North Korea Now Making Missile Ready Nuclear Weapons

[ignoramus]

I like to merge the solar eclipse thread with this one and bring everyone some good news.
If we have an all out nuclear war, we can all enjoy a total eclipse for about 3-5 years while all our vegetation dies off.

[bennyboy]

I think the idea that N. Korea will use nukes on South Korea or Japan is pretty unlikely. The actual warfare would be conventional artillery fire. N. Korea can rain down so many goddamned shells that Seoul will be set back about 10 years.

They will be surprisingly resourceful, I think. Internet hacks, control of American banks or nuclear facilities, chemical agent attacks, and all kinds of tricky stuff is possible.

[Pat Mustard]

And they know this.

Furthermore, they don't need nukes at all to destroy Seoul. They'll save a couple for Seoul just in case the artillery doesn't get 'er done, but their nukes will be flying to Pusan, Tokyo, and Guam, I think. Interdict the resupply, discombobulate a major adversary, and try to catch some heavy bombers on the ground.

And are we sure they even have the resources to reach Pusan? Because we seem to be taking for granted that a nation that can't even be arsed to feed their own people, even if it means a good-sized portion will be too undernourished to even be fit enough for military service, actually has comparable resources to the US long-distance-warfare-wise.

We do. With their recent tests it's been shown that NK can fire rockets a minimum of 5,000km. And latest intelligence shows that they're on the verge of having nukes small enough to put on an ICBM if they haven't already.

[ignoramus]

[dyresand]

[Anomalocaris]

The problem here are the following:

1. North Korea has an unknown but likely non-trivial number of nuclear warheads.

2. North Korea is likely not far from being able to put such warheads on missiles.  They may already be able to do so for some shorter range missiles, we don't know.

3. Kim and his family have murdered far too many people for it to be remotely plausible that any of them would die peacefully in their beds after they were deposed.  They don't want to be hunted and slaughtered like dogs, so they will never give up under any circumstances the only garranty for their own safety, which is their absolute rule over the military and security apparatus of their state.  

4. American propaganda has villanized the Kim regime for too long such that if there was a military action  and America fail to depose Kim, it would seem to domestic audience like an outright military defeat for America.  American defeat at the door step of the only serious rival superpower china, and right under the eyes of the two really stellar success stories of 70 years of American hegemony in the west pacific - South Korea and Japan, is likely to presage the end of American influence in the region. So if there is a war in Korea and Kim is not deposed, then whoever is the president will be toast in the next election.

5. American also could not credibly offer Kim safety to induce them to leave peacefully to achieve our aims, both for reason number 4, and because of Obama/clinton's principled but moronic decision not to protect the life of another despot, kadafi of Libya.

6. Hence any American military action must go all out and depose Kim, and thus present a mortal threat to Kim regime, and mortal threat to Kim rule is precisely the only time Kim will likely use, and the one time he will certainly use, his nuclear weapons.

7. China is unlikely to step in and depose Kim for the US. CHina has no wish to be on the receiving end of Kim's nuclear weapons either.

from this we can conclude:

1. Kim will be of absolutely no threat, at least to America, if there is no imminent sign of American military action, despite any bluster.

2. Kim will absolutely use every last nuclear weapons he has got, if he is certain a military action against him is imminent.

[Rev. Rye]

The way I see it, the most likely conclusion is this: he's unlikely to actually use his nukes (due to the inevitable consequences, and partly due to other material concerns), but the Kims have put so much into their military that they can't afford to not rattle their sabers at any given opportunity.

[Jehanne]

[Anomalocaris]

The way I see it, the most likely conclusion is this: he's unlikely to actually use his nukes (due to the inevitable consequences, and partly due to other material concerns), but the Kims have put so much into their military that they can't afford to not rattle their sabers at any given opportunity.

Make light of his motives all you want, the real calculus is simple to the extreme: For Kim there is no life without nuclear weapon.

He will certainly chose to use his nuclear weapons if it is use it or lose it, or if he is in grave danger of being deposed.

Don't think he will use it if his regime is not threatened despite his own bluster, don't think he won't use it if his regime is gravely threatened, regardless of blood curdling threat of consequences from the idiot trump.

[Rev. Rye]

The way I see it, the most likely conclusion is this: he's unlikely to actually use his nukes (due to the inevitable consequences, and partly due to other material concerns), but the Kims have put so much into their military that they can't afford to not rattle their sabers at any given opportunity.

Make light of his motives all you want, the real calculus is simple to the extreme: For Kim there is no life without nuclear weapon.

He will certainly chose to use his nuclear weapons if it is use it or lose it, or if he is in grave danger of being deposed.

Don't think he will use it if his regime is not threatened despite his own bluster, don't think he won't use it if his regime is gravely threatened, regardless of blood curdling threat of consequences from the idiot trump.

You know, given that the US has been stockpiling nuclear weapons for over 70 years and haven't actually used them since August 9, 1945 (72 years ago today, by an extraordinary coincidence), I don't think there will likely be much of a "use it or lose it" situation.