[Ed note: Let's preface this story with the reality that this is, in reality, a question that cannot be answered - how may warheads will be fired, where will they land, what are the weather conditions? That stated, it is an interesting thought experiment and understanding the actual science behind the question can take us away from emotional appeals to a more nuanced understanding of the actual risks. --martyb]
There's an interesting pair of articles over at The Conversation which discuss the potential impacts of smaller scale nuclear conflicts, the perceptions of them, and the risks involved in even localised conflicts.
Initially Mattia Eken argued in March that the threat is often exaggerated and overhyped:
Claims exaggerating the effects of nuclear weapons have become commonplace, especially after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. In the early War on Terror years, Richard Lugar, a former US senator and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to the Western way of life. What he failed to explain is how.
It is by no means certain that a single nuclear detonation (or even several) would do away with our current way of life. Indeed, we're still here despite having nuked our own planet more than 2,000 times – a tally expressed beautifully in this video by Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto).
While the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty forced nuclear tests underground, around 500 of all the nuclear weapons detonated were unleashed in the Earth's atmosphere. This includes the world's largest ever nuclear detonation, the 57-megaton bomb known as Tsar Bomba, detonated by the Soviet Union on October 30 1961.
Tsar Bomba was more than 3,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That is immense destructive power – but as one physicist explained, it's only "one-thousandth the force of an earthquake, one-thousandth the force of a hurricane".
He concluded that:
nuclear weapons are here to stay; they can't be "un-invented". If we want to live with them and mitigate the very real risks they pose, we must be honest about what those risks really are. Overegging them to frighten ourselves more than we need to keeps nobody safe.
More recently a response was published by Professor David McCoy, discussing research modelling the impact on environment and climate which indicates more significant long term impacts globally. Highlighting the impact of a limited conflict between India and Pakistan he discusses the worldwide impacts on global food production:
The greatest concern derives from relatively new research which has modelled the indirect effects of nuclear detonations on the environment and climate. The most-studied scenario is a limited regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, involving 100 Hiroshima-sized warheads (small by modern standards) detonated mostly over urban areas. Many analysts suggest that this is a plausible scenario in the event of an all-out war between the two states, whose combined arsenals amount to more than 220 nuclear warheads.
In this event, an estimated 20m people could die within a week from the direct effects of the explosions, fire, and local radiation. That alone is catastrophic – more deaths than in the entire of World War I.
Such an exchange would likely cause wide-spread fires casting megatons of soot into the stratosphere:
According to one study, maize production in the US (the world's largest producer) would decline by an average by 12% over ten years in our given scenario. In China, middle season rice would fall by 17% over a decade, maize by 16%, and winter wheat by 31%. With total world grain reserves amounting to less than 100 days of global consumption, such effects would place an estimated 2 billion people at risk of famine.
So much for a limited exchange. What if the US and Russia went at it?
A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would be far worse. Most Russian and US weapons are 10 to 50 times stronger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima. In a war involving the use of the two nations' strategic nuclear weapons (those intended to be used away from battlefield, aimed at infrastructure or cities), some 150m tonnes of soot could be lofted into the upper atmosphere. This would reduce global temperatures by 8°C – the "nuclear winter" scenario. Under these conditions, food production would stop and the vast majority of the human race is likely to starve.
The DPRK {North Korea) currently has nowhere near the nuclear stockpiles of Russia or the US or any of the other nuclear powers. It was not long ago that they had none at all. Were the DPRK to enter into battle with its entire current arsenal, it would be a calamity, yes. As time passes, even more weapons are being added to its arsenal. Do we accept that a limited exchange is necessary, now, to preclude an even more catastrophic exchange later? What about all the refugees that would stream north into China? What would happen to Seoul in South Korea from which so many high tech as well as heavy industry products come (think Samsung, Hyundai, etc.)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by richtopia on Monday August 14 2017, @05:08AM (11 children)
I've briefly thought about this type of scenario well before the current political climate. I thought that if there is an a-symmetric war between two nuclear powers, the only way to attack without the internaltional community completely bearing down on you would be a high altitude blast, producing a magnetic pulse. It is relatively small in human casualties, but really disables a nation: almost no modern electronics are EMP hardened. I think even military grade has become lax for many applications, as it is just so cheap to purchase off the shelf hardware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @09:08AM (4 children)
"relatively small in human casualties"
Not really.
Nation-wide disruption of food distribution logistics alone (disabled trucks, organizational chaos, failure of large refrigerated storage nodes) would trigger famine in major cities within weeks. Anarchy would be immediate. Once local warehouses have been looted, it's a rapid descent into cannibalism and desperate outward migration, which would be met with defensive violence by the hinterland folk. Urbanites have no survival skills.
Starvation sets in rather quickly. Quicker than the surviving infrastructure can adapt.
