WI North Korean nuclear test successful

What if the 2006 North Korean nuclear test had been a success with a yield of around 10-20 kilotons? How would the US, Japan and South Korea respond with the knowledge that North Korean can build about a dozen more of such weapons. Would they attack North Korea or would it just mean a continued embargo?
 
Let's just say the liberal media would be comparing Bush to Tojo....

Well... that was random.

On subject, I can't see much difference. Not while China's still on the border. Maybe a few lighter terms for North Korea on the embargo, but that's it.
 
well North Korea will be treated much more lightly, as does happen to any country joinimg the nuke capable club...
 
Japan is heading for Article 9 reform on the political agenda quickly. I am sure someone will say they will build a nuclear bomb or some rubbish however they won’t. However a nuclear armed Korea is going to make it imperative that Tokyo has some kind of first strike capability to stop the worst case scenario. This is probably the only chance Japan has for rearming without the world and most of Asia screaming bloody murder.
 
The insular, paranoid, and Stalinst regime in the cult that calls itself North Korea would be reminded that they have set off one bomb, and that, should they use any in combat, the U.S. can deliver fifty in retaliation. Not to mention a reaffirmation of the U.S. nuclear umbrella to both the ROKs and Japan. (meaning: a nuclear attack on either is treated as a nuclear attack on the U.S., and will be responded to with disporportionately excessive force)
 

The Sandman

Banned
The insular, paranoid, and Stalinst regime in the cult that calls itself North Korea would be reminded that they have set off one bomb, and that, should they use any in combat, the U.S. can deliver fifty in retaliation. Not to mention a reaffirmation of the U.S. nuclear umbrella to both the ROKs and Japan. (meaning: a nuclear attack on either is treated as a nuclear attack on the U.S., and will be responded to with disporportionately excessive force)

They would also have to be warned that any attempt to sell bombs or bomb technology would meet similarly apocalyptic consequences.
 
While not going that far, the Israelis have already destroyed a NK nuclear plant in Syria. F-15I Strike Eagles with PGMs....
 
They would also have to be warned that any attempt to sell bombs or bomb technology would meet similarly apocalyptic consequences.

said that, their regime seem like more less paranoid...

does anyone feel is not a good idea to nuke-to-dust someone just 'cause it's approaching the technology to make a nuke? Someone who happens to be confining to a nuclear capable nation that will be so happy to sustain the subsequent fallout?

May be I missed some part of the reasoning.....
 

MacCaulay

Banned
does anyone feel is not a good idea to nuke-to-dust someone just 'cause it's approaching the technology to make a nuke? Someone who happens to be confining to a nuclear capable nation that will be so happy to sustain the subsequent fallout?

May be I missed some part of the reasoning.....

Amen. Amen!

There are some people on this board that seem a little...nuclear happy.

You brought up a very good point. All that fallout has to go somewhere. It's either going across the Yalu into China, or across the Parallel into South Korea.
And if the United States just covered South Korea in fallout to save it from North Korea's (possible) nuclear weapons, we didn't accomplish much, did we?

If you take the logic that some people apply to nuclear weapons in what-if scenarios on this board and put it on things that actually happened, it's amazing we're still living.
The British would've destroyed Argentina in 1982.
The Americans and the Soviets would've been glowing holes in the ground four of five times over.

Christ on a crutch! If India and Pakistan didn't fire on each other for doing tests, then we wouldn't fire on North Korea. I'm not a policy wonk, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that.
 
While not going that far, the Israelis have already destroyed a NK nuclear plant in Syria. F-15I Strike Eagles with PGMs....

On the other hand, if North Korea wished to strike back, it could wreak its own brand of havoc.

And the timing of the attack is an issue, diplomatically. Strike before a test and many would consider it a provocation by the US. strike after, and north Korea has nuclear weapons (potential, at least).

And North Korea is a far harder nut to crack than Syria or Iraq for this sort of deep penetration strike. Not sure what the odds would be on the strike, as North korea has generally obsolete air defenses, but lots of them, and to a certain extent their aerial strategy is oriented around air defense. Penetration without detection would probably be difficult without stealth aircraft (the radars could easily be defeated, but their number makes total suprise tough), and while the North Korean air force may have trouble making a decent intercept, the sheer volume of ground based fire will be dangerous, to say the least.
 
said that, their regime seem like more less paranoid...

does anyone feel is not a good idea to nuke-to-dust someone just 'cause it's approaching the technology to make a nuke? Someone who happens to be confining to a nuclear capable nation that will be so happy to sustain the subsequent fallout?

