The fear of North Korea

[klr]

Personally, I don't believe the US would use such a nuclear response.

Why? I think SK would demand it. Maybe even Japan.

Japan? Good grief. If the Japanese of all people are really inclined to think that way, I'd be very, very worried.

Oh...the new PM, Abe...very right-wing nationalistic. There's been talk recently of Japan re-arming itself.

Given that unit costs for Japanese tanks, jet fighters and warships are amongst the most expensive in the world, there's a practical limit to how far Japan could go in that regard.

Just as long as increased military forces are for self-defence, and having nothing to do with Hakkō ichiu and the like.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the nuke detonates above-ground, like with Nagasaki (and I think Hiroshima), the fallout is minimal. Maybe even negligible. The problem with fallout comes when the nuke detonates on or near the ground, lifting up massive quantities of irradiated material into the atmosphere. I seriously doubt NK has the refined tech to detonate their nukes above-ground, so fallout would most likely be a big issue for SK and Japan.

But the SK/USFK response wouldn't be so crude. Fallout would be minimal and the least of the worries, I think.

Both bombs were air bursts. The shock wave wouldn't have been as effective it if was a ground burst. And there was the issue that the impact might have occurred before the detonation, making for an embarrassing moment as the US asked for its bomb back so they could have a do-over.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why do we give their threats so much credence when we know they're absolutely incapable of military action, and will never follow through with nuclear retaliation, ever?

Their bravado is purely to protect the ruling regime, and they would never do anything out of character that might risk destabilising the status quo.

We really ought to ignore them

Because they are very capable of military action.

[Coito ergo sum]

Its their unpredictability that is feared I fancy. They seem to live in their own paranoid little world and if they feel it is under threat who knows what they could do.

One bomb.

And Israel isn't paranoid and under threat?

No. Under threat, yes. Paranoid, no.

[Clinton Huxley]

Why do we give their threats so much credence when we know they're absolutely incapable of military action, and will never follow through with nuclear retaliation, ever?

Their bravado is purely to protect the ruling regime, and they would never do anything out of character that might risk destabilising the status quo.

We really ought to ignore them

Because they are very capable of military action.

They've done fuck all in the last 60 years or so....

[Coito ergo sum]

Which is gonna blow first?

My money is on LP.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm not sure the Chinese would be happy if the US nuked N. Korea. They'd probably call in their loans.

[klr]

Why do we give their threats so much credence when we know they're absolutely incapable of military action, and will never follow through with nuclear retaliation, ever?

Their bravado is purely to protect the ruling regime, and they would never do anything out of character that might risk destabilising the status quo.

We really ought to ignore them

Because they are very capable of military action.

They've done fuck all in the last 60 years or so....

Relative to their interminable and bombastic bluster, this is certainly true. And so you have to conclude that in their heart of hearts, the leadership (at a collective level anyway) know that any major act of aggression - not necessarily nuclear-based - would be suicidal for the regime and for them personally.

I'm not sure the Chinese would be happy if the US nuked N. Korea. They'd probably call in their loans.

Old Chinese western saying:

When you owe the bank a thousand pounds, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a million pounds, the bank has the problem. China cannot afford to bring it's main export market to its knees. The global recession that would follow would devastate Chinese exports, and its economy generally.

[FBM]

If the nuke detonates above-ground, like with Nagasaki (and I think Hiroshima), the fallout is minimal. Maybe even negligible. The problem with fallout comes when the nuke detonates on or near the ground, lifting up massive quantities of irradiated material into the atmosphere. I seriously doubt NK has the refined tech to detonate their nukes above-ground, so fallout would most likely be a big issue for SK and Japan.

But the SK/USFK response wouldn't be so crude. Fallout would be minimal and the least of the worries, I think.

Both bombs were air bursts. The shock wave wouldn't have been as effective it if was a ground burst. And there was the issue that the impact might have occurred before the detonation, making for an embarrassing moment as the US asked for its bomb back so they could have a do-over.

Also a distinct possibility if NK were to lob one over the DMZ. I'm not sure they could pull off even a short shot like that. If they did, though, I doubt the US/UN would catch a lot of flak over responding in a way to cut the exchange short.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why do we give their threats so much credence when we know they're absolutely incapable of military action, and will never follow through with nuclear retaliation, ever?

Their bravado is purely to protect the ruling regime, and they would never do anything out of character that might risk destabilising the status quo.

We really ought to ignore them

Because they are very capable of military action.

They've done fuck all in the last 60 years or so....

Well, they have no real navy and their air force is of limited range. They have a massive ground force and two borders -- China and South Korea. They haven't done anything because they are hemmed in. If they do something, it will be, essentially, suicide. they could, however, do quite a lot before they check out.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the nuke detonates above-ground, like with Nagasaki (and I think Hiroshima), the fallout is minimal. Maybe even negligible. The problem with fallout comes when the nuke detonates on or near the ground, lifting up massive quantities of irradiated material into the atmosphere. I seriously doubt NK has the refined tech to detonate their nukes above-ground, so fallout would most likely be a big issue for SK and Japan.

But the SK/USFK response wouldn't be so crude. Fallout would be minimal and the least of the worries, I think.

Both bombs were air bursts. The shock wave wouldn't have been as effective it if was a ground burst. And there was the issue that the impact might have occurred before the detonation, making for an embarrassing moment as the US asked for its bomb back so they could have a do-over.

Also a distinct possibility if NK were to lob one over the DMZ. I'm not sure they could pull off even a short shot like that. If they did, though, I doubt the US/UN would catch a lot of flak over responding in a way to cut the exchange short.

Glazed marxists.

[pErvinalia]

I wonder what Seth thinks the US should do?

[klr]

I wonder what Seth thinks the US should do?

Why do you even need to wonder?

[MiM]

How long for the S. Korean airforce and USAF to take out the static NK artillery positions?

More than 40 seconds (estimated flight time from SK artillery to NK positions) , which is more than it takes for them shoot a few rounds, which will already do huge damage.

[pErvinalia]

I wonder what Seth thinks the US should do?

Why do you even need to wonder?

I think he would be in favour of peaceful dialogue based around shared concerns and common understandings.