It's not a pretty picture.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday August 14 2017, @12:58PM
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday August 14 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)
The issues you identify are true, but it could be argued that the country having the distribution issues is at fault. Many countries deal with insufficient electrical systems every day, and they don't descend into cannibalism. The result of your scenario sounds like a Hollywood script for the apocalypse. Natural disasters have disabled large areas before (for example hurricane Katrina) and while it wasn't pretty society didn't collapse. Many of the reports of lawlessness were exaggerations by news organizations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @03:45PM (1 child)
Hollywood scripts, and your rebuttal, do not factor in trucks with fried ignition computers. Even Somalia has trucks.
Also,in the event of this particular disaster, there won't be any massive influx of outside aid, unlike Katrina.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:17PM
Even if your vehicle is old enough to not have that and instead has a Kettering ignition (mechanically-operated ignition points), it would still have to be a (roughly) pre-1960 model to not have an alternator with solid-state rectifiers that would get fried.
Heh. The Cuban Revolution in 1959 and the subsequent blockade by USA left that island with a fleet of old cars.
Those cars, not build with semiconductors, wouldn't be affected by EMP.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 14 2017, @12:10PM (5 children)
Unless the other side is completely chicken shit, you're still getting nuclear retaliation. In asymmetrical warfare, it's not the international community that's going to bear down on you. It's a superior military power with casus belli to use nukes.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday August 14 2017, @02:37PM (4 children)
The question is what the international community would think of the side going more conventional. If NK performs a high altitude blast, and the USA levels the country, would the world consider the USA's actions justified? However I would expect the USA not to go atomic in any scenario.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @03:45PM (1 child)
China says North Korea on its own if it strikes first against US
However, Beijing will back North if US opens hostilities, according to newspaper editorial
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/china-says-north-korea-on-its-own-if-it-strikes-first-against-us-1.3183932 [irishtimes.com]
Basically, the aggressor loses on the stage of world opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @10:44PM
So you're going to deliver food to feed New York in a fleet of antique sedans? Good plan.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:12AM (1 child)
Perhaps not for propaganda purposes, but they aren't going to get in the way. And there are two important points in the US's favor: 1) North Korea used nukes first in an attempt to greatly harm and kill a lot of people (it would be at least in the tens of millions harmed), and 2) North Korea is holding roughly 10 million South Koreans hostage. A simple retaliation is not in the cards. The retaliation has to be comprehensive enough to negate most of North Korea's ability to bomb Seoul or it's going to result in a blood bath in South Korea (whose population should be a much higher priority than the population of North Korea).
I would have no such expectations. In fact, a president who would not go atomic under this particular scenario has a good of being replaced with one who will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:02AM
I think NK would prefer to hit Japan and not SK.
Don't they think SK is their land? If I were NK I wouldn't nuke my own land, I'd nuke Japan.
Why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes [wikipedia.org]
NK nuking SK is like you blowing up your other house next door (and leaving radioactive fallout). Yes there's someone else living in it who is not letting you in but still...
Given they mention Guam it's likely their reliable delivery methods can't reach other US areas like even Alaska.
http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/what-can-north-koreas-missiles-reach-2 [allthingsnuclear.org]
But they sure can hit Japan.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 14 2017, @05:17AM (9 children)
Has the Trump phenomenon really brought us that close? I guess it's time to head to the cave and groove with a pict.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @09:46AM
I'm not grooving with Sean Connery ever.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bobs on Monday August 14 2017, @01:57PM (7 children)
Dont't Panic!
Look all, this is panicking over nothing.
N. Korea is not going to launch nukes at the USA. (Unless some moron shoots at them first.)
N. Korea has had nukes for years - they could have nuked us anytime. (Everybody knows the best way to get a nuke in the US is inside a bale of marijuana smuggled across the border) Or just put it in a shipping container with shielding. They could have put they things they have in a simple commercial / cargo airliner and flown it to the US.
They haven't tried.
N. Korea could attack and destroy millions of people with or without nukes. They haven't tried.
N. Korea uses its military might, and nuclear capability to blackmail other countries for resources and to keep the population in line.
They benefit from having outside threats to fight against, and love it when Der Trump says inflammatory things.
Trump also benefits form having somebody he can swagger at.
If N. Korea wanted to kill millions of people - they have had the ability to do it for years. They have chosen not to. Mainly because it would be suicide.
Nothing has changed just because they now have some new flying tubes.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @03:54PM (6 children)
"N. Korea has had nukes for years - they could have nuked us anytime. "
Seriously? I call bullshit on that one. N. Korea has indeed possessed nukes for few years now. But, N. Korea has lacked a delivery system. Missile test after missile test has been conducted, and almost all of them blow up or fall into the sea after travelling several miles. N. Korea hasn't been able to nuke anyone other than their closest neighbors, either S. Korea or China. Of all potential N. Korean targets, Japan is in most danger, and Lil Kim has sent some rockets and missiles as far as Japan. It is believed that none of those missiles were nuclear capable, but I'm less sure about that than the talking heads.
When N. Korea has a fleet of missiles capable of reaching the US and Europe, the equation will change drastically. That madman may well launch a nuke at someone.
That man who had his own uncle restrained in front of an anti-aircraft cannon, to be blown into tiny little bits, is indeed a mad man. He may be lucid from time to time, but his sense of right and wrong do not resemble that of rational people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @04:25PM (4 children)
did you miss that point? Smuggled across the border inside a barrel of weed! 100% possible, would be pretty easy to take out a coastal city.
