Nuclear armed rogue state

[bilby]

The prospect of a first strike by a nuclear armed rogue state has been terrifying the world since the start of the nuclear age, but recent events make such a strike perhaps more likely than ever before.

I seems that there is now a genuine risk that a rogue state, armed with missile launched nuclear weapons, could launch an attack against North Korea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-asia-20170317-story.html

 

[DrZoidberg]

The prospect of a first strike by a nuclear armed rogue state has been terrifying the world since the start of the nuclear age, but recent events make such a strike perhaps more likely than ever before.

I seems that there is now a genuine risk that a rogue state, armed with missile launched nuclear weapons, could launch an attack against North Korea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-asia-20170317-story.html

But is it? The only point of NK having nukes is to act as a deterrent. If somebody attacks NK, then they can send their nukes. The greater distance they can travel, the greater the deterrence. That's why they're still working on them.

If they'd ever use the nukes they'd lose their trump. They can't use them. So they won't. I don't think we need to worry. Yes, Kim Jong-Un is erratic. But if he was suicidal, I can think of less painful ways to go than also dragging down the free world with him.

I'm convinced that sooner or later somebody in the upper echelons of NK will take out their gun and shoot the incumbent Kim in the head, and that'll be the end of it. Just like that. It can happen any day now. We just have to wait them out. That's not to say that everything will be rosy and amazing at that point. We'll most likely get Libya 2. But I think the end will come from inside.

Then we can worry. Because then the nukes are likely to fall into terrorist hands. That would be bad. Nukes smuggled into a country and blown up on the ground is bad, and also possible to pull off by a small group of terrorists with minimal expertise. That's more likely to happen than any ballistic missile being shot

 

[Speakpigeon]

The prospect of a first strike by a nuclear armed rogue state has been terrifying the world since the start of the nuclear age, but recent events make such a strike perhaps more likely than ever before.

I seems that there is now a genuine risk that a rogue state, armed with missile launched nuclear weapons, could launch an attack against North Korea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-asia-20170317-story.html

We should petition the U.N to set up an article 7 coalition to topple the dear leader of the said rogue state. Europe, Canada and Australia could be asked to contribute troops along with some Korean and Chinese observers. The dear leader would have to be tried in Nuremberg under the special supervision of Chancellor Angela Merkel. He would be kept in solitary confinement, in a special prison built by Mexican migrants in Kallstadt in Germany, until he is deemed no longer a threat to truth, decency, women, democracy, peace, free trade, humanity, and more generally all intelligent life in the universe.

Well, it's not going to happen is it?
EB

 

[bilby]

The prospect of a first strike by a nuclear armed rogue state has been terrifying the world since the start of the nuclear age, but recent events make such a strike perhaps more likely than ever before.

I seems that there is now a genuine risk that a rogue state, armed with missile launched nuclear weapons, could launch an attack against North Korea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-asia-20170317-story.html

We should petition the U.N to set up an article 7 coalition to topple the dear leader of the said rogue state. Europe, Canada and Australia could be asked to contribute troops along with some Korean and Chinese observers. The dear leader would have to be tried in Nuremberg under the special supervision of Chancellor Angela Merkel. He would be kept in solitary confinement, in a special prison built by Mexican migrants in Kallstadt in Germany, until he is deemed no longer a threat to truth, decency, women, democracy, peace, free trade, humanity, and more generally all intelligent life in the universe.

Well, it's not going to happen is it?
EB

We can live in hope.

- - - Updated - - -

The prospect of a first strike by a nuclear armed rogue state has been terrifying the world since the start of the nuclear age, but recent events make such a strike perhaps more likely than ever before.

I seems that there is now a genuine risk that a rogue state, armed with missile launched nuclear weapons, could launch an attack against North Korea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-asia-20170317-story.html

But is it? The only point of NK having nukes is to act as a deterrent. If somebody attacks NK, then they can send their nukes. The greater distance they can travel, the greater the deterrence. That's why they're still working on them.

