have some kind of coordinated NATO response. That would at least take some diplomatic heat off of the US. But I think that’s unlikely.
So far LSLGuy seems to be the only one considering, given the bounds of this little chit-chat, “what would happen” to include the economic costs and–trenchantly, I believe–how things “happen” is a very contingent thing, as in the 9/11 response compared with other catastrophes, on the somewhat wild social and economic decisions made following the event.
Along these lines, and some comparison may be made to the US financial industry as an immediate casualty on 9/11, the wholesale destruction of the infrastructure of the film industry–including the people although unfortunate to phrase this way–must be considered in this particular horrific OP.
ETA: I didn’t think it was possible, by definition of both words, for anything said in a chit-chat to be trenchant. Surprise!
I wonder about such an event triggering automated sell-offs in the stock market. I claim no in-depth knowledge of markets, but this seems like a possibility leading to a significant recession again.
Well, yes, widespread emission of British flatulence would certainly be more lethal than sarin gas and the methane spike would alert the world to your nefarious intentions. But, I’m certain you sneaky Brits are covertly bottling your bottomly emissions in order to re-claim your long lost empire in a not-too-distant thermoflatulent war. I’m keeping my eye on you guys!
Does NK have an equivalent to the US Navy Seals? How well trained is their army in comparison? I looked up their total amount of troops and it’s over 7 million. This seems to be way over what the US has. Am I missing something?
