3 ms·

I'm perplexed by the logic here. If NK initiated a preemptive strike on local bases, there wouldn't be an opportunity for a second wave of attacks against the U

I'm perplexed by the logic here. If NK initiated a preemptive strike on local bases, there wouldn't be an opportunity for a second wave of attacks against the US mainland. The United States would retaliate so savagely that there wouldn't be any infrastructure for people to initiate a second strike with.

rgbrenner 9y ago
keep in mind NKs missiles are on mobile launchers like this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-truck/north-korea-appeared-to-use-china-truck-in-its-first-claimed-icbm-test-idUSKBN19P1J3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china... They can be hidden pretty easily.
zzalpha 9y ago
I'm perplexed by the logic here I'm perplexed that you're perplexed. The article does a good job of laying out their argument. In short: The claim is that Kim believes the US wouldn't "retaliate so savagely" because the US wouldn't be willing to risk losing a major populated area to a successful ICBM strike. So preemptive nuclear strikes on local bases make sense to degrade the US's ability to stage a conventional invasion, while acting as a deterrent by threatening a strike on the domestic US. You can choose to believe or not believe that argument (it depends on your measure of risk in that scenario), but the logic is clear and reasonable.
munificent 9y ago
I found the writing style of this article a little opaque (and poorly edited in some places), so let me try to lay out the logic as I understand it. There are two styles of attack: "conventional" (bombers, soldiers, etc. but no nukes) and "nuclear". A successful conventional attack on NK could quickly remove its ability to initiate a nuclear attack. Without too much trouble, the US or some other major power could send a bunch of bombers over and completely eradicate NK's nuclear arsenal. NK may be able to prevent a conventional attack by making a pre-emptive nuclear attack on foreign military targets. I say "may" because I think this is the least-justified claim of the article. Doing that would not provoke the same kind of international response that a nuclear attack on NK would. If we blew up a base or two in NK, we could say, "We're just try to keep the world safe." and most other countries probably wouldn't do much about it except maybe some stern looks of disapproval. This means that a conventional attack on NK is more likely, since there is less disincentive for it. NK has no real ability to respond conventionally. We could take out their entire military without breaking a sweat. Their only noteworthy weapon is nukes. That means they must be preserved at all costs. So Kim Jong-Un knows: 1. A conventional attack can remove NK's nuclear capability. 2. A nuclear strike on military bases may prevent that conventional attack. 3. NK's nuclear capability is their only weapon against other countries so must be preserved at all costs. Those logically imply that if NK is to engage in any military conflict, it must strike first with nuclear weapons. Anything else results in defeat. Add to that: 4. A conventional attack is more likely because there would be fewer repercussions on other countries for doing so. Combine those together and it implies an NK nuclear first strike on military targets is more likely. This presumes you believe 2 and 4 to be true. I think 4 probably is true -- the world generally seems to roll over when the US marches troops into random countries, even under dubious justification (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I don't believe 2 is true. Even if NK used every nuke they got on every base they can reach, I think the US and its allies would still have so much remaining military capability that we could turn the entire country into a glowing slag heap and still be home in time for the weekend.

rgbrenner 9y ago

keep in mind NKs missiles are on mobile launchers like this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-truck/north-korea-appeared-to-use-china-truck-in-its-first-claimed-icbm-test-idUSKBN19P1J3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china... They can be hidden pretty easily.

zzalpha 9y ago

I'm perplexed by the logic here I'm perplexed that you're perplexed. The article does a good job of laying out their argument. In short: The claim is that Kim believes the US wouldn't "retaliate so savagely" because the US wouldn't be willing to risk losing a major populated area to a successful ICBM strike. So preemptive nuclear strikes on local bases make sense to degrade the US's ability to stage a conventional invasion, while acting as a deterrent by threatening a strike on the domestic US. You can choose to believe or not believe that argument (it depends on your measure of risk in that scenario), but the logic is clear and reasonable.

munificent 9y ago

I found the writing style of this article a little opaque (and poorly edited in some places), so let me try to lay out the logic as I understand it. There are two styles of attack: "conventional" (bombers, soldiers, etc. but no nukes) and "nuclear". A successful conventional attack on NK could quickly remove its ability to initiate a nuclear attack. Without too much trouble, the US or some other major power could send a bunch of bombers over and completely eradicate NK's nuclear arsenal. NK may be able to prevent a conventional attack by making a pre-emptive nuclear attack on foreign military targets. I say "may" because I think this is the least-justified claim of the article. Doing that would not provoke the same kind of international response that a nuclear attack on NK would. If we blew up a base or two in NK, we could say, "We're just try to keep the world safe." and most other countries probably wouldn't do much about it except maybe some stern looks of disapproval. This means that a conventional attack on NK is more likely, since there is less disincentive for it. NK has no real ability to respond conventionally. We could take out their entire military without breaking a sweat. Their only noteworthy weapon is nukes. That means they must be preserved at all costs. So Kim Jong-Un knows: 1. A conventional attack can remove NK's nuclear capability. 2. A nuclear strike on military bases may prevent that conventional attack. 3. NK's nuclear capability is their only weapon against other countries so must be preserved at all costs. Those logically imply that if NK is to engage in any military conflict, it must strike first with nuclear weapons. Anything else results in defeat. Add to that: 4. A conventional attack is more likely because there would be fewer repercussions on other countries for doing so. Combine those together and it implies an NK nuclear first strike on military targets is more likely. This presumes you believe 2 and 4 to be true. I think 4 probably is true -- the world generally seems to roll over when the US marches troops into random countries, even under dubious justification (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). I don't believe 2 is true. Even if NK used every nuke they got on every base they can reach, I think the US and its allies would still have so much remaining military capability that we could turn the entire country into a glowing slag heap and still be home in time for the weekend.