If they'd ever use the nukes they'd lose their trump. They can't use them. So they won't. I don't think we need to worry. Yes, Kim Jong-Un is erratic. But if he was suicidal, I can think of less painful ways to go than also dragging down the free world with him.

I'm convinced that sooner or later somebody in the upper echelons of NK will take out their gun and shoot the incumbent Kim in the head, and that'll be the end of it. Just like that. It can happen any day now. We just have to wait them out. That's not to say that everything will be rosy and amazing at that point. We'll most likely get Libya 2. But I think the end will come from inside.

Then we can worry. Because then the nukes are likely to fall into terrorist hands. That would be bad. Nukes smuggled into a country and blown up on the ground is bad, and also possible to pull off by a small group of terrorists with minimal expertise. That's more likely to happen than any ballistic missile being shot

I think you need to re-read the OP.

The last word in particular.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you need to re-read the OP.

The last word in particular.

Ok. You got me. But I fail to see any arguments for that scenario either. Who has a beef with NK other than North Koreans? I doubt South Koreans is fond of the idea of a radiated wasteland, right next to them.

 

[HelixSpiral]

He means the United States (Trump administration).

 

[DrZoidberg]

He means the United States (Trump administration).

Wouldn't the US army mutiny, in that case? He can't launch them just like that. A president with an army who respects him might be able to steamroll it. But everybody sensible knows Trump is a loon. I think they'd react somewhere along the chain of command.

Dr Strangelove is an amazing film though. Very topical today

 

[bilby]

He means the United States (Trump administration).

Wouldn't the US army mutiny, in that case? He can't launch them just like that. A president with an army who respects him might be able to steamroll it. But everybody sensible knows Trump is a loon. I think they'd react somewhere along the chain of command.

Dr Strangelove is an amazing film though. Very topical today

If Trump decides to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against any target, then who has the authority to say 'no'?

The military are bound to obey lawful orders, and the law gives the POTUS the authority to give such an order.

The people who launch the strike are not expected to second guess the orders they are given; they are trained to verify that the order is genuine, and if so, to comply with it.

The idea that the people selected by the military to man the silos, subs and planes might not be explicitly chosen for their inclination to obey the order to use the weapons entrusted to them is very silly.

There is certainly no reason to be confident that there would be any effective push-back from the lower ranks against a direct order confirmed as coming from the Commander in Chief and holder of the Executive Power of the United States of America. Widespread mutiny on the basis of a single order to launch against a target which does not have the ability to destroy the USA in a retaliatory strike is unthinkable. (Particularly as the people carrying out the orders would have no way to know if they are making a first strike, or are retaliating against a target that just attacked the US or a US ally).

The orders arrive; you go through the drill exactly as you were trained to do it. There's neither the time, nor the access to external information, nor the inclination, to do anything else.

Militarily units tend not be be full of pacifists who respond to a lawful order to use extreme force by saying "I won't do that, sir. People could be killed if I did that".

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wouldn't the US army mutiny, in that case? He can't launch them just like that. A president with an army who respects him might be able to steamroll it. But everybody sensible knows Trump is a loon. I think they'd react somewhere along the chain of command.

Dr Strangelove is an amazing film though. Very topical today

If Trump decides to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against any target, then who has the authority to say 'no'?

The military are bound to obey lawful orders, and the law gives the POTUS the authority to give such an order.

The people who launch the strike are not expected to second guess the orders they are given; they are trained to verify that the order is genuine, and if so, to comply with it.

The idea that the people selected by the military to man the silos, subs and planes might not be explicitly chosen for their inclination to obey the order to use the weapons entrusted to them is very silly.

There is certainly no reason to be confident that there would be any effective push-back from the lower ranks against a direct order confirmed as coming from the Commander in Chief and holder of the Executive Power of the United States of America. Widespread mutiny on the basis of a single order to launch against a target which does not have the ability to destroy the USA in a retaliatory strike is unthinkable. (Particularly as the people carrying out the orders would have no way to know if they are making a first strike, or are retaliating against a target that just attacked the US or a US ally).

