8 ms·
That seems incredibly optimistic. It seems to me that one of the possible, even likely, outcomes is a nuclear exchange starting with an NK thermonuclear weapon
by ojbyrne 6y ago
That seems incredibly optimistic. It seems to me that one of the possible, even likely, outcomes is a nuclear exchange starting with an NK thermonuclear weapon obliterating a major US city (LA instead of a naval base in Hawaii), followed by the decapitation you reference, followed by a PRC nuclear response, followed by what “Wargames” referred to as Global Thermonuclear War.
- ohazi 6y agoPRC can either fire and also lose a few cities, or not fire and be ignored. MAD works because everyone knows that starting or joining a nuclear firefight is literally suicide. What would compel them to fire if they're clearly not being targeted?
- mpweiher 6y agoFor example: a mistaken belief that they were being targeted. The book The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States: A Speculative Novel describes such a scenario. Chilling. https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Jeffrey-Lewis/dp/1328573915/ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Jeffrey-Lewis/dp/1328573915/
- arethuza 6y agoGood book - another book where a Russian/China/US nuclear war starts mainly by accident is Arc Light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Light_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Light_(novel) And, of course, for cases of a war starting because of a false belief that they were about to be attacked there is the real life case of Able Archer 83: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
- baybal2 6y ago> What would compel them to fire if they're clearly not being targeted? A thinking that they can win: Tojikistan, Karabag, Transnistria, Georgia, Donbas, Crimea, Syria, Libya — all set a very damning precedent of the West conceding to use of force.
- oblio 6y agoThere's a huge difference between a village in the middle of nowhere in a country Westerners don't care about and a major city in a developed country being attacked. And I say that as someone from about 500 km away from Transnistria, not as a Westerner. Also everyone knows that the US is both highly militaristic and highly jingoistic.
- vertis 6y agoThis definitely goes in the TIL pile. I'm fairly well traveled E.g. I've visited most of the Balkans, Sarajevo, Mostar, but I had not heard of Transnistria. Also ++ for the use of jingoistic. :)
- mshroyer 6y ago> Also everyone knows that the US is both highly militaristic and highly jingoistic. That was certainly true up through the early 2000s, but this stereotype is by now out of date. On the left, America is self-loathing, and on the right it's become quite isolationist.
- oblio 6y agoThat's just a thin veneer. Do you think that if the US were attacked somehow, we wouldn't have a repeat of 2003?
- mshroyer 6y agoNo, I don't think so, not exactly. It depends on the specifics, of course. If a specific country directly attacked the US, of course I'd expect (and even demand) a military response. But these days, I wouldn't expect a non-state's terrorist attack to lead to the sort of misguided, ill-informed adventurism that ultimately led us to invade Iraq.
- chasd00 6y agoi don't think so, a clear military attack on American soil by a foreign nation would mean lines around the block at local military recruitment offices in every city/town across the nation. Congress would have a full declaration of war signed in an hour. Terrorist attacks like 9/11 leave doubt about who to go after and at what scale to retaliate but a clear attack on a city by a foreign state as an act of war is a different thing. Gloves would come off and the complete full force of every resource ( military, political, economic, etc ) would be brought to bear.
- adventured 6y ago> PRC can either fire and also lose a few cities, or not fire and be ignored. That's unlikely to be the scenario. The big problem for China is that they're responsible for the current North Korea regime existing. China has been directly, intentionally propping up and protecting North Korea from day one. The American people will not find it acceptable to exchange Pyongyang for Los Angeles or New York, much less trade several of North Korea's cities for several major US cities. The American public would demand a nuclear strike against China in retaliation, a more equitable outcome - Shanghai for Los Angeles, Beijing for New York - for those ultimately responsible for what North Korea is today. That's where hundreds of millions of people could die from a North Korean strike. It's why China should have never enabled and tolerated the Kim regime in the first place, and now it's too late to fix that historic blunder. Any nuclear strike from North Korea will likely result in a nuclear strike against China. This is equivalent to the Israeli Samson option (which is why you don't want Iran getting nukes). If the US goes down - eg loses its top 30 cities - why shouldn't it take every Chinese and Russian city with it? Try convincing the American public to not want revenge against anyone that has ever assisted North Korea.
