3 ms·

Exactly. This is a country that has sunk ships, shelled civilians, and abducted foreign nationals (Japanese, mostly), forcing them to work for the regime. Every

Exactly. This is a country that has sunk ships, shelled civilians, and abducted foreign nationals (Japanese, mostly), forcing them to work for the regime. Every time, they have pretty much gotten away with it. It may all be coldly rational brinkmanship, or they may be as crazy as they look. I would not put it past them to explode a nuclear warhead on Japanese territory as a big, "Don't mess with us," message if they thought they could get away with it. Remember, reality does not matter, it is what they believe that matters. You might say that would be national suicide, but I don't need to understand the motivation to understand that suicide bombers exist. Honestly, I don't know how the U.S. would respond to such an event, especially if they were not certain that they could prevent another launch.

krapp 10y ago
>Honestly, I don't know how the U.S. would respond to such an event, especially if they were not certain that they could prevent another launch. The US is obligated by treaty to defend Japan against imminent military threat[0]. As far as I know, that doesn't allow for a preemptive strike by the US, but landing a nuke on Japanese territory would probably require the US to respond in kind. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_a...
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  I find the idea of nuclear retaliation rather unlikely. Even ignoring civilian casualties in the North, it is too close to population centres in the South not to mention Chinese and Russian territory. I think a large conventional attack (with the blessing of China and Russia and possibly also their assistance) is far more likely. That is what I would do. However, you need to be reasonably confident that you can take out their ability to make further nuclear launches not to mention conventional attacks against the South. Remember that Seoul is within artillery range. At this point, the consequences of not acting are probably greater than the consequences of attacking, but I don't see a scenario where it really ends well for anybody. Would the North take that risk? I certainly hope not, but as I said, I don't trust them to be rational.

krapp 10y ago

>Honestly, I don't know how the U.S. would respond to such an event, especially if they were not certain that they could prevent another launch. The US is obligated by treaty to defend Japan against imminent military threat[0]. As far as I know, that doesn't allow for a preemptive strike by the US, but landing a nuke on Japanese territory would probably require the US to respond in kind. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_a...

goodcanadian 10y ago
I find the idea of nuclear retaliation rather unlikely. Even ignoring civilian casualties in the North, it is too close to population centres in the South not to mention Chinese and Russian territory. I think a large conventional attack (with the blessing of China and Russia and possibly also their assistance) is far more likely. That is what I would do. However, you need to be reasonably confident that you can take out their ability to make further nuclear launches not to mention conventional attacks against the South. Remember that Seoul is within artillery range. At this point, the consequences of not acting are probably greater than the consequences of attacking, but I don't see a scenario where it really ends well for anybody. Would the North take that risk? I certainly hope not, but as I said, I don't trust them to be rational.