The orders arrive; you go through the drill exactly as you were trained to do it. There's neither the time, nor the access to external information, nor the inclination, to do anything else.

Militarily units tend not be be full of pacifists who respond to a lawful order to use extreme force by saying "I won't do that, sir. People could be killed if I did that".

There's a long list of orders to fire that have been ignored. I think it's the other way around. They want people in those silos who don't just blindly obey. Most launch orders have been due to faulty equipment. There was a very famous Russian incident with Stanislaw Petrov, the guy sitting in the silo had the balls refuse to fire until ground radar had confirmed the nuclear strike. He got all kinds of prizes for that. But from his Soviet boss he just got punished.

Nobody has the authority to say no to the president regarding a nuclear first strike. But a mutiny is a mutiny. When there's a mutiny any authority is null and void. And anybody in command must be aware of the Nuremberg trials. Anybody obeying an unethical order has a duty to say no. A duty to mutiny. History is full of political leaders who have had their toys taken away when they proved they couldn't be trusted with them.

And honestly, if you were in a position of power, wouldn't you like to be surrounded by people who both obey, but also think for themselves? To catch you in your moments of weakness. We all have them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And honestly, if you were in a position of power, wouldn't you like to be surrounded by people who both obey, but also think for themselves? To catch you in your moments of weakness. We all have them.

But this is TRUMP. Trump does not care to be challenged.

His entire mentality is that if someone points out a problem, he makes the person go away, then there's no problem.
To him, 'think for yourself,' should be limited to the minions doing the scut work that's necessary to bring his high minded thoughts to fruition... Not to check his spelling or constitutional powers and say 'Wrong.'

 

[Malintent]

Wouldn't the US army mutiny, in that case? He can't launch them just like that. A president with an army who respects him might be able to steamroll it. But everybody sensible knows Trump is a loon. I think they'd react somewhere along the chain of command.

Dr Strangelove is an amazing film though. Very topical today

If Trump decides to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against any target, then who has the authority to say 'no'?

The military are bound to obey lawful orders, and the law gives the POTUS the authority to give such an order.

The people who launch the strike are not expected to second guess the orders they are given; they are trained to verify that the order is genuine, and if so, to comply with it.

The idea that the people selected by the military to man the silos, subs and planes might not be explicitly chosen for their inclination to obey the order to use the weapons entrusted to them is very silly.

There is certainly no reason to be confident that there would be any effective push-back from the lower ranks against a direct order confirmed as coming from the Commander in Chief and holder of the Executive Power of the United States of America. Widespread mutiny on the basis of a single order to launch against a target which does not have the ability to destroy the USA in a retaliatory strike is unthinkable. (Particularly as the people carrying out the orders would have no way to know if they are making a first strike, or are retaliating against a target that just attacked the US or a US ally).

The orders arrive; you go through the drill exactly as you were trained to do it. There's neither the time, nor the access to external information, nor the inclination, to do anything else.

Militarily units tend not be be full of pacifists who respond to a lawful order to use extreme force by saying "I won't do that, sir. People could be killed if I did that".

Totally.. the operational level of military action is not going to question an order that makes it that far down the chain.... The guy carrying the football might shoot Trump in the face for reaching for it. The Security team around him may not allow a 'toddler tantrum' to start WWIII.

Trump: Where's the guy with the codes, I need him NOW!
Random WH Staffer: Uh, he's around here somewhere.. why not sit down and watch some Fox news opinions
Trump: <drool>
.... <hour later>
Random WH Staffer: Mr. President. The guy with the codes is here. did you want him?
Trump: Why would I want him... leave me alone, I'm watching TV!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The prospect of a first strike by a nuclear armed rogue state has been terrifying the world since the start of the nuclear age, but recent events make such a strike perhaps more likely than ever before.

I seems that there is now a genuine risk that a rogue state, armed with missile launched nuclear weapons, could launch an attack against North Korea.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-asia-20170317-story.html

But is it? The only point of NK having nukes is to act as a deterrent. If somebody attacks NK, then they can send their nukes. The greater distance they can travel, the greater the deterrence. That's why they're still working on them.