You fear mongers are freaking out over nothing, and this climate of fear and anger is much more likely to lead us into disaster.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @05:11PM (3 children)
http://www.strangehistory.net/2015/04/02/failure-appeasement/ [strangehistory.net]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:19PM (1 child)
You really should hand write out all your personal beliefs, and itemize current news items as well. You might learn something, cause from over here it looks like you use arguments that fit a specific topic but overall your topics can be contradictory and have too narrow of a focus. Brighter minds have already determined that nuclear war is stupid, and it is clear that small powers like NK are simply trying to bluster their way into sounding important. If NK does launch a nuke then the weight of the world will descend upon them and China has already stated they won't defend NK if they attack first.
Why are you so afraid? Why are you worrying about this? Oh right, cause the media and radio talk shows tell you to... lawl
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:42AM
Current news item number one: Anonymous Coward is to be trusted just about as much as I trust a venomous snake.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:58PM
Re appeasement:
No. we can, should and are actively thwarting N. Korea.
We should continue to put as much pressure on him as we can.
But as he has nukes, there are substantial risks to pushing him too far.
That is one of the reasons why regimes want nukes: to keep foreign powers from getting too threatening.
So we push back, punish and harm him as much as possible. But everybody loses if the nukes start exploding..
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:52PM
Just to close this out.
Killing off his relatives is his version of 'Game of Thrones'.
His power / authority is inherited from his Grandfather, the founder of the state. The most credible ways to depose him involve putting another relative on the throne. So assassinating his relatives is not some crazed, random harm - he is doing it to consolidate his power. It is wrong, but it is rational and focused on self-preservation.
Starting a war with the US is the fastest way for him to die.
But threatening gets him attention, domestic power and possibly being paid off to sit down and shut up.
Again, he has had the means for years to kill millions with conventional or nuclear weapons if he wanted to. But that is not his game. The US can and will eliminate him and his regime if he starts actually killing lots of the 'right' people or does something real with the nukes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 14 2017, @05:20AM (12 children)
Kiss Your Sorry Ass Goodbye: The Atom Bomb Is Gonna Fly [ethicsgirls.com]
But seriously... the South Korean capital of Seoul has ten million people, and is quite close to the border with the North. North Korea has a great many short-range missiles that could consume Seoul in fire were war ever to break out.
If the US were to strike first, it would have to take out at least most of those missiles. I expect it would use small - heh: "small" - tactical nukes for this. But if the North Koreans get any warning, most of the people in Seoul would die.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:31AM (10 children)
So what if Koreans die, south or north. Who's gonna miss 'em? China only needs them as a buffer, cannon fodder. As for the rest of us, who the hell cares? It's not like they got big dicks or anything else worth looking at. Just sink the whole peninsula and be done with it. Problem solved. The Japanese will thank us for it.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:51AM
What if I want a korean waifu instead of japanese?
(Score: 3, Funny) by chromas on Monday August 14 2017, @06:04AM
That's a disgusting perspective! They're Koreans, no Floridians.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:19AM (4 children)
I just don't get why that was modded down. Why is there so much antipathy towards the truth? I mean, really! Look at these people! How many Koreans have ever won a Miss (or even Mister) Universe contest? They are an evolutionary mistake. Trump knows that. So should we. A little fire and fury will at least improve their skin tone.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @07:04AM (1 child)
-1, Flamebait
See? The people modding the truth down like this have to be some kind of fag SJW. They find the truth so repulsive, they do what they can to prevent others from seeing it. That's so sad!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @12:25PM
Lame troll is lame.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Monday August 14 2017, @08:53AM (1 child)
Maybe not yet, but look how much they've advanced the state of the art of cosmetic surgery in the mean time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @02:45PM
look how much they've advanced the state of the art of cosmetic surgery
Well yeah! After the blacks, they need more advanced cosmetic surgery! The blacks would be ahead in that department, but they're too lazy to get off their asses to work on it. We probably should nuke Africa too...
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday August 14 2017, @09:45AM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @01:40PM
Nothing that can't be produced somewhere else. Really, they serve no purpose, except for propaganda at this point. And "human life"... please! Let's stop the melodramatics. Were/are you against the war in Afghanistan? Unless you want to bring the troops home, and stop selling/sending weapons to middle eastern terrorists, don't preach to me about "human life".
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hartree on Monday August 14 2017, @01:58PM
Hush, troll. Or I'll make you listen to 2 years worth of K-Pop played at 78 speed.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @05:32AM
The amount of fissile material North Korea has access to is limited so the number of nukes they can make is limited. Dirty bomb missiles is another matter though.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @05:29AM (18 children)
Likely consequences in an exchange of nukes between NK and US:
* Prevailing winds in the region hints that China will be the brunt recipient of the radioactive dust.
* Increased rate of cancer sickness and death again in South Korea and maybe Japan depending on winds and sea currents.
* The cancer inducing dust will spread around the whole globe to a lesser degree. Compare with Chernobyl of 1986.
