Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01
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.
|
Bluffing? Really? It's not like there's been a shortage of US military actions. Now you might be able to make a case that the US military is currently stretched too thin to give effective military assistance to Japan in the event of a North Korean strike, but a lack of will? I highly doubt it, especially wiht a nuclear strike. The only way you can piss the American people off more than killing hundreds of thosands of our allies is by killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. Which North Korea would have to do simlutaniously with a strike on Japan, because there are lots of US forces in the area. So in the end, it really doesn't matter if the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Japan by North Korea, becuase the US most certainly respond to a nuclear attack by North Korea on US forces in the region.
Also, Japan is one of the US' largest trading partners. There is an incentive to make sure your trading partners aren't being attacked by a hostile power. It tends to not be good for your economy. Japan might not have oil, but that doesn't mean helping to defend Japan isn't in the interests of the US. even if the US didn't get involved directly, the US would most certainly give Japan a lot of military aid. (Note that this is also why it's unlikely China will come to North Korea's aid if North Korea attacks first. China's trade relations with Japan and the US are worth more than they could ever be with North Korea, even if North Korea somehow turned things around and began to develop their economy.)
Quote:
|
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..
|
The nuclear umbrella doesn't really cost any more than maintaining a nuclear deterrent for the US alone. It's not an object, it's a policy. If someone nukes an ally we treat it like they nuked the US. It isn't even like the US needs to forward deploy the nukes, the US is more than capable of hitting North Korea from bases in the US. A B-2 or even a B-52 armed with long range nuclear tipped cruise missiles could easily get there from the continential US with just some airborn refueling. The expensive part is the conventional deterrent which does need to be forward deployed, IE the troops stationed in South Korea and the fighters based on Okinawa.
Also your comparison to soldiers in Afganistan protecting civilians not deterring the Taliban there isn't the same thing at all. I shouldn't have to explain why a "we nuke you if you nuke our allies" policy is a bit different than troops on the ground conducting peacekeeping and COIN operations.