If they'd ever use the nukes they'd lose their trump. They can't use them. So they won't. I don't think we need to worry. Yes, Kim Jong-Un is erratic. But if he was suicidal, I can think of less painful ways to go than also dragging down the free world with him.

I'm convinced that sooner or later somebody in the upper echelons of NK will take out their gun and shoot the incumbent Kim in the head, and that'll be the end of it. Just like that. It can happen any day now. We just have to wait them out. That's not to say that everything will be rosy and amazing at that point. We'll most likely get Libya 2. But I think the end will come from inside.

Then we can worry. Because then the nukes are likely to fall into terrorist hands. That would be bad. Nukes smuggled into a country and blown up on the ground is bad, and also possible to pull off by a small group of terrorists with minimal expertise. That's more likely to happen than any ballistic missile being shot

The reason NK has nukes is so they can extort food aid. They have no defensive need of them.

 

[Malintent]

If Trump decides to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against any target, then who has the authority to say 'no'?

The military are bound to obey lawful orders, and the law gives the POTUS the authority to give such an order.

The people who launch the strike are not expected to second guess the orders they are given; they are trained to verify that the order is genuine, and if so, to comply with it.

The idea that the people selected by the military to man the silos, subs and planes might not be explicitly chosen for their inclination to obey the order to use the weapons entrusted to them is very silly.

There is certainly no reason to be confident that there would be any effective push-back from the lower ranks against a direct order confirmed as coming from the Commander in Chief and holder of the Executive Power of the United States of America. Widespread mutiny on the basis of a single order to launch against a target which does not have the ability to destroy the USA in a retaliatory strike is unthinkable. (Particularly as the people carrying out the orders would have no way to know if they are making a first strike, or are retaliating against a target that just attacked the US or a US ally).

The orders arrive; you go through the drill exactly as you were trained to do it. There's neither the time, nor the access to external information, nor the inclination, to do anything else.

Militarily units tend not be be full of pacifists who respond to a lawful order to use extreme force by saying "I won't do that, sir. People could be killed if I did that".

Totally.. the operational level of military action is not going to question an order that makes it that far down the chain.... The guy carrying the football might shoot Trump in the face for reaching for it. The Security team around him may not allow a 'toddler tantrum' to start WWIII.

Trump: Where's the guy with the codes, I need him NOW!
Random WH Staffer: Uh, he's around here somewhere.. why not sit down and watch some Fox news opinions
Trump: <drool>
.... <hour later>
Random WH Staffer: Mr. President. The guy with the codes is here. did you want him?
Trump: Why would I want him... leave me alone, I'm watching TV!

I wanted to add something else...

While I respect that what we have been told by bilby about his personal background makes him an expert in this area, and his opinion is more informed possibly than the rest of ours on matters of the military.... I ask (bilby) what would happen if a commanding officer ordered someone under their command to shoot the soldier standing next to him in the head? Of course no such order would ever be made, but what would a soldier do? Just blindly shoot their buddy in the head? I would like to say, "of course not". I am of the opinion that there are circumstances where ordering the launch of nukes would be on the same level of that.. so how would the chain of command handle that?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Totally.. the operational level of military action is not going to question an order that makes it that far down the chain.... The guy carrying the football might shoot Trump in the face for reaching for it. The Security team around him may not allow a 'toddler tantrum' to start WWIII.

Trump: Where's the guy with the codes, I need him NOW!
Random WH Staffer: Uh, he's around here somewhere.. why not sit down and watch some Fox news opinions
Trump: <drool>
.... <hour later>
Random WH Staffer: Mr. President. The guy with the codes is here. did you want him?
Trump: Why would I want him... leave me alone, I'm watching TV!

I wanted to add something else...

