In this photo provided by South Korea Defense Ministry, South Korea's Hyunmoo II Missile system, left, and U.S. Army Tactical Missile System, right, fire missiles during the combined military exercise between the two countries against North Korea at an undisclosed location in South Korea, Saturday, July 29, 2017. (South Korea Defense Ministry)
Dave Majumdar, National Interest: How Would the U.S. Military Respond if North Korea Attacked with Tactical Nuclear Weapons?
In the event of a war on the Korean peninsula, how would the United States respond to the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on the battlefield that was not aimed at major population centers?
Analysts are divided on the issue, but the majority view is that once the nuclear threshold is crossed, the only possible response would be nuclear.
“Once an enemy uses a nuclear weapon—for any reason—it crosses the nuclear threshold and invites a nuclear response,” arms control expert Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, told The National Interest.
“U.S. military commanders would not say ‘Well, it was only an airburst. We should just respond in kind.’ They would answer with an overwhelming, devastating nuclear counter attack. And our nuclear weapons and command and control are designed to operate in a nuclear war environment, not just some puny EMP blast.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The money quote is the following ....
.... “Once an enemy uses a nuclear weapon—for any reason—it crosses the nuclear threshold and invites a nuclear response,” arms control expert Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, told The National Interest.
“U.S. military commanders would not say ‘Well, it was only an airburst. We should just respond in kind.’ They would answer with an overwhelming, devastating nuclear counter attack. And our nuclear weapons and command and control are designed to operate in a nuclear war environment, not just some puny EMP blast.”
Bottom line .... once tactical nuclear weapons are used, the overwhelming consensus would be that the bigger bombs are next .... hence respond before they do.
13 comments:
Thank god or the devil for thinking
In Desert Storm US policy was to respond to a chemical attack with nukes. Wonder if this still stands
And here's the money line from Putin, yesterday: "they will eat grass, but they will not abandon this program unless they feel safe." The solution to the crisis can be found there but American policy makers are too macho and arrogant to see it.
What then would make them feel safe? Remove all 30 thousand American troops from South Korea? and if they complained about our forces in Japan? or our supplying the South with missles? After all, the South feels threatened because the North not only has nukes but boasts about them. The South does not have nukes. Should we put some there and then offer to remove when the North gets rid of theirs? In sum: the North feels threatened, but, then, so too does the South.
"The solution to the crisis can be found there but American policy makers are too macho and arrogant to see it. "
Exhibit A:
"The Soviet Union was dissolved on December 26, 1991."
If the U.S. was so Hell bent in attacking and subjugating North Korea, why did not an attack happen from December 1991 to 9 October 2006 ( The 1st North Korean bomb test)?
Exhibit B
Why are the tunnels under the DMZ always built from north to south
Your comments are risible, but I think you have a bright future.
You are a shoo in for a PhD in critical theory!
At which university do you want to teach?
michaelshermer.com/2017/09/postmodernism-vs-science/
The US does not "feel safe" either neither does South Korea, Japan, or anyone else except perhaps the pit bull master "feel safe." Unfortunately North Korean policy makers are to macho and arrogant to understand this.
Once the United States and its "allies" feel safe, then the pressure on North Korea to eliminate its nuclear weapons program dissipates. North Korea has Russia and China behind it. The US has Japan, South Korea, and perhaps a few other nations in the region behind it. Conventionally this is isn't much a fight as North Korea and its allies hold a HUGE advantage all the while North Korea is threatening to annihilate the United States with nuclear weapons killing untold millions of Americans.
Mr. Putin is either deliberately or not approaching this from the wrong angle. North Korea is secure and has nothing to fear. It is America and its allies who are not "safe" and cannot "feel safe" in the current environment. This is where the focus actually needs to be. The major powers of Russia and China need to focus on what steps can be undertaken to ensure that American needs for safety and security are met. Then it becomes possible to negotiate a settlement to this conflict. Unfortunately North Korean and their allied leaders of Russia and China re to "macho and arrogant" to understand this.
Of course the US has unfortunately gone out of its way in some instances to inflame tensions with Russia and China, especially Russia in many cases completely unnecessarily. Had this not been done perhaps it might have been easier to secure their help in this situation. Bottom line: America and tis "allies" are the ones who need to "feel safe." North Korea is secure with nothing to fear and is essentially untouchable as long as they have Russia and China. Mr. Putin is not only approaching this from the wrong direction but his comments as well as Carl's to quote Aizino are "risible."
Might Russia be behaving differently now had some not so recklessly and needlessly upended a careful diplomatic process? Since it was upended, there may be no way to know. Nevertheless the comments of Mr. Putin are in fact risible and herein lies the problem with much international diplomacy. America is expected to give up much and others little and the focus is always on America must do this, that, or the other with little to no emphasis on what the other side must do.
To reiterate, North Korea is perfectly "safe" and all but untouchable. It is the US and its "allies" who are not "safe." Focus on how we can make Americans and their "allies" feel "safe" and the problem becomes fairly easy to solve. As long as the emphasis is improperly focused, this is more difficult.
I'm all for South Korea and Japan developing their own indigenous nuclear weapons programs. This way they will be more likely to feel "safe", will be able to act as a valuable buffer and will be likely act as strong capable allies for America. North Korea and their allies will be less safe and will be less able to act with unrestrained impunity. At this point, negotiations become possible. At this point, it seems Russia, China, and North Korean leaders are to "macho and arrogant" to understand this.
Fusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#Starfish_Prime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Project_K_nuclear_tests
Mr Smith
I assume your snarky remarks were meant for me. Sorry. Not looking for work at this time...Thanks, though, for your offer of help. I am sure a recommendation from you would be an entry pass to any university.
Thanks but no thanks
Your name would not mean anything
In decent colleges
Fred, I'm writing on behalf of MIT. Just being mentioned by A.Smith is enough for entry to our prestigious university. Welcome aboard.
thanks, anon
I am unable at this time to take that position. At present I am compiling a book to be called The Wit and Wisdom of A. Smith, a middle school reader
Mr. Lapides,
My remarks were directed at Carl. You did not read the quote I wrote from Carl, otherwise you would have known. Or maybe you did read the quote, but your reading comprehension is low.
No one has taken issue with exhibit A or B.
I linked an article by Michael Shermer. What is the problem? You do not like Mr. Shermer?
Post a Comment