OT: Nuclear War???

[TerranC]

If, for example, North Korea launched a nuke at the US because one of their leaders was a little bit loopy,

That's a rhetorical question, right?

what do you think the US would do?? Wait until they got another few nukes thrown at them, or nuke 'em back??

Hopefully, the US will have developped sufficient missile defense programs/systems by then; It's not as if NK nukes (if they exist) are high tech, most of them would be scuds with with a plutonium bar attached. But should one hit, it is most likely that the US will retaliate, but not with nukes.

It's really an unwinnable situation, since if they DON'T nuke them back, they run the risk of having other fringe countries throwning nukes at them, since they know the risk of nuclear retaliation would be minimal.

Fringe countries throwing nukes at the US? Take out North Korea and how many Fringe countries are there? Iran and Syria? Iran, if it wanted to, would rather nuke Israel first, and Syria is dirt poor; almost if not all of their military hardware is cold war-era French and Soviet equipement. You should be worrying more about dirty bombs from terrorist organizations and mountain men than state-to-state nuclear warfare.

But if they DO nuke them, then they run the risk of North Korea's supporters getting involved (China) which could then easily lead to worldwide nuclear war.

If the US nukes North Korea, they run the risk of nuking South Korea and Manchuria, radiating a bit of Japan and areas near Beijing, and sterilzing the Sea of Japan and the Yellow sea.

By that time, you shouldn't worry about China nuking the US, you should worry about the whole world nuking the US.

It will happen. It's only a question of when.

Think happy thoughts, now. For every psychopath, there are hundreds of goodwilled rational men and women.

[Phoenix-D]

TerranC said:

That's a rhetorical question, right?

NK's leader is known to be more than a bit kooky.

Hopefully, the US will have developped sufficient missile defense programs/systems by then; It's not as if NK nukes (if they exist) are high tech, most of them would be scuds with with a plutonium bar attached. But should one hit, it is most likely that the US will retaliate, but not with nukes.

IIRC standard US policy is pretty simple: any large scale use of chemical or biological weapons, or any use of nuclear weapons, gets a nuclear response. Probably a larger one than the initial attack. As pointed out later dirty bombs are pyscological weapons; the actual damage would be minimal.

Biological and chemical weapons are similar. Yes, they are nasty. No, they AREN'T anywhere near a nuke in potency. Not the ones we have now anyway.

An attack with chemicals in a Japanease subway- basiclly the best possible enviroment for such an attack, since its enclosed and has a ventilation system to spread the chemicals for you- only killed about 10 people.

[Randallw]

I stand corrected then. It was just an idea I had.

[TerranC]

NK's leader is known to be more than a bit kooky.

Of course, that's why I replied "that's a rhetorical question right?", as anyone who's been mindful of the news from that region would know better than to ask if the leaders of Norks would be kooky enough to launch nukes.

IIRC standard US policy is pretty simple: any large scale use of chemical or biological weapons, or any use of nuclear weapons, gets a nuclear response.

As I've said before, the US would most certainly retaliate should it ever come under nuclear attack from North Korea, but to strike it down with nukes is just not feasable; the Korean Peninsula is home to 70 million people, more or less, all of whom are looking forward to eventual reunification, if not an immediate reunification. Radiating the northern half won't help that cause very much. Not to mention that Seoul, the capital of South Korea and home to more than 10 million people is only about 110 miles away from Pyongyang, and would most certainly be in the fallout range of any attack on Pyongyang. South Korea is also home to 37000 US troops; many of them around the DMZ and Seoul. Dropping a nuke on the norks and irradiating them along with many South Korean civilians, citizens of a (more or less) pro-US nation would be insane. Dropping a nuke further north won't do any better; fallout from those bombs would most likely reach China or Russia. Any bomb would almost certainly spread radioactive fallout on the Sea of Japan or the Yellow sea, furthering the risk of turning China into a true enemy and/or Japan into an Anti-US nation. Dropping a nuke on the norks would be akin to dropping a nuke on the Syrians to save the Israelites, or on Serbia while trying to conserve the balkans.

An attack with chemicals in a Japanease subway- basiclly the best possible enviroment for such an attack, since its enclosed and has a ventilation system to spread the cheicals for you- only killed about 10 people.

The attack was made by civilians who actually bumbled the attack, where only a few of the homemade pockets of sarin were released and spread successfully. Should a military ever undertake such an attack, with soldiers trained in releasing chemical agents to their most effectiveness, with a more potent form of sarin or any other agent, and with more stockpiles of the agent used befitting any military-style attack, the effects and the death toll would have been far greater.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

At one time, a Soviet (notice: Soviet, not Russian) computer error caused an alert as the soviets thought nukes were incoming. The commander of one installation was faced with the decision: launch a nuke in "retaliation" or wait to be sure? The rest is history... since there would BE no more history had he launched a nuke.