Trump’s bloody nose strategy

[Philos]

Folks,

The Trump admin is considering changing the rules of engagement for first use of US nuclear weapons. The so called ‘bloody nose’ strategy calls for the first use of tactical nuclear weapons on the assumption that a nuclear armed enemy will be deterred from responding after such a show of force.

Of course this would break a fundamental understanding of warfare, which is that a first strike changes the status quo ante and it is highly uncertain how events will unfold from that point on.

Can we reasonably deliberate on the effect of this change in policy until it is put into practice in real
time?

https://www.axios.com/the-american-blood-nose-1515451409-55312e2d-1861-48fd-9e92-90f21d16c893.html

A.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, the whole point of mutually assured destruction was that both sides would be too scared to start anything.
The side that starts a nuclear exchange is the one in the wrong as the worst has come to pass, so the other side has no reason to hold back anymore.

THIS idiocy shifts the burden. We shoot first, a 'show of force,' then it's up to the OTHER side to be more rational. It's assuming, hell it DEPENDS on the nuked party deciding that the aggressor was justified, and surrendering the initiative.

This doesn't sound like most humans.

The question Trump needs to ask, if North Korea shot first, would TRUMP say, 'Hey, they showed they're willing to use nukes, we'd better back down.'

 

[Malintent]

I think I would like to see either the US or Japan shoot down one of NK's test shots.. .and then announce a high level of confidence that NK's nuclear status is irrelevant and if they shoot another, it will just rain down on their own heads.

When it comes down to it, isn't NK just starting to catch up to 1940's US technology (the legendary H-Bomb)? If a 1930-something Hitler threw his 1930's best at a 2018 United States... wouldn't it just be "funny" to watch his little toys get smashed?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am skeptical that even Trump would bomb north korea because of retaliation....unless there was a way to take out all their firing capabilities. What is the primary source of this info? I followed the axios link to a wsj story that is pay to read...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a ridiculous presumption. Who can you nuke to prevent a future nuclear attack? Not China, Russia, Britain, France, Israel. In theory, if you strike North Korea perfectly, maybe you can prevent a retaliation. But you just killed tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, maybe a million plus (depending on the target). Why should North Korea not fire back? And this ignores the minor issue of the long-term affects of nuking a population.

We will start a nuclear war to prevent one. I certainly hope that the Administration isn't changing things, because if they are, those Generals need to be fired.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wouldn’t be so sure a first strike against North Korea wouldn’t garner a retaliatory response from China. Didn’t they already make a statement to this effect?

 

[Malintent]

What a ridiculous presumption. Who can you nuke to prevent a future nuclear attack? Not China, Russia, Britain, France, Israel. In theory, if you strike North Korea perfectly, maybe you can prevent a retaliation. But you just killed tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, maybe a million plus (depending on the target). Why should North Korea not fire back? And this ignores the minor issue of the long-term affects of nuking a population.

We will start a nuclear war to prevent one. I certainly hope that the Administration isn't changing things, because if they are, those Generals need to be fired.

unclear what you are responding to. If to me, I said to shoot down a test, not to preemptively destroy a nation of people.
shooting down a test says, "have all the nukes you want, you can never use them, so no one cares".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a ridiculous presumption. Who can you nuke to prevent a future nuclear attack? Not China, Russia, Britain, France, Israel. In theory, if you strike North Korea perfectly, maybe you can prevent a retaliation. But you just killed tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, maybe a million plus (depending on the target). Why should North Korea not fire back? And this ignores the minor issue of the long-term affects of nuking a population.

We will start a nuclear war to prevent one. I certainly hope that the Administration isn't changing things, because if they are, those Generals need to be fired.

unclear what you are responding to. If to me, I said to shoot down a test, not to preemptively destroy a nation of people.
shooting down a test says, "have all the nukes you want, you can never use them, so no one cares".

I was talking about the policy shift itself.

Though, we would still care. The difference is, the nukes keep the Kim Dynasty in power until their military or China (if the Kims get too crazy) overthrows them. The US won't be doing it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

“No first use” has never been US doctrine afaik. During the Cold War, it was justified by the superiority of Soviet conventional forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LordKiran]

“No first use” has never been US doctrine afaik. During the Cold War, it was justified by the superiority of Soviet conventional forces.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know why so many people are so frightened of foreign powers in Eurasia. We have the world's best natural barriers to foreign dominion people, we're fine! It's Europe that'd be fucked.

 

[funinspace]

I think I would like to see either the US or Japan shoot down one of NK's test shots.. .and then announce a high level of confidence that NK's nuclear status is irrelevant and if they shoot another, it will just rain down on their own heads.

When it comes down to it, isn't NK just starting to catch up to 1940's US technology (the legendary H-Bomb)? If a 1930-something Hitler threw his 1930's best at a 2018 United States... wouldn't it just be "funny" to watch his little toys get smashed?

Uhm…those ‘legendary H-bombs’ were uranium gun-type fission bomb, not usually called H-bombs. The thermonuclear weapon is what are usually called H-bombs, which is what NK is supposedly very close to having. The US started using solid rocket ICBM’s and H-bombs in the early 1960’s with the Minuteman and Polaris nuclear missiles. I doubt the NK missiles are as archaic as the Minuteman, as they were huge. Never mind that the WWII atomic bombs were literally dumb bombs.

I don’t think anyone has a good grasp on just how powerful the NK warheads could be, or if they are even fully ready. But with estimates of 100 kilotons, they would far exceed the US dropped Little Boy and Fat man being 15 and 20 kilotons..
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/

After joining the exclusive club of countries that possess staged thermonuclear weapons after this September’s test of a claimed hydrogen bomb with a yield in excess of 100 kilotons, North Korea has, with the KN22, successfully manufactured and flight tested a ballistic missile that few countries would able to produce. If the KN22 (and the KN20) sends a message, it’s that the rest of the world underestimates North Korea’s indigenous knowledge base and capabilities at its own peril.

