Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei
Help me understand this point, Kira. Usually a nuclear "umbrella" means that if someone strikes the protected state, a nuclear reprisal will be targeted at the originator. So if, heaven forbid, the DPRK targeted Tokyo the response would be directed at Pyongyang. While this might seem far-fetched, I don't think there would be a lack of political will or public support for such a reaction by the US. Nor do I think such an exchange would escalate into a general nuclear conflagration.
Retaliation need not be nuclear as well. Modern conventional weapons are pretty darn destructive and don't have any of those nasty long-term side effects like fallout.
|
That is exactly the reason why a nuclear deterrence is unnecessary as that there are various forms of counterattacks and it can be conventional weapons, such as long-range missiles as opposed to deploying nuclear warheads.
The fact that North Korea is a third-world nation in which its civilians suffer famine and poverty generally indicates that most people would not support the actions of nuking these people when most likely, the brainwashed individuals are actually being deceived by their dictatorship regime. And nuking Pyongyang is generally the same thing as nuking all these people as opposed to nuking the source of the threat and thus, a nuclear deterrence is unnecessary. All the United States need are long-range missiles, as well as air raids. For that matter, how are those sort of retaliation considered as the nuclear umbrella as nukes are not involved?
Quote:
|
Despite my general abhorrence of nuclear weaponry, I do believe that mutual assured destruction, as horrible as it sounds, proved an effective strategy for deterring attacks by the Soviet Union against the US. I also haven't seen a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. I suppose you could argue that the DPRK has little to lose, but what precisely would it have to gain by initiating a nuclear attack on a target like Tokyo, or even Seoul? Especially if its leaders think, probably rightly, that any such attack would inevitably mean the destruction of North Korea itself?
|
Simple.. North Korea like other rogue states do not need to gain anything when they nuke nations. Of course, you can argue that there is a lot for the North Koreans to gain from by nuking Tokyo. North Korea will definitely not nuke Seoul as that their goals are to integrate South Korea into their nation so that they can absorb their economy, as well as resources, not mentioning tons of capable people.
More certainly, the North Korean leaders do not believe nuking any parts of Japan would lead to their own destruction as that it is common knowledge that the United States are only good at bluffs and will most likely do nothing when the time truly comes. The invasion of Iraq was a special exception as that the Bush oil company was on the verge of bankruptcy when the opportunity revealed itself whereas defending Japan from North Korea or any other rogue states will not gain oil or any type of benefits. It is all for goodwill and also to strengthen the meaning of an alliance, as well as the bilateral relationship itself. However, will the United States actually take action after Japan gets nuked by North Korea or any other rogue states remains questionable.
The nuclear umbrella also comes with quite an expense, the sympathy budget which taxpayers have to dish out for the occupying American soldiers whose presence poses as a deterrence against possible invaders but of course, this is just in theory as that North Korea and other rogue states have no intentions to invade in the first place. If they truly seek to do so, the presence of American soldiers would deem to be ineffective at all, just take a look at the recent elections in Afghanistan. Knowing that American soldiers as well as allied troops were protecting the voters yet did the Talibans backed off? The Talibans don't even have nukes..