While I respect that what we have been told by bilby about his personal background makes him an expert in this area, and his opinion is more informed possibly than the rest of ours on matters of the military.... I ask (bilby) what would happen if a commanding officer ordered someone under their command to shoot the soldier standing next to him in the head? Of course no such order would ever be made, but what would a soldier do? Just blindly shoot their buddy in the head? I would like to say, "of course not". I am of the opinion that there are circumstances where ordering the launch of nukes would be on the same level of that.. so how would the chain of command handle that?

Speaking from my own knowledge, it would depend mostly on the form the refusal took. There are many cases during the Vietnam War of soldiers simply pretending not to hear orders in order to disregard them. It's a lot more common for soldiers to PRETEND to comply and fail to, or simply fail to receive those orders for whatever reason, than it is for them to openly ignore it.

What would probably happen is, a nuclear launch order for a preemptive strike would come in and several commanders would say "Well, it says preemptive strike, but I'm pretty sure they just want us to run some drills so we're gonna do that instead... What? That part on the bottom where it says "This is not a drill?" I do believe that's sarcasm, Lieutenant. Carry on!" The other side of that would be commanders who report back, "Yes Sir, we fully intend to launch the missiles as ordered, Sir, but... well, it's the damnedest thing, we've had some kind of major malfunction up here. Seems the starboard power coupling reversed polarity on the dilithium crystals and now the entire launch system is locked into a feromactal drive cycle. And I don't have to explain to you how dangerous the feromactal drive can be, right Sir? Well okay. Just give us a couple of hours and we'll get it all squared away in no time, Sir!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the old days, we used to break out the books and charts to see who all we were mad at with any target package while we were creating it. It was part of teh creation.
We would also take a compass to the atlas with the ship's position and see who we were in range to be mad at.

One thing that's changed over the years is that the sub's missile's range is so big that basically, if we're pulled away from the wharf, we're in range (I need everyone topside to stand on the starboard side for a minute...) . So our patrol area isn't exactly a clue to where our targets may be.
ANd they've automated the targeting more and more each software update. Sailors would have to make a special effort to see where the bombs are pointed. It's just packages, not coordinates or cities or nearest cities or borders, anymore.
And the training has always been to minimize the time it takes from the Emergency Action Message to the green "MSL AWAY" indicators.
We're not trained to speculate, we're not training to give the crew time to speculate.
Does the message break, does the message contain the codes to the Denzel Washington Safe, does the key fit in the lock, does the missile spin up, does the guidance system accept the targeting, is there a contact in range of sonar... Fire when ready.

AFTER the missile launches, we may start to consider, what have we done....
But assuming that the president doesn't just appoint a bunch of yes men to surround him, and the people at Strategic Command are paying attention to the intel briefs, if the mssage makes it as far as the sub's radio room, we're going to launch missiles.

That scene in Kingsmen, where they test the candidate by having them shoot the dog?
We train to shoot the dog once a week, minimum. But, hey, it's someone else's dog. Probably.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Wouldn't the US army mutiny, in that case? He can't launch them just like that. A president with an army who respects him might be able to steamroll it. But everybody sensible knows Trump is a loon. I think they'd react somewhere along the chain of command.

Dr Strangelove is an amazing film though. Very topical today

If Trump decides to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against any target, then who has the authority to say 'no'?

The military are bound to obey lawful orders, and the law gives the POTUS the authority to give such an order.

The people who launch the strike are not expected to second guess the orders they are given; they are trained to verify that the order is genuine, and if so, to comply with it.

The idea that the people selected by the military to man the silos, subs and planes might not be explicitly chosen for their inclination to obey the order to use the weapons entrusted to them is very silly.

There is certainly no reason to be confident that there would be any effective push-back from the lower ranks against a direct order confirmed as coming from the Commander in Chief and holder of the Executive Power of the United States of America. Widespread mutiny on the basis of a single order to launch against a target which does not have the ability to destroy the USA in a retaliatory strike is unthinkable. (Particularly as the people carrying out the orders would have no way to know if they are making a first strike, or are retaliating against a target that just attacked the US or a US ally).

The orders arrive; you go through the drill exactly as you were trained to do it. There's neither the time, nor the access to external information, nor the inclination, to do anything else.