 

[Keith&Co.]

“No first use” has never been US doctrine afaik.

Correct. Our scripts for processing wars has always included options for them shooting first and for us shooting first.
But only when we're really, really, really, really sure they're just about to shoot, anyway. Troops massing on the border, submarines found off the coast, grand viziers stroking their fu Manchu mustaches ominously...

 

[Philos]

... wouldn't it just be "funny" to watch his little toys get smashed?

A.

 

[Philos]

Well, the whole point of mutually assured destruction was that both sides would be too scared to start anything.
The side that starts a nuclear exchange is the one in the wrong as the worst has come to pass, so the other side has no reason to hold back anymore.

THIS idiocy shifts the burden. We shoot first, a 'show of force,' then it's up to the OTHER side to be more rational. It's assuming, hell it DEPENDS on the nuked party deciding that the aggressor was justified, and surrendering the initiative.

This doesn't sound like most humans.

The question Trump needs to ask, if North Korea shot first, would TRUMP say, 'Hey, they showed they're willing to use nukes, we'd better back down.'

Keith,

Good post. I have often thought of the mirror image in such situations, a point wasted on those who think they have omnipotence.

A.

 

[Philos]

What a ridiculous presumption. Who can you nuke to prevent a future nuclear attack? Not China, Russia, Britain, France, Israel. In theory, if you strike North Korea perfectly, maybe you can prevent a retaliation. But you just killed tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, maybe a million plus (depending on the target). Why should North Korea not fire back? And this ignores the minor issue of the long-term affects of nuking a population.

We will start a nuclear war to prevent one. I certainly hope that the Administration isn't changing things, because if they are, those Generals need to be fired.

Jimmy,

Two points from your post.

1. NK has an easy strike on Seoul. Maybe Trump is betting that Koreans will not nuke their own?

2. There are differing views in the US military; sounds like Trump is listening to the hawks.

A.

 

[Philos]

I don’t think anyone has a good grasp on just how powerful the NK warheads could be, or if they are even fully ready. But with estimates of 100 kilotons, they would far exceed the US dropped Little Boy and Fat man being 15 and 20 kilotons..
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/

After joining the exclusive club of countries that possess staged thermonuclear weapons after this September’s test of a claimed hydrogen bomb with a yield in excess of 100 kilotons, North Korea has, with the KN22, successfully manufactured and flight tested a ballistic missile that few countries would able to produce. If the KN22 (and the KN20) sends a message, it’s that the rest of the world underestimates North Korea’s indigenous knowledge base and capabilities at its own peril.

fun,

I remember doing some reading into the NK/Pakistan connection. There was some evidence that NK was helping Pakistan set up their deterrent and I haven't heard any arguments that Pakistan's nukes are duds.

A.

 

[funinspace]

I don’t think anyone has a good grasp on just how powerful the NK warheads could be, or if they are even fully ready. But with estimates of 100 kilotons, they would far exceed the US dropped Little Boy and Fat man being 15 and 20 kilotons..
https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/

After joining the exclusive club of countries that possess staged thermonuclear weapons after this September’s test of a claimed hydrogen bomb with a yield in excess of 100 kilotons, North Korea has, with the KN22, successfully manufactured and flight tested a ballistic missile that few countries would able to produce. If the KN22 (and the KN20) sends a message, it’s that the rest of the world underestimates North Korea’s indigenous knowledge base and capabilities at its own peril.

fun,

I remember doing some reading into the NK/Pakistan connection. There was some evidence that NK was helping Pakistan set up their deterrent and I haven't heard any arguments that Pakistan's nukes are duds.

A.

I think you have something confused, or read something really off the wall, as Pakistan was roughly where NK is today, some 20 years ago. Iran and NK has supposedly been sharing ICBM technology...

FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that NK's warheads are duds. The issues are multifaceted. What we do know is that NK has achieved a decent long range ICBM design. Their nuclear weapons tests results aren't fully known to the west. Though it does seem that NK has had a few dud tests. Additionally, blowing a warhead up deep underground isn't quite the same thing as a miniaturized warhead that can fit within one's ICBM. One NK difficulty that kept the US government less afraid was that NK's missiles had still been utilizing liquid fueled rockets. Liquid fueled rockets take time to fuel up, as one can't just keep them fueled up, and that process tends to leave them exposed to satellites. So we had decent warning for their test launches, now we don't. They solved the solid rocket design in 2016, and last year proved that they can consistently fire them. I'm sure the CIA knows more than has been in the press...

 

[bilby]

The 'bloody nose' strategy was tested by Japan at Pearl Harbor in 1941. It was a complete success, as the USA was very careful not to further antagonize the Japanese Empire, and allowed them to continue to expand and consolidate their position in South East Asia and the Pacific Islands, which they still hold to this day.


Oh wait.


Shit.

 

[fromderinside]

Blood evokes to much emotion. So maybe we relabel it as the 'puffy eye' strategy. After all isn't seeing and appearance everything to the Spartan mind.

 

[Malintent]

Blood evokes to much emotion. So maybe we relabel it as the 'puffy eye' strategy. After all isn't seeing and appearance everything to the Spartan mind.

The "bloody nose" expression comes from an old bit of classic "street fighting" advice. The idea is that if you break a person's nose, you basically end the fight right there. Instinctively, if your nose is smashed, you automatically move from fight mode into flight mode. It's a thing... protecting the face carries a high degree of primitive instinct.