May be I missed some part of the reasoning.....

Amen. Amen!

There are some people on this board that seem a little...nuclear happy.

You brought up a very good point. All that fallout has to go somewhere. It's either going across the Yalu into China, or across the Parallel into South Korea.
And if the United States just covered South Korea in fallout to save it from North Korea's (possible) nuclear weapons, we didn't accomplish much, did we?

If you take the logic that some people apply to nuclear weapons in what-if scenarios on this board and put it on things that actually happened, it's amazing we're still living.
The British would've destroyed Argentina in 1982.
The Americans and the Soviets would've been glowing holes in the ground four of five times over.

Christ on a crutch! If India and Pakistan didn't fire on each other for doing tests, then we wouldn't fire on North Korea. I'm not a policy wonk, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that.

Um, nobody said we should nuke North Korea if they test a nuclear bomb. What was suggested was nuking them if the USE a nuclear bomb against one of our allies, or if they SELL a nuclear bomb or bomb technology abroad...especially as their most likely customers for that would be terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Neither of these is unreasonable.
 
On the other hand, if North Korea wished to strike back, it could wreak its own brand of havoc.

And the timing of the attack is an issue, diplomatically. Strike before a test and many would consider it a provocation by the US. strike after, and north Korea has nuclear weapons (potential, at least).

And North Korea is a far harder nut to crack than Syria or Iraq for this sort of deep penetration strike. Not sure what the odds would be on the strike, as North korea has generally obsolete air defenses, but lots of them, and to a certain extent their aerial strategy is oriented around air defense. Penetration without detection would probably be difficult without stealth aircraft (the radars could easily be defeated, but their number makes total suprise tough), and while the North Korean air force may have trouble making a decent intercept, the sheer volume of ground based fire will be dangerous, to say the least.

There is an even bigger issue then that militarily. If the United States upsets Dear Leader's nuclear ambitions, then we can garuntee that the Nork's will use ever bit of artillery they have to level Seoul from behind the DMZ. Not to mention large numbers of conventional and chemical-tipped ballistic missiles landing further into South Korea and Japan.

One would have to be able to take out all of North Korea's long-range artillery pieces within hours. Given that North Korea has some 6,000 artillery pieces, and undoubtly a large number of them are aligned along the DMZ, such a feat would require a substantial number of aircraft... which would be absolutely impossible to hide from either South Korea, Japan, and North Korea. None of whom would approve of this kind of attack.

The ballistic missiles would be even harder to hit, the North Koreans have ballistic missile that is almost certainly in excess of 900 usable missiles. The majority of these (over 580) are Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6 missiles, capable of hitting all of South Korea and ~200 Nodong-1 missiles which can reach all the way to southern Honshu and an unknown quantity of Nodong-2's and BM25's, both of whom can target all of Japan and the latter of which posses MRV's (Multiple Re-Entry Vehicles, think a MIRV except none of the warheads are guided during the re-entry phase). All of the missiles I have listed above can be launched by road-mobile launchers, and given the success we have had against road mobile launchers when fighting Iraq in both the Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom we would be better off trying to shoot those things down after they launched.

The cost to a surgical strike against North Korean nuclear sites would way, way, outweigh the benefits. It would be a disaster of monumental proportions.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Um, nobody said we should nuke North Korea if they test a nuclear bomb. What was suggested was nuking them if the USE a nuclear bomb against one of our allies, or if they SELL a nuclear bomb or bomb technology abroad...especially as their most likely customers for that would be terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Neither of these is unreasonable.

Alright. Then let's suppose North Korea puts a nuclear warhead on one of it's missiles and sends it to Seoul or Pohang or Pusan, or wherever.

First, I doubt they'd want to use nuclear weapons on South Korea in an invasion since they'd be hoping they could take over the country and use the infrastructure afterwards. You can't use it if it's radioactive.

But if they did, then I just can't understand how us sending some nuclear weapon into Pyonyang is going to help matters. Now, now not only are we having to deal with the fallout in South Korea caused by a Northern nuclear weapon, chances are very good that we're going to be causing some of our own.
I can speak from experience that just walking in MOPP gear sucks. I thank God I never had to fight in it.
And if the winds change (meteorology is half art, half science, at best), then we're sending all that crap across the Yalu into China and the southern tip of Russia.
Or out into the ocean, where the Navy is going to have to deal with it, probably for years afterwards.

I don't see an upside to this. At all.
 
Top