* Heavy economic crisis in South Korea as food will be banned from exports.
* Specialists will refuse to go there and brain drain will set in.
* 10 000 - 1000 000 dead in conventional weapons attack on Seoul etc.
* If China is affected then Shanghai, Beijing and Taiwan seems to be the most exposed.
* Prices on computer and home electronics would rise fast and sharply because of LG and Samsung. Just compare with the harddisc flood of 2011 in Thailand.
Don't forget that Japan currently because of the Fukushima disaster dumps large amounts of radioactive waste in the Pacific Ocean and combust other material which western Canadians then have to breathe and eat..
So it's not that radioactive pollutants are new to the region and China isn't that clean either.
However if United States goes to attack. They could actually take out the launch sites ASAP, this ought to be the first priority and then prioritize any artillery launch sites. Any airplanes are likely to be shoot on sight. Invasion troops would be bombed, submarines found and torpedoed etc. The essence is SPEED and taking out all sites that matters first. They could do it. The question becomes what China will do.
To make this work they would have to have a continuously updated map of sites to take out right now. That means lorry driven launchers also has to be counted as sites and be stalked with satellites or other means with more precision.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tonyPick on Monday August 14 2017, @06:01AM (3 children)
Do you have a citation for that? According to : http://www.snopes.com/japan-dump-fukushima-nuclear-waste/ [snopes.com]
And this is solely for contaminated wastewater after it's been diluted it to a 'non-harmful' level
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @08:15AM (2 children)
The site leaks contaminated cooling water. It's regularly on the news.
(Score: 5, Touché) by shortscreen on Monday August 14 2017, @09:03AM (1 child)
Maybe you should have used the words "leaks contaminated cooling water" instead of "dumps large amounts of radioactive waste."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sulla on Monday August 14 2017, @09:24PM
I imagine what he is probably referring to is the rate of "leakage" back in 2013, which was 300 tons/day (roughly 72k gallons/day).
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/ [nationalgeographic.com]
Sounds like currently that water is being stored in giant tanks and as of March 2016 they had accumulated 750,000,000 tons.
"We are not completely out of the woods," Buesseler said. The Fukushima site is still full of radioactive material, and there have been some leaks since the accident that have released more material into the environment. He said there about a thousand tanks full of "something on the order of 750 million tons of water that are far more radioactive than anything in the ocean." There is also radioactive material in the groundwater, soil and in the buildings. "I expect to see small leaks for decades to come," he said. "It is a difficult thing to have soil and groundwater and buildings contaminated to this extent and not have that leaking out."
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/us-watches-as-fukushima-continues-to-leak-radiation.html [cnbc.com]
Personally I see 72k gallons/day as a dump, but I also have no affiliation with Tepco. I am unsure what the current rate is and don't have the time to look into it further (would be interested to know) but it sounds like what occurs now is actually occasional leaks rather than a stream running through the reactor like it was back in 2013. Although I suppose then the correct thing to say would have been "flows amounts of radioactive waste" but I assume Tepco would object to that as well.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Monday August 14 2017, @06:56AM (12 children)
Yea that is the dragon in the room ain't it. I don't think Trump is up for what I'd do about it. But I realize sooner or later we have a war with the Norks and with every day that passes the butcher's bill grows. So here is what I'd do.
Get a joint session of Congress in a very secret meeting, no staff. Lay out every bit of intelligence, etc. Then tell them they have two choices. Sign off on a formal Declaration of War on China. Conditional. Tell them I'm going to drop a set of choices on em and tell them they must pick one. One is they sign the Declaration of War, that has to be one of the conditionals. China is Communist, Evil, yea I get it. The one thing China isn't is insane. So it is obviously a bluff, any of the other options is better. The point is there can be no doubt as to whether it is a bluff or a deadly serious threat to make it work. Their other choice is watch me go rogue, the Korean War is still declared so I can take care of business there and we just see what China decides to do about it. But I'll be sure to remind the voters I tried to get some leverage with China first to make a better deal.
So here are the choices I'd give China after Congress got up off their fainting couches and did what that had no real choice in.
1. They can declare that "North Korea is our friend and ally, they must not be molested. We can control them. We accept full responsibility for their actions. Any act of War they commit means we are at war with the United States. Defined as any attack on South Korea, the U.S. or any present or future ally greater than three artilliary shells in a thirty day period, any attack on a naval vessel, etc." (more details of course to nail it down) (Conditional #1 above, Congress will already be on record so they can't cuck out. Total certainty, Woah, Fat does something dumb and they are hosed.) This agreement will be publicly entered into the official records at the U.N. so they can't renounce it.
2. China washes their hands of North Korea, admitting they can no longer promise to control them. We agree to make a maximum effort to keep the Nork's radioactive cooties from drifting into China when we put the Wrath of God demo on them. And we agree to hold off on using any of our own nukes with the possible exception of field testing one of our new bunker buster toys. We agree to begin an orderly exit of all U.S. military units beyond a single air base within twelve months of the end of hostilities. Korea is unified, China doesn't get any territory. This one doesn't get made public, perhaps never. Why give up the element of surprise and why should China have to lose face?
