• North Korea threatens US with nuclear strike as American warships approach
    75 replies, posted
[QUOTE=download;52097555]How so? The risk of a nuclear attack from North Korea would outweigh the negligible risk from fallout from a few dozen nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] what's the point of using nukes if we manage to shoot down the nukes that NK fires?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52097290]China absorbing North Korea would be a massive blow to their economy as well as regional infrastructure. Just because China is physically large and has a large population doesn't mean it can easily just incorporate whole nations like that into itself.[/QUOTE] Oh i misread. I was thinking if the whole thing collapsed china could move in to take over north korea and get a bunch of resources and land and solve a bunch of diplomatic problems. A refugee crisis of north koreans would absolutely be a mess for everyone, no doubt
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52097564]what's the point of using nukes if we manage to shoot down the nukes that NK fires?[/QUOTE] Because they could very well do it again and next time we might not be so lucky. A North Korea that tries to use nuclear weapons against another nation is a North Korea that has gone too far. No one, not even China, will tolerate it.
[QUOTE=download;52097597]Because they could very well do it again and next time we might not be so lucky. A North Korea that tries to use nuclear weapons against another nation is a North Korea that has gone too far. No one, not even China, will tolerate it.[/QUOTE] Nukes doesn't need to be countered with nukes. Only in RTS games. Conventional ordinance would do just fine to cripple NKs nuclear capacity, as with anything else they might have.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52097843]Nukes doesn't need to be countered with nukes. Only in RTS games. Conventional ordinance would do just fine to cripple NKs nuclear capacity, as with anything else they might have.[/QUOTE] And now you're just greatly devalued deterrence because you've shown you won't respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons.
[QUOTE=download;52097881]And now you're just greatly devalued deterrence because you've shown you won't respond to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] You do have a point, but I'd argue NK is too special of a case to apply to the idea of nuclear deterrence in general. The US responding by not nuking a barely-industrialized backwater Asian country won't significantly affect for the nuclear deterrence balance between actual global powers, such as between US and Russia, for example. Mutually assured destruction is a critical part of nuclear deterrence, and that simply doesn't exist here. North Korea could not destroy the US even if it launched first. I'm sure we could think up plenty of situations involving nukes that doesn't actually warrant a full-out nuclear response.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52097903]You do have a point, but I'd argue NK is too special of a case to apply to the idea of nuclear deterrence in general. The US responding by not nuking a barely-industrialized backwater Asian country won't significantly affect for the nuclear deterrence balance between actual global powers, such as between US and Russia, for example. Mutually assured destruction is a critical part of nuclear deterrence, and that simply doesn't exist here. North Korea could not destroy the US even if it launched first. I'm sure we could think up plenty of situations involving nukes that doesn't actually warrant a full-out nuclear response.[/QUOTE] Mutually assured destruction is garbage for the most part and only applies to no-holds-barred counter-value strikes. Deterrence comes from being able to inflict serious harm to your enemies. NK doesn't need to threaten the US directly to provide deterrence (though it helps), instead deterrence comes by proxy from threatening Japan and South Korea. They don't need to level Japan to provide deterrence, being able to destroy just one city provides it.
[QUOTE=download;52097555]How so? The risk of a nuclear attack from North Korea would outweigh the negligible risk from fallout from a few dozen nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] a few dozen nuclear weapons could have the capability to cause a few revolutions, wars, economic implosions, environmental disaster, etc (especially given that the powerful weapons we have right now have never ever been used in war before and we don't know what would happen) you'd be asking a lot of the fragile systems that make up much of the modern world - too much.
[QUOTE=download;52097935]Mutually assured destruction is garbage for the most part and only applies to no-holds-barred counter-value strikes. Deterrence comes from being able to inflict serious harm to your enemies. NK doesn't need to threaten the US directly to provide deterrence (though it helps), instead deterrence comes by proxy from threatening Japan and South Korea. They don't need to level Japan to provide deterrence, being able to destroy just one city provides it.[/QUOTE] Yes, NKs threats and nuclear development does absolutely provide deterrence, what I mean is that responding to any of their potential nuke deployments specifically with conventional weapons doesn't really devalue deterrence in general. It wouldn't mean Putin could suddenly feel confident that he can get away with raining some nuclear hellfire on things he doesn't like. Now, I'd agree with you that if NK somehow magically managed to successfully send a nuke into a city Trump would really be itching to slam that red button. But the far likelier and more sensible scenario (again, specifically for the NK case) would be that the weapon would be intercepted and SK+US+Japan would move in and surgically disable NKs nuclear abilities (as well as other targets) rather than decide they need to flatten all of Pyongyang just of principle.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52098124]Yes, NKs threats and nuclear development does absolutely provide deterrence, what I mean is that responding to any of their potential nuke deployments specifically with conventional weapons doesn't really devalue deterrence in general. It wouldn't mean Putin could suddenly feel confident that he can get away with raining some nuclear hellfire on things he doesn't like. Now, I'd agree with you that if NK somehow magically managed to successfully send a nuke into a city Trump would really be itching to slam that red button. But the far likelier and more sensible scenario (again, specifically for the NK case) would be that the weapon would be intercepted and SK+US+Japan would move in and surgically disable NKs nuclear abilities (as well as other targets) rather than decide they need to flatten all of Pyongyang just of principle.[/QUOTE] Regardless of what ordinance is used, the whole situation would be a shitstorm if escalated to full blown war. Nukes or no nukes there are gonna be a tonne of problems in that region, even on the global scale we would feel it
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52098124]Yes, NKs threats and nuclear development does absolutely provide deterrence, what I mean is that responding to any of their potential nuke deployments specifically with conventional weapons doesn't really devalue deterrence in general. It wouldn't mean Putin could suddenly feel confident that he can get away with raining some nuclear hellfire on things he doesn't like. Now, I'd agree with you that if NK somehow magically managed to successfully send a nuke into a city Trump would really be itching to slam that red button. But the far likelier and more sensible scenario (again, specifically for the NK case) would be that the weapon would be intercepted and SK+US+Japan would move in and surgically disable NKs nuclear abilities (as well as other targets) rather than decide they need to flatten all of Pyongyang just of principle.[/QUOTE] Except they don't need to flatten Pongyang. Launch sites and airstrips are perfectly valid targets for nuclear weapons. You've clearly fallen for the very incorrect stereotype that cities are primary nuclear targets. Nuking a city doesn't halt a war in the short term and likely leads to your enemies abandoning any restraint. It's also dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket and assume your ABM will save you.
[QUOTE=joshthesmith;52098178]Regardless of what ordinance is used, the whole situation would be a shitstorm if escalated to full blown war. Nukes or no nukes there are gonna be a tonne of problems in that region, even on the global scale we would feel it[/QUOTE] Indeed. Nobody, not China, NK, SK, US or anybody else has anything to gain from an all-out war. Which is why I firmly believe that no major military will happen in any foreseeable future. NK will build their nuke to ensure their survival and eventually gain recognition as a sovereign state, then slowly begin to normalize relations with the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52098218]Indeed. Nobody, not China, NK, SK, US or anybody else has anything to gain from an all-out war. Which is why I firmly believe that no major military will happen in any foreseeable future. NK will build their nuke to ensure their survival and eventually gain recognition as a sovereign state, then slowly begin to normalize relations with the rest of the world.[/QUOTE] That sounds awfully a lot like North Korean apologism to me.
don't forget the potential guerilla warfare shitfest in the event of a war
[QUOTE=download;52098253]That sounds awfully a lot like North Korean apologism to me.[/QUOTE] Well, it isn't. It's just what I think is the most likely outcome of all this bollocks given that it's pretty clear nobody involved would benefit from this war.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52098218]Indeed. Nobody, not China, NK, SK, US or anybody else has anything to gain from an all-out war. Which is why I firmly believe that no major military will happen in any foreseeable future. NK will build their nuke to ensure their survival and eventually gain recognition as a sovereign state, then slowly begin to normalize relations with the rest of the world.[/QUOTE] If you think anyone is going to give NK recognition after all the shit it's done you are crazy. With the way things are going this is most likely going towards some sort of conflict.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.