Militarily units tend not be be full of pacifists who respond to a lawful order to use extreme force by saying "I won't do that, sir. People could be killed if I did that".

I don't see Trump as being so deranged that he could decide against his closest advisors to trigger a nuclear strike against North Korea. It's not entirely inconceivable but definitely not plausible. Trump wanted to become president to indulge himself. The last thing he wants would be to become only second to Hitler as the most hated political leader not so much in the world but in America, and more precisely within the small group of people he likes to think adore him. He will instead defer to his aides to identify the most appropriate means to his objectives and only his stated objectives during the campaign will be opposable to those who would object. I'm not overmuch worried about Trump on his own.

The worry is more that the Trump administration is playing up the rhetoric and will take political and financial measures as well as military and covert actions to put pressure on countries like North-Korean and Iran with possible disastrous consequences that will increase the chaos inherited from George W. Bush.

Not such a dramatic scenario but more realistic.
EB

 

[Warpoet]

Really says a lot about how far we've fallen when we're forced to take comfort in the fact that the president probably isn't deranged enough to start a nuclear holocaust.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The reason NK has nukes is so they can extort food aid. They have no defensive need of them.

They see it as an iron-clad insurance against regime change they have become convinced will be initiated by the U.S sooner or later, especially by the kind of people currently in office in Washington, who are not going to listen to the Chinese worrying about a North-Korean collapse and ensuing chaos, or to the South-Koreans who are within range of ordinary ordinance coming from the North and who still have sentimental ties to the people there.
EB

 

[Trausti]

The reason NK has nukes is so they can extort food aid. They have no defensive need of them.

They see it as an iron-clad insurance against regime change they have become convinced will be initiated by the U.S sooner or later, especially by the kind of people currently in office in Washington, who are not going to listen to the Chinese worrying about a North-Korean collapse and ensuing chaos, or to the South-Koreans who are within range of ordinary ordinance coming from the North and who still have sentimental ties to the people there.
EB

Nah. It's a bid to stay relevant and get attention. The world has moved on and North Korea can easily be forgotten. If the sole fat guy in North Korea doesn't continue to stoke imaginary fears of imminent invasion, the raison d'etre of the regime falls away.

 

[bilby]

Totally.. the operational level of military action is not going to question an order that makes it that far down the chain.... The guy carrying the football might shoot Trump in the face for reaching for it. The Security team around him may not allow a 'toddler tantrum' to start WWIII.

Trump: Where's the guy with the codes, I need him NOW!
Random WH Staffer: Uh, he's around here somewhere.. why not sit down and watch some Fox news opinions
Trump: <drool>
.... <hour later>
Random WH Staffer: Mr. President. The guy with the codes is here. did you want him?
Trump: Why would I want him... leave me alone, I'm watching TV!

I wanted to add something else...

While I respect that what we have been told by bilby about his personal background makes him an expert in this area, and his opinion is more informed possibly than the rest of ours on matters of the military.... I ask (bilby) what would happen if a commanding officer ordered someone under their command to shoot the soldier standing next to him in the head? Of course no such order would ever be made, but what would a soldier do? Just blindly shoot their buddy in the head? I would like to say, "of course not". I am of the opinion that there are circumstances where ordering the launch of nukes would be on the same level of that.. so how would the chain of command handle that?

That depends on the psychological setup. A random command to shoot a buddy is not likely to be obeyed; a command to shoot an 'enemy' probably will. A grey area exists where a fellow soldier might be painted as a traitor or spy - tell a guy to shoot the man next to him, and you will get push-back; arrest the victim on trumped up charges and put him in front of a firing squad, and the resistance will be lower - and lower still if he is a stranger to the men in the firing squad; or if the unit is in (or close to) a combat zone.

An order to fire on a target in North Korea, Iran, Iraq or Syria will get less push-back than an order to nuke the UK, Canada or another NATO member, for example.

'Fire at the enemy' is an order that has a very good chance of being obeyed. Who constitutes an 'enemy' is a trickier question.