3. China agrees to deal with the problem. We do not care and do not really need to know the details. The Korean Peninsula will be "perfectly safe" and that being the case there will be no more need for an American presence in South Korea, the War can officially be declared over and we can begin moving troops out. If there are still two Koreas, U.N. weapons inspectors return, etc. This one can also be kept on the down low and China and the Norks can spin it however works for them and we will back the play, even if we look bad.
4. War. Right now. Total, unconditional war, fought to unconditional surrender. Articles of War already signed off on by Congress attached. (Conditional #2, War unless another option is selected.) Obviously this unwise course would be public. We have no intention of being bogged down in a proxy war in Korea yet again. If China considers an attack on the Norks an attack on China, make it clear our armor columns ARE heading into China this time, we will achieve air superiority and then we will make their ports and industry a wasteland, sink most of their navy on day one and they WILL hurt far more than we do when the guns fall silent. Their army is nearly limitless but their ability to project power to America is still woefully limited. Add some over the top threats of the horrors of war as needed to assure they get the point that they would have to either resort to nukes or agree to be defanged and quite possibly submit to some "nation building."
Notice that the only two viable options mean we get to end the Korean War with something approximating a win and come home. If you want Peace, prepare yourself for War.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @08:22AM (9 children)
If China is attacked, do you think Russia will stay out of it?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday August 14 2017, @08:35AM (3 children)
If China and Russia truly want a World War there isn't much chance of denying them, and we are all truly boned. Doubt it or they could have it anytime they wanted it.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @08:38AM (2 children)
They need a reason that initiate them to start a war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:49AM (1 child)
No they don't. A simple command from Comrades Xi or Putin is all the reason they need, if in fact war is their aim. That's the beauty of totalitarian regimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:10AM
Same for the US regime. Just needs Trump to decide to nuke and it's done.
It's likely China and Russia have saner nuclear protocols than USA.
Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war) [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#China [wikipedia.org]
with: http://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear-weapons-trump-how-are-launched-2017-8/?r=US&IR=T [businessinsider.com]
See also: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2011/02/an_unsung_hero_of_the_nuclear_age.html [slate.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:46AM (4 children)
Yes. It is perfect for them to watch, unharmed, as their two biggest rivals reduce each other.
Russians are pragmatic to the point of cynicism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:20AM (3 children)
I am not sure Russia an China are still rivals as they were when USSR was in its apex. I'd say today they are heavy hearted allies, because America with (and even without) her alliances is 800-pound gorilla in the room. Russia has been watching the unfolding of events in the world since the times of Gorbachev. They know with great precision that if China falls they are the next.
Also, the very moment the last remaining great scare, either Russia or China, falls, America becomes the target of the whole world: too strong, too pushy, having nothing to do, not useful to any of her largest allies because there is not another credible threat on the horizon. Then we'll probably see a rise of an underground "rebel alliance" against the last empire, both among ruins of her last great adversaries as well as among some of her most faithful allies. The only way to quench sliding back into chaos will be for empire to try to do what Romans tried, to try to expand and absorb the whole world into its system on an egalitarian principle. It is not certain that it is even possible, and it is certain that original US nationals will (once again) not like it. And it could fail in same mode Roman Empire failed: through inner dissociative forces of competition combined with growing impatience of external ever greater masses clamoring to get in right now.
So, I'd say that most safe way into the future is to try to keep the tension on its present level indefinitely, keep the Russia and China, or else the timer mechanism for the premature end of this civilization (and I don't mean nuclear Armageddon) will be set in motion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @02:09PM (2 children)
Russia has but one interest: Russia.
They deeply resent the Chinese, and tolerate/cooperate out of expediency. Russians are masters of Realpolitik.
If the US were to clobber them (China would be crushed by a massive US nuclear strike), and the US left hobbled, the Russians see no down side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:42PM (1 child)
Russians deeply resent just everyone, including themselves, that's just how they are, but they are not stupid (as long as they are sober).
If US was in danger to be toasted by China, they would ally with US against China.
If China was to be annihilated by US, they would try to prevent it by fighting US.
However in this age and time, it has been much more likely that America would make a move than China.
OTOH, the clock is ticking and China is gradually gathering what it needs for MCGA.
They are not there yet, and won't be for at least few decades, but once they arrive, we will have some tough choices to make.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:22PM
The stereotypes and idiocy in this thread are too much.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @04:13PM (1 child)
"Total, unconditional war, fought to unconditional surrender."
I'm not sure you *truly* understand the concept of "total war". We launch a strike that includes some nukes, shit tons of more conventional bombs, along with artillery and airstrikes. We destroy the government, the army, and the infrastructure as much as possible. That's without any type of invasion, mind you. We're going for a first strike to DESTROY their ability to fight.
Now, who is left to surrender? Some peasants in an out of the way valley, way up north?
