Military response to failed enemy nuclear strike

[sarevok2]

IIRC a nuclear attack on US or any of the major nuclear powers is going to lead to a nuclear responses. Now lets say you got something like a North Korean nuclear launch against CONUS. The missiles get shot down by Aegis ships in the Pacific and no one is killed. It was a nuclear attack on US, but one intercepted by ABM defenses. You have solid intelligence and recovered debri from shot down missiles to prove they were carrying nuclear warheads. Would the US respond conventionally or with nuclear weapons ?

[Elheru Aran]

With a fair degree of confidence, I would say conventional... albeit in high proportions. Throwing nukes around is Simply Not Done to start with, and nobody wants to be the one throwing them back, because that means you've probably gotten one thrown at you first.

Now if the nuke actually hit, yeah, that would be a case for using nukes in return, but it depends on the circumstances. If the nuke misses its target and blows up a random mountain or something, the odds do increase in favor of using conventional weapons... but the nukes would very much be on the table.

[Iroscato]

I would say almost certainly a non-nuclear retaliation if it was intercepted. But the entire country would be most likely foaming at the fucking mouth, it would not be pretty.

[Elheru Aran]

The country has gotten its knickers in a twist before, which is a reason why there's a carefully drawn line in the sand between the military and civilian worlds. That's why Afghanistan and Iraq didn't go up in puffs of nuclear love the day after 9/11. Certainly there'd be a massive civilian response to such an attack, but it's the military's duty to respond in an appropriate manner and not be pushed around by popular opinion. Now whether the existing President at the time is pushed around by said popular opinion is another matter, but he/she would likely be counseled very carefully by the Joint Chiefs in such a crisis.

Anyway, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that they have plans in stock for *exactly* such a scenario... not just accounting for North Korea either, I'm sure. Something like that happens, within the hour someone's sitting the President down and sticking a big folder in front of him and telling him 'this is the plan, because this just happened we will therefore execute x, y, z, sign here on the line and we'll get right to it'.

[Darmalus]

An interesting scenario because the actor is a nation state (instead of a presumably stateless terror cell) and who did it is immediately obvious. Emotions will be running hot simply because there won't be any investigation period when cooler heads might win out.

In terms of escalating badness.

Failed attack (as described in OP).
USA: Conventional retaliation likely based on coalition building to "end the threat of NK to world peace once and for all".
International: I can see support for this mostly consisting of words of support. China, SK Japan and maybe Russia joining in with troops simply because their neightbor has gone into bat-shit crazy mode and NK is no longer worth it as a buffer for China.

Nuke the wilderness.
As above, but with the USA threatening nuclear retaliation if NK doesn't promptly hand over some heads on pikes. How serious this threat is likely depends on who is in charge.

City Nuked
I think the only thing that might keep NK from getting immediately nuked back would be the rest of the world jumping in to opull off a diplomatic miracle and prevent some megadeaths.

[Iroscato]

Despite my previous post, a thought does occur to me: can the US deploy a nuclear retaliation whilst the missile is still inflight? I don't really know how quickly they can launch them, so it's a general question.
If they're quick enough, they may not wait to see if it's intercepted before retaliating, most likely with a dozen or so nukes aimed at various cities and military bases in NK.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Noth Korea isn't a big enough target to warrant nuclear response at all. Our conventional arsenal would be more than adequate to flatten them.


That being said, our nuclear strike capacity, form what I've read, is extremely capable. We most likely could have at least one nuclear missile off before we've confirmed anything, but I would imagine that the first order of business would be to contact North Korea and ask them why the fuck a nuclear missile got launched at us. Find out if there was a glitch, or someone went rogue... And give them a chance to surrender lest they want to feel the wrath of our military, an event that would mean the end of their government and military.

For a nuclear response to a nuclear attack, I would think the US would reserve that for larger countries that wouldn't fold as fast as North Korea. About the only nuclear power I can think of that fits the bill is Russia, and Putin may be an egotistical dictator with a serious case of macho but he's not nearly stupid enough to lob nuclear weapons around. China's also big enough, but they rely on the US far too much as a trade partner to even put thought into war between us.

About the only way I can think of the US giving a nuclear response to North Korea is if they struck Seoul. And only then because it would be the fastest way to stop further attacks on Seoul. But an attempted (or even successful) attack on the US? Without Seoul being threatened, conventional response would be more than adequate for dismantling their military and government in incredibly short order.

[Broomstick]

Despite my previous post, a thought does occur to me: can the US deploy a nuclear retaliation whilst the missile is still inflight? I don't really know how quickly they can launch them, so it's a general question.

I'm going to guess... probably. Needless to say, just how fast the US can respond is not something the military would want to make public.

However, I'm not sure there's any way to determine while a missile from NK is in flight whether it's nuclear or not. If it is known to be nuclear the US might launch before it's intercepted... or might not. If it's not known a pre-intercept launch is less likely. The ability to determine where such a missile is going to land might also be a factor. If the US is reasonably certain it's the high southwestern dessert that's going to be nuked that's considerably different than if LA or San Francisco is the target.

Despite being the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, the US isn't really eager to use them again.

[Sea Skimmer]

Launch on warning has always been possible. Its never been doctrine.

