4 ms·

> 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 res

> 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 ago
Fortunately 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.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  > Fortunately the public doesn't have unmoderated access to ICBMs. Unfortunately, the stable genius in the WH does.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    No matter what we think of him, he didn't start any war during his mandate which is quite a feat for a US president!
    - eternauta3k 6y ago
      He still has a couple months left...
    - nrclark 6y ago
      He tried with Iran. They declined the invitation, lucky for us all.
      - dmurray 6y ago
        Most "enemies of the US" don't get given that choice.
      - CapricornNoble 6y ago
        >>>He tried with Iran. They declined the invitation, Which part of this is the President "trying" and the Iranians "declining"? https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or... He's probably the only Commander-in-Chief I've had so far to say "I don't think it's proportionate to bomb a bunch of people because we lost a drone."
        nrclark 6y ago
        I'm referring to the Trump-ordered assassination of Qasem Soleimani. He was Iran's equivalent of the Secretary of Defense, and also a folk-hero to Iranians. Soleimani was assassinated by US drone strike in January 2020. Iran responded with a carefully-targeted retaliation - a small missile strike against an unused/unmaintained US military installation in Iraq. There were no casualties. Iran chose a target with low strategic value and no personnel present. Just enough of a strike that they could sell it as retaliation, but not enough of a strike to escalate into a full war. I won't pretend to know if the assassination was warranted or necessary. But it's easily something that Iran could have used to justify a war.
ohazi 6y ago
> The American public would demand a nuclear strike against China in retaliation This... doesn't seem likely. > 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. Okay, I see where you're coming from, but this was not the scenario being discussed. The scenario presented was "NK lobs a single nuke at Los Angeles." The expected response is closer to "US decapitates NK before they can fire any more, everybody shits their pants, but no additional nukes are fired." Decapitating NK in one fell swoop might be possible... decapitating China is highly unlikely. The US should therefore not initiate firing nukes at China unless a substantial number of US cities have already been hit, because doing so would all but guarantee that those cities would be hit by China in the next volley.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  The US should therefore not initiate firing nukes at China unless a substantial number of US cities have already been hit, because doing so would all but guarantee that those cities would be hit by China in the next volley. A ballistic launch towards NK looks an awful lot like a ballistic launch towards China, is the problem there. Will China "wait and see" where it lands?
  - ohazi 6y ago
    It would certainly be unnerving, but I would expect their command and control procedures to account for some amount of context. In this case, the context would be: "Holy shit guys, NK just launched a rocket that looks like it's headed for LA!" [3 minutes later] "And now the US just launched 14 rockets, and they might be headed for us, but they're probably headed for NK." China's best option is to wait and see, because if they decide to fire, and were wrong about China being targeted, they'll see another round of launches three minutes after that one, and those will be headed for China. They've played this all out. MAD really does work.
  - reissbaker 6y ago
    If NK launched a nuke against an American city, and the American president told the world "I am decapitating NK in response," I don't think China would look at a strike against NK as "Oh no but what if it's a strike against us secretly, let's start a nuclear war with America just to be sure." China doesn't want to enter WWIII any more than the US does. And the US response to an NK attack is very predictable.
baybal2 6y ago
You speak as if the war will end on that. Both sides will still have enough conventional standing forces to keep fighting for months. A prospect of USA trying to win a land war in China is mind boggling, and equally so for China launching a land operation in the USA.

jusssi 6y ago

Fortunately 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.

ganafagol 6y ago
> Fortunately the public doesn't have unmoderated access to ICBMs. Unfortunately, the stable genius in the WH does.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  No matter what we think of him, he didn't start any war during his mandate which is quite a feat for a US president!
  - eternauta3k 6y ago
    He still has a couple months left...
  - nrclark 6y ago
    He tried with Iran. They declined the invitation, lucky for us all.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      Most "enemies of the US" don't get given that choice.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      >>>He tried with Iran. They declined the invitation, Which part of this is the President "trying" and the Iranians "declining"? https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or... He's probably the only Commander-in-Chief I've had so far to say "I don't think it's proportionate to bomb a bunch of people because we lost a drone."
      - nrclark 6y ago
        I'm referring to the Trump-ordered assassination of Qasem Soleimani. He was Iran's equivalent of the Secretary of Defense, and also a folk-hero to Iranians. Soleimani was assassinated by US drone strike in January 2020. Iran responded with a carefully-targeted retaliation - a small missile strike against an unused/unmaintained US military installation in Iraq. There were no casualties. Iran chose a target with low strategic value and no personnel present. Just enough of a strike that they could sell it as retaliation, but not enough of a strike to escalate into a full war. I won't pretend to know if the assassination was warranted or necessary. But it's easily something that Iran could have used to justify a war.

ohazi 6y ago

> The American public would demand a nuclear strike against China in retaliation This... doesn't seem likely. > 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. Okay, I see where you're coming from, but this was not the scenario being discussed. The scenario presented was "NK lobs a single nuke at Los Angeles." The expected response is closer to "US decapitates NK before they can fire any more, everybody shits their pants, but no additional nukes are fired." Decapitating NK in one fell swoop might be possible... decapitating China is highly unlikely. The US should therefore not initiate firing nukes at China unless a substantial number of US cities have already been hit, because doing so would all but guarantee that those cities would be hit by China in the next volley.

goatinaboat 6y ago
The US should therefore not initiate firing nukes at China unless a substantial number of US cities have already been hit, because doing so would all but guarantee that those cities would be hit by China in the next volley. A ballistic launch towards NK looks an awful lot like a ballistic launch towards China, is the problem there. Will China "wait and see" where it lands?
- ohazi 6y ago
  It would certainly be unnerving, but I would expect their command and control procedures to account for some amount of context. In this case, the context would be: "Holy shit guys, NK just launched a rocket that looks like it's headed for LA!" [3 minutes later] "And now the US just launched 14 rockets, and they might be headed for us, but they're probably headed for NK." China's best option is to wait and see, because if they decide to fire, and were wrong about China being targeted, they'll see another round of launches three minutes after that one, and those will be headed for China. They've played this all out. MAD really does work.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  If NK launched a nuke against an American city, and the American president told the world "I am decapitating NK in response," I don't think China would look at a strike against NK as "Oh no but what if it's a strike against us secretly, let's start a nuclear war with America just to be sure." China doesn't want to enter WWIII any more than the US does. And the US response to an NK attack is very predictable.

baybal2 6y ago

You speak as if the war will end on that. Both sides will still have enough conventional standing forces to keep fighting for months. A prospect of USA trying to win a land war in China is mind boggling, and equally so for China launching a land operation in the USA.