Seriously, if we launch a strike, we MUST get Kim with that strike. Failure to kill Kim will mean mission failure. Now, this is North Korea. Who, with half of a mind, and subordinate to Kim, will ever consider makeing any kind of a public surrender? The entire population of N. Korea is terrorized by that cretin. NO ONE can possible even consider surrendering, unless they know for certain that Kim is dead. I mean, know it for certain. They have to view the body, and confirm the identity of that body beyond any possible chance of error.
"Total war" means, we steamroll them, and crush all possible chance of reprisals. No government official senior to a village elder or small town mayor can be permitted to survive. The survivors have to be brought so far down, that they actually welcome either Chinese control, or South Korean control. In which case, there is no "surrender" per se - what follows is merely an acceptance of the new world order, without Kim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:13AM
Gonna have to prepare a good quality fake body if you happen to nuke the real body beyond recognition.
Or will the "Osama burial at sea" bullshit convince the North Koreans too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:14PM
> * Prevailing winds in the region hints that China will be the brunt recipient of the radioactive dust.
No, prevailing winds blow from the west. [ncsu.edu] Japan is the closest landmass to the east.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday August 14 2017, @05:31AM (6 children)
If there could be a limited nuclear war. Once anyone uses them, it is use 'em or lose 'em! Unless you are the one remaining nuclear submarine, and your country has been completely destroyed, and you have, oh, a bunch of Tridents. What ya gonna do? Why do militaries just attract war criminals at the same rate as white supremacist organizations?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:36AM (1 child)
Because the aggressor knows those "war criminals" will deliver on the Mutually-Assured-Destruction alias.. MAD. And so they have a very very good reason to stay calm.
And white supremacist organizations have the purpose of protecting against invasion by foreign races and so they will remove them with force and if needed set people with no qualms in motion if needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:59AM
"America: Love it, or give it back!" Fucking Nazis.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:27PM
Heh, the conservatives are melting down, their cognitive dissonance is becoming so evident even to themselves that their brains are imploding. It is a bitter sweet semi-victory, coming at the cost of US lives. At least it is becoming harder and harder for Trumpettes to ignore reality.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:58AM (2 children)
If all you have is three nuclear weapons and limited ability to put them anywhere, it's not going to be global nuclear war. If for no other reason, limited nuclear war is likely because aside from the US and Russia no two parties have the ability to wage a global nuclear war.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @10:16AM (1 child)
False flag and all that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:36AM
Sure, those are destabilizing attacks that could lead to nuclear escalation, if the culprits aren't found. But there's a lot of fairly competent intelligence agencies out there. Odds are good that someone will figure out who really did it, and consequences will happen, but these would likely not be global.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @05:37AM (10 children)
Use more nukes. Problem solved.
This massage was brought to you from Trump industries.
Trump industries: Making roachkind's America great again.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 14 2017, @06:09AM (8 children)
This was the proposed solution to the Survey of Strategic Bombing after WWII, they figured out that bombing the bejessus out of people really had very little influence on whether they were inclined to stop fighting. So obviously, the solution was to bomb them more, until they did. So the US tried again in Vietnam with Operation Rolling Thunder. Killed a lot of water buffalo. And then in Iraq. Shock and Awe, rehash of the Old Nazi "Blitzkrieg". And Now we have a German American President, threatening to rain down fire and furries. When will they every learn, when will they e-ever learn?
(Score: 4, Funny) by zocalo on Monday August 14 2017, @06:58AM (1 child)
Look, I find furries irritating as well, especially the ones that insist on "talking" using a high-pitched squeaker, but I think dropping them from a B52 over North Korea might be a bit excessive and I really don't see how it's going to help with MAGA either. Unless they are all Democrats (actually, that's probably quite likely) and it's really just a way to increase the odds of four more years of Trump.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday August 14 2017, @01:48PM
"dropping them from a B52"
From 50,000 feet it'd be even more of a splash than those turkeys on WKRP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @01:42PM
War.
War never changes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @03:52PM
The difference is in the geography. North Korea in 1950, and Vietnam 1968, were rather dispersed in population and economy.
Modern (and I use the term loosely) DPRK is basically Pyongyang surrounded by farms and wilderness. Destroy 1 big city and you win. Easy-Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @07:10PM (2 children)
Japan surrendered because they were bombed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @07:14PM
White mythology.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:47AM
Citation needed.
For three reasons
1) Conventional bombing did about as much damage daily (wooden buildings and firebombs)
2) There was already lots of considetation in japan to surrender
3) Russia declared war on japan on Aug 8th (between hiroshima and nagasaki).
Put yourself in japan's shoes here. Assume the nuke hadn't been made yet. You are losing about a city a per day, famine is widespread, your industry is gone, have lost almost all buffers on the eastern fronts to the yanks, are losing the south-western buffers to the brittish+aussie, and then russia declares war with battlehardended soldiers straoght from taking germany. What would you do? Or rather - who would you pick to surrender to before being divided up like Geemany?
Even if we exclude all conventional bombings (this would leave japan's island industries intact and with no famine, but with one heck of raw supplies shortage). You'd still be without the eastern buffers, losing the southwestern buffers to the uk+aussie and having battlehardended red army declaring war on you (btw, no buffer from that direction, unless they want to take china and/or korea first). Even in this scenario you'd stll start losing ground on the main island within weeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @09:02PM
You skipped over a very important part of that picture.