- jusssi 6y agoFortunately the public doesn't have unmoderated access to ICBMs. It's also notable that the USA has also tolerated the Kim regime, because it gives them an excuse to be present in force in South Korea. It's not like the CIA couldn't have the Kims removed if they put some effort into it. PRC would have to pretend to be angry about it, but it would also get them out of the awkward situation.
- redis_mlc 6y ago> PRC can either fire and also lose a few cities, or not fire and be ignored. CCP leadership has never cared if they lost half their population. It would be a bonus - less mouths to feed. And in fact about a quarter of China's population died in the Cultural Revolution, which was planned. > MAD works because everyone knows that starting or joining a nuclear firefight is literally suicide. No, MAD is a placebo for the ignorant public. Moscow has it's own ABM ring, and Reagan thought that not physically defending the US was stupid, hence SDI. Islam also doesn't care about MAD.
- sneak 6y agoIs there any indication whatsoever that DPRK has, has developed, or even CAN develop, now or in the future, thermonuclear devices? It’s my understanding that they have designed and produced only fission weapons. I’ve never heard a single piece of information ever that suggests that they can, could, or would produce a fusion bomb. “possible, even likely” in the context of a DPRK fusion bomb, given what I have seen and read thus far, seems like complete fantasy to me. Do you know something I don’t?
- jsmith99 6y agoThe 2017 test had a yield in the low hundreds of kiloton, and is widely but not universally accepted as a thermonuclear test.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoTrue, but no one knows for sure if NK knows how to weaponise a warhead to make it deliverable by missile.
- sneak 6y agoIs it even possible to build a fusion bomb that's "low hundreds of kiloton"? The first ever (and presumably smallest?) one the US ever did ("Ivy Mike") was two orders of magnitude larger than that (~10MT). There is no question that the DPRK has fission weapons, but ojbyrne asserted a thermonuclear attack, which I have never seen any indication is within the present or predictable future capabilities of the DPRK. Oh, hang on. It would appear the DPRK has actually made this claim, according to WP, but it seems to be disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#North_Kor...
- jsmith99 6y ago> Is it even possible to build a fusion bomb that's "low hundreds of kiloton"? Yes, and in fact most thermonuclear devices nowadays are in that range as its more efficient than a smaller number of megaton range bombs. Eg the most common US warhead (fitted to Trident) is the 100 kiloton W76 and each Trident missile can carry 14 of them, each independently targeted.
- Udik 6y ago> starting with an NK thermonuclear weapon obliterating a major US city That doesn't seem smart at all. I think that a nuclear explosion on the ocean, right in front of a major city (NY, LA) but at safe distance, would be a better start. It provides the same amount of threat with no victims and no pressing need for blind retaliation.
- jacobush 6y agoYou may also loose your only chance to do damage that way. An incoming ICBM might get a response before it’s exact target is known.
- Udik 6y agoBut why would you do damage? Since NK could never possibly win a "damage" war with the US- disabling the US ability to retaliate or defend itself- the purpose of an attack by a country like NK can only be that of preventing further attacks or retaliations. And inflicting serious damage on the first shot is ensuring that such retaliation will happen. What NK needs is to make clear that the cost of attacking it can be unsustainably high, while provoking the least possible response.
- ohazi 6y agoITT: everyone rediscovers mutually assured destruction NK doesn't need to fire anywhere close to the US in order to do this. We're already watching them, and for the most part, they've already made it clear that attacking them might cost us a city or two. Putting on a nuclear waterworks in front of Los Angeles would be psychotically risky, because the US would need to decide whether or not to return fire before the US target is known. "Vaguely near Los Angeles" might as well be Los Angeles because of measurement uncertainties, late-stage course corrections, and MIRVs. As usual, the winning move is not to fire anything that might be construed as a nuke towards any of your enemies, unless you are prepared to die.
- Steve44 6y agoIt doesn't need to be an ICBM, it could be in a shipping container or a fishing boat. They just sail right into position.