3 ms·

Assume North Korea has on the order of ten or so nuclear weapons and one day Kim Jong-un goes nuts and launches them all towards the USA. Some are stopped by mi

Assume North Korea has on the order of ten or so nuclear weapons and one day Kim Jong-un goes nuts and launches them all towards the USA. Some are stopped by missile defense systems but a few make it through, hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of victims. What now? Do you really turn North Korea into a sheet of glass because you always threatened mutual destruction? The people of North Korea had mostly nothing to do with what just happend, the responsible people may be hiding in nuclear bunkers. There are also no more nukes posing a further thread. Do you really kill millions of innocent people out of revenge?

nokcha 9y ago
Are you suggesting that nobody in North Korea with the power to stop the launch of a nuclear attack would be severely adversely affected by nuclear retaliation that reduces North Korea to rubble? I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. In fact, I think MAD is one of very few things that could provoke a mutiny against Kim Jong-Un.
opportune 9y ago
Against NK in particular the details of the retaliation are unimportant, considering China would probably not back them up for doing something so crazy, and NATO could easily crush them conventionally. I'm not advocating using nukes against a one-off NK attack at all, nor am I advocating revenge. I guess I was speaking more generally than just the hypothetical NK first strike scenario. Although I agree with you regarding your scenario, I think it's inaccurate to assume that the decision to retaliate would only be made after the nukes have landed and the "rubble" cleared. The debates and decisions would be made in the minutes after the launch. Considering there would be no way to know whether the attack was perhaps the start of some more-international conflict (e.g. an unlikely NK-Russia or NK-China joint first strike), and considering such an attack would likely coincide with a land invasion of SK, a retaliatory strike might be necessary. Hopefully if this situation ever plays out in real life the US will opt to use low-yield, low-fallout nukes targeting military facilities with minimal civilian casualties.
- danbruc 9y ago
  My point was mainly that mutually assured destruction might not really work the way it is supposed to. I am sure a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about it but I am not convinced that it really works, at least not in all scenarios. If one side breaks out, screw it, we launch the nukes, the other side might suddenly not have good reasons to retaliate. They might of course still do it just because that is what the plan says or to prove to potential future attackers that they really mean it, but besides that there may actually not be any good reasons to retaliate, at least in some scenarios. But that will admittedly depend heavily on the actual scenario and I just provided one that seems rather unlikely or at least incomplete, only launching the nukes and nothing else.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ExcelSaga 9y ago
  It’s worth pointing out that the extensive submarine fleet the US has could give it a bit more leeway in choosing their second strike than any other nation. Having said that, Americans went to two wars based on a conventional attack on New York. I’m pretty sure that they’d be baying for nuclear fire if they were actually nuked themselves, and they might not be satisfied with anything less than “parking lot” effects. At the very least, I think Pyongyang would be thoroughly nuked. The intersection of a few dozen Mach stems would do the trick, although the fallout wouldn’t be trivial for anyone downwind, like China or RoK.

nokcha 9y ago

Are you suggesting that nobody in North Korea with the power to stop the launch of a nuclear attack would be severely adversely affected by nuclear retaliation that reduces North Korea to rubble? I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. In fact, I think MAD is one of very few things that could provoke a mutiny against Kim Jong-Un.

opportune 9y ago

Against NK in particular the details of the retaliation are unimportant, considering China would probably not back them up for doing something so crazy, and NATO could easily crush them conventionally. I'm not advocating using nukes against a one-off NK attack at all, nor am I advocating revenge. I guess I was speaking more generally than just the hypothetical NK first strike scenario. Although I agree with you regarding your scenario, I think it's inaccurate to assume that the decision to retaliate would only be made after the nukes have landed and the "rubble" cleared. The debates and decisions would be made in the minutes after the launch. Considering there would be no way to know whether the attack was perhaps the start of some more-international conflict (e.g. an unlikely NK-Russia or NK-China joint first strike), and considering such an attack would likely coincide with a land invasion of SK, a retaliatory strike might be necessary. Hopefully if this situation ever plays out in real life the US will opt to use low-yield, low-fallout nukes targeting military facilities with minimal civilian casualties.

danbruc 9y ago
My point was mainly that mutually assured destruction might not really work the way it is supposed to. I am sure a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about it but I am not convinced that it really works, at least not in all scenarios. If one side breaks out, screw it, we launch the nukes, the other side might suddenly not have good reasons to retaliate. They might of course still do it just because that is what the plan says or to prove to potential future attackers that they really mean it, but besides that there may actually not be any good reasons to retaliate, at least in some scenarios. But that will admittedly depend heavily on the actual scenario and I just provided one that seems rather unlikely or at least incomplete, only launching the nukes and nothing else.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ExcelSaga 9y ago
It’s worth pointing out that the extensive submarine fleet the US has could give it a bit more leeway in choosing their second strike than any other nation. Having said that, Americans went to two wars based on a conventional attack on New York. I’m pretty sure that they’d be baying for nuclear fire if they were actually nuked themselves, and they might not be satisfied with anything less than “parking lot” effects. At the very least, I think Pyongyang would be thoroughly nuked. The intersection of a few dozen Mach stems would do the trick, although the fallout wouldn’t be trivial for anyone downwind, like China or RoK.