[The Romulan Republic]

Noth Korea isn't a big enough target to warrant nuclear response at all. Our conventional arsenal would be more than adequate to flatten them.


That being said, our nuclear strike capacity, form what I've read, is extremely capable. We most likely could have at least one nuclear missile off before we've confirmed anything, but I would imagine that the first order of business would be to contact North Korea and ask them why the fuck a nuclear missile got launched at us. Find out if there was a glitch, or someone went rogue... And give them a chance to surrender lest they want to feel the wrath of our military, an event that would mean the end of their government and military.

For a nuclear response to a nuclear attack, I would think the US would reserve that for larger countries that wouldn't fold as fast as North Korea. About the only nuclear power I can think of that fits the bill is Russia, and Putin may be an egotistical dictator with a serious case of macho but he's not nearly stupid enough to lob nuclear weapons around. China's also big enough, but they rely on the US far too much as a trade partner to even put thought into war between us.

About the only way I can think of the US giving a nuclear response to North Korea is if they struck Seoul. And only then because it would be the fastest way to stop further attacks on Seoul. But an attempted (or even successful) attack on the US? Without Seoul being threatened, conventional response would be more than adequate for dismantling their military and government in incredibly short order.

That sounds very logical and reasonable, but I think that you are discounting the powerful effects that nationalism and revenge can have on peoples' actions.

Remember how nuts a lot of America got after 911? Now, imagine how many more people a nuke could kill. Even if it hits South Korea rather than an American city, their are a lot of Americans in South Korea, including a lot of our troops. Then factor in the level of public hysteria and fear that exists over anything nuclear.

The President would be under enormous pressure to conduct a nuking purely for revenge (and also to send a message to anyone else who might consider using nukes in the future that doing so will guarantee a nuclear retaliation). I would honestly expect just about every Right wing pundit on TV (and probably some of the Left wing ones as well) to be screaming for the extermination of North Korea (and possibly China as well because they've supported North Korea in the past).

A level-headed commander in chief might not bow to that pressure (I would certainly hope not). But then you've got the Republicans in Congress. Its hard to gauge, sometimes, how much of their insanity is just pandering to their base and how much of it is sincere, but I wouldn't put it past them to introduce a bill demanding the President launch a nuclear retaliation. Because rallying behind the President in wartime only applies if the President is a Republican.

Edit: In short, it might be logical to not respond with nukes, but if there's one scenario that could make logic fly out the window, to be replaced with frothing fury, its this. But maybe you have more faith in the ability of the American people and government to respond in a measured manner than I do.

[Napoleon the Clown]

It's certainly possible that the president would bow to pressure for nuclear retaliation, but it's a major enough decision that if the order was "Nuke 'em!" the advisers would strongly suggest thinking about going that route first. Responding in-kind to a target that is, in all honesty, as weak as North Korea would make things way more volatile. Anybody in a leadership position would know this.

I'd be inclined to say that a nuclear response to North Korea would be unlikely regardless. Possible, but unlikely. A sufficiently charismatic POTUS could point out that responding with nuclear weapons would only harm the average citizens of North Korea, people who are suffering under a brutal dictator. How can we liberate them if we blow them up?

[The Romulan Republic]

I know this sounds pessimistic, but if North Korea nuked somebody, do you think that the average person would care about the citizens of North Korea? Demonizing the enemy population as a whole is par for the course in wartime.

That said, I hope that anyone who makes it as far as the office of President of the United States would have the basic decency, or at least the intelligence and restraint, not to let vengeance or self-interest guide their actions in such a critical and dangerous situation.

[madd0ct0r]

I would nite for this scenario that disabling nk very quickly would be desirable given the mess their conventional forces would make of south Korea

[Simon_Jester]

Despite my previous post, a thought does occur to me: can the US deploy a nuclear retaliation whilst the missile is still inflight? I don't really know how quickly they can launch them, so it's a general question.

While Skimmer notes that the doctrine has never been to launch on warning of an incoming attack, that capability certainly exists.

If they're quick enough, they may not wait to see if it's intercepted before retaliating, most likely with a dozen or so nukes aimed at various cities and military bases in NK.

With the US nuclear deterrent relying heavily on ballistic missiles this is certainly true; you can't phone a ballistic missile and say "uh yeah, call off the blowing stuff up, OK?" Once it's in the air, it's going to come down somewhere unless someone shoots it down.

Bombers are different- but bombers are slower, take a long time to travel international distances, and can be shot down by a target nation's air defenses.

Noth Korea isn't a big enough target to warrant nuclear response at all. Our conventional arsenal would be more than adequate to flatten them.

On the other hand, the sheer number of military installations they seem to have (this is a country that spends pretty much every spare dollar it has on its military as far as I can tell)...

Let's just say that the density of their probable air defenses might pose a considerable risk to our planes (do NOT want to get shot down and captured in North Korea), and fighting our way through North Korean ground defenses could get positively ugly. There would be a strong incentive to use nuclear weapons to blast through enemy military concentrations rather than having to fight through them.

That being said, our nuclear strike capacity, form what I've read, is extremely capable. We most likely could have at least one nuclear missile off before we've confirmed anything...

If one launches, dozens can and probably will launch, because the point