In the early 1950s, USA bombed the bejessus out of North Korea.
Not being very industrialized nor having large cities, there weren't a lot of targets, so that didn't take very long.
Having obliterated every viable target in that country, USA went back and bombed the rubble--again and again.
During WWII, USA's economy had become dependent on making weapons.
Using up those weapons became a priority so that more were needed to replenish the stockpile and continue to make The Merchants of Death even richer.
{Image of Kline flask goes here.}
If you want to know why The Norks think the way they do, that's the reason right there.
It's called experience and a long memory.
{Mention of Dubya's "Axis of Evil" speech and "The Bush Doctrine" (preemptive war) goes here.}
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 14 2017, @11:07AM
They're getting into the massage business too?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @06:21AM (3 children)
I would say it would not be so bad if the targets were Oklahoma and Arkansas, because American could actually afford to lose both of those states. Unfortunately, the Nukes are in Nebraska and Montana, which are states we really need to keep. So, no limited nuke war, unless we can limit it to Texas? And only part of Texas?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 14 2017, @04:21PM (2 children)
So - uhhh - just for the sake of argument - what is it that makes Nebraska and Montana valuable, and Oklahoma and Arkansas valueless? There must be SOME reason for you vacuous rant. Nebraska produces wheat, and Arkansas produces rice? Montana has mountains, and Oklahoma is mostly just rolling plains? Come on, what is it exactly?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday August 14 2017, @09:27PM (1 child)
My grandfather drove through every continental US State and Canadian Provence but somehow missed Oklahoma, thats good enough for me to write off the whole state.
Plus Arkansas was a mistake state anyways, Pirates thought it was Kansas.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:39AM
Well, speaking of anecdotes, my stepdad flew into Dallas in WW2, stayed a couple days, and flew out to the Pacific. He said, "Texas is the only place I've ever been where I stood in mud while dust and dirt blew in my face." He never wanted to see Texas again. Despite was he told me, I've found a lot of good in Texas. You can't trust anyone over thirty - didn't you learn that when you was a kid?
Oh, wait . . .
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 14 2017, @06:43AM
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/are-nuclear-weapons-100-times-less.html [nextbigfuture.com]
Bad enough for the most population-dense metropolitan area on Earth, however.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Monday August 14 2017, @06:49AM
The Korean War has gone on for too long. Harry Truman couldn't finish it. I'm finishing it. He won World War 2 by going nuclear on the Japs. Smart move! He was a Dem, but that was very smart. Why didn't he nuke Korea? Stupid! I'd love to go nuclear, especially later in the summer. Or during sweeps week. And if Korea nukes us back, we'll be OK. If there are enough shovels to go around, everybody’s going to make it. Dig a hole, cover it with a couple of doors and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It’s the dirt that does it. We'll have to rebuild our infrastructure. My Infrastructure Week was a huge success. And the border wall is going to be terrific. I'm a very experienced builder, very successful. We'll build tremendously. And maybe I'll make some money from the building. I want to come out of this war number one, not two. So I'm going to put in an order for shovels, more shovels than you've ever seen in your entire life. We'll win this war. We're going to keep winning. We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning. We’re going to make America great again. 🇺🇸
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Monday August 14 2017, @07:05AM (2 children)
There is no scenario I can think of in which the use of nuclear weapons is not "bad". There's the death and destruction, the fallout, and the EMP zapping electronics. Even if its limited it's still bad. Bad. Bad. Bad.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @09:18AM
The old bumber sticker said: "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day!"
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:08AM
I can think of several. Like shutting burning oils/gas-wells, tunneling, mining, making canals, making harbours, propelling spacecraft...
There are civilian uses for nuclear weapons, they are quite handy for excavation. (In case anyone is curious, duck for "peaceful nuclear explosions")
Even in wartime they are useful for area denial - and can be tweaked to have a shorter lingering effect than current landmines. (Then we also have the uses of 'scorched earth', and enemy is less interested in occuping a forward island for use as a forward base if they know it is going to be scraped clean).
However, as an offensive weapon I agree its uses are pretty bad, but as an defensive weapon it is excellent.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday August 14 2017, @07:20AM (4 children)
Emotions, on two fronts:
TFA: A _limited_ nuclear war, maybe 2-3 warheads, is nothing much in terms of damage. The firebombing of Dresden did roughly as much damage as dropping Fat Man on Nagasaki (casualties 80,000). There have been lots of nuclear tests on the planet; we are still here. The main impact of nuclear explosions would be an emotional impact, and that impact would be huge.
Background: I know that Trump likes to run his mouth, but WTF is he doing, responding in public to the nutcase in North Korea. Responding to hecklers just shows them that they have your attention - which is what they want. Ignoring them would be a far more effective course of action.
Of course, if NK does actually bomb any city anywhere (doesn't matter in which country), this should immediately result in a bunker-buster dropping on Kim Jong-un's head. There's only one proper solution for a mad dog, and that is to put it down.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @08:32AM (2 children)
It's not the destruction or the deaths that is the aftermath. It's the radioactive blanket that stays and poisons future generations that had nothing to do with this conflict.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:18AM (1 child)
for Hiroshima and Nagasaki the radiation now is not that bad.
are today's nuclear weapons designed to change that?
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:18AM
Yes they are. By today's standards the Fat Man and Little boy was very dirty, modern nukes are surprisingly clean, in particular hydrogen bombs (The cleanest nuke ever [in terms or radioactivite fallout per kiloton explosion] was the Tsar Bomba).
In terms of nuclear bombs radioactive fallout is just inefficiencies in that it is unused material.
So yeah, a modern nuclear strike would have even weaker lingering radioactivity per area.
That is - unless you go for a neutron bomb (very short blast range for its material) or a salted bomb (which are designed to cause maximum radiological fallout)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @10:24PM
...if you don't count the tens of thousands of murdered children in each city.
...in case you didn't have enough evidence that bradley13 is a racist sociopath.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @08:35AM
TL;DR: Not as bad as you think. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday August 14 2017, @09:21AM
No. I don't accept that, because I don't know that there is going to be a more catastrophic exchange later, or who the players might be.
If we're going to be stupid like the kid in Death Note [wikipedia.org] and try to convince ourselves that we're doing some kind of White Hat mass murder, surely we could come up with a better target than NK?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @10:27AM
This approach swiftly ended world war 2
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday August 14 2017, @12:56PM (2 children)
Here's a couple movie plot or better grade ideas to toss out.
China wants a buffer state, NK is mostly unpopulated farmland, an interesting post war agreement would be moving the ... Palestinians or some similar group into NK after moving all the NK into the south. How about the last white people left in Africa who haven't been raped and killed by the progressives?
How about the "dune" option of target selection being geologically oriented rather than people/infrastructure/military unit target selection? China built a wall on the NK border (you know, the kind of thing the USA is not permitted to build?) Anyway what if nukes were used to F with the rivers and the Paektu mountain range to blockage NK? "Sorry China you no longer have buffer state, but good news is the border is impassable now which is almost as good as a buffer state, so STFU and leave the Korean situation alone"
Another movie plot idea is frankly its none of our business. Pass a UN declaration that misbehavior on the part of the NK province of China will result in retaliation against China basically handing over NK to China. Gonna lose SK eventually may as well sign off early and non-violently. Yeah, I know, unlikely from the USA empire, but it would be an interesting movie plot. How about "you" (as in China) get NK and eventually SK but its in exchange for withdrawing from the fight in the south china sea. Or if you want to fight we probably can't stop NK human wave attacks but you're losing the Spratly Isles / south china sea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @01:47PM
I did consider, just this morning, the possibility of just having the UN declare that China could take over NK. They then could set up their own buffer state, they'd even have the pre-made demilitarized zone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @02:08PM
Fuck the nutjobs are really making themselves known. Who blindly advocates genocide? Oh right, your fellow mutters who probably don't blink when you say shit like "raped and killed by the progressives." Also the same types that wouldn't blink an eye at deploying nukes. In other words: total morons.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday August 14 2017, @02:06PM
Many of the predictions for limited nuclear war are pretty overhyped, based on fuzzy assumptions and don't square with the results of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the large numbers of above ground nuclear tests (Tsar Bombe, anyone?).
But let's get real. This is one experiment I'd really rather not do.
(Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Monday August 14 2017, @02:57PM (2 children)
So, the global-warming-alarmist position on this should be, "We're saved!" -- right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Obligatory XKCD: 4.5 Degrees [xkcd.com]
8C is ~2 "Ice age units", so we would still over-shoot into an ice age.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:58AM
Well, I didn't mean the rational position here in reality. I meant the alarmist position that tends to exaggerate every little ambiguous sign that may or may not have to do with warming. If everything the alarmists breathlessly predicted had come true, 8C might just barely cover the difference....
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday August 14 2017, @03:49PM (2 children)
Lots of great information and insight here, but the last paragraph gives me pause:
It almost seems to be arguing that we should let Trump use nukes now because Korea is dangerous and getting worse, which is preposterous, especially given the rest of what the story has to say. Since Cuba, states that have regime change threatened by the U.S. will seeks nukes. It is predictable and inevitable.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Monday August 14 2017, @03:54PM (1 child)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @04:28PM
But but but, that is 100% not our fault! Koreans! Slanty eyes! Short fat dictator! Ummm, RAWR!?!
/s
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 14 2017, @06:38PM
We (the US) need to be the better nation. If, and only if, Li'l Kim drops a nuke, we should respond...but not with a nuke. We have thermobaric explosives and other conventional weapons that work just as well, and as someone upthread pointed out, Pyongyang is really the only target of any significance. Drop an MOAB (or whatever it's bigger, fuck-all-y'all-ier successor is...) onto the palace, raze the rest of the area, and that's it.
International opinion is very important, and the US has a lot of bad karma. As irrational as it sounds, *not* responding in kind when nuked (if only because we don't *need* to given some of our conventional armaments) would go a long way.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...