29-07-2003 11:42									#91
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse ... 2) If NK had 5 nukes (say) and used them all in an attack against SK, and the US had conventional options open to it to defend SK, then I probably would be opposed to the use of nukes against NK (depending on what the probable casualty count was).

**shrug** By that point in the game, SK may want the United States to respond with a tactical nuke strike or two of its own. But if they insisted on keeping it conventional — well, it's their nation and most of their soldiers on the line, so I would accede to their wishes and plan a conventional offensive war.

quote: 3) If NK had 25 nukes and used 5 of them against SK, then used the other 20 as a big stick to keep the US etc. out of affairs on the Korean continent then I would have no problem whatsoever with the US blasting the **** out of them. If nukes are to continue to remain an unattractive option across the world then nuclear blackmail to facilitate wars of conquest cannot be permitted, especially when the blackmailing power has demonstrated its willingness to use them. In this case the only viable option would probably be the nuclear annihilation of NK's nuclear and launch capabilities.

Yeah, but if 10 of those 20 leftover NK nukes are capable of hitting the West Coast of the United States, I'm not sure we would risk hitting them back with our own tactical nukes. In this case, it might be more likely we'd use conventional means whereas in the first instance above (where NK had no nukes left) the U.S. might be more inclined to bring out the big guns unless SK indicated otherwise.

quote: IMO you have a mistaken view of the reaction of the world to a nuclear attack. Nobody's ever used nukes since the possibility of a nuclear war became possible in 1949. None of the nuclear powers want to see a nuclear war, as it would almost certainly degrade their standing (even if they were not directly involved). China would do nothing to defend NK from the consequences of its actions.

I would absolutely *love* to have a mistaken view of the world in this case. Really. I prefer your view on things in this instance, but the realist in me believes that at least a portion of the planet's population might not have such an adverse reaction to the use of nukes by NK, particularly if they limited them to tactical hits on obvious military targets.

Gatekeeper

	29-07-2003 14:15									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: But positing that NK will collapse before it becomes a viable nuclear threat is wishful thinking.

Indeed. I'm trying to figure out what happens to a collapsing country with nuclear weapons. Our only model has to be the former Soviet Union. They may develop the nukes, but will they use them while the country goes to pieces? Are there any significant differences between the situation in NK and the Soviet Union?

	29-07-2003 20:38									#93
	Put an end to popups!

Yes. SU was run by reformers as it collapsed.

NK isn't.

	29-07-2003 22:58									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm ... if I remember correctly, wasn't there a point during the meltdown of the Soviet Union that Gorbachev didn't have control of the nuclear codes?

Gatekeeper

	30-07-2003 03:46									#95
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

IIRC, yes. But that didn't last very long. Didn't have enough time to develop into a US-USSR confrontation as the coup leaders had internal problems to worry about...

	30-07-2003 10:59									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeltsin. He was such a party-pooper.

	30-07-2003 11:16									#97
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Yeltsin. He was such a party-pooper.

The man did great things in that brief week of sobriety.

	30-07-2003 12:46									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am convinced North Korea will never invade the South. It will never invade simply because there is nothing in the south that North Korea could use to improve its pitiful circumstances. Think about it. South korea is a wealthy industrialized nation whose wealth, like that of all of the other most wealthy nations, is largely a result of massive trade. North korea would continue to starve after a successful invasion of the South not only because the souths industrial complex, labor force, and its agricultural base would be traumatized by the appallingly massive military conflict but also because the enormous trade that the south enjoys and relies on would evaporate as north korea would have even more trouble getting outsiders to trade promtly with its new regime than the US had trying to get sanctions lifted on Iraq. It is almost impossible to see how it could survive it's attack economically long enough for trade to resume.

To sum up, the South will not be invaded by the north because there's really nothing helpful there to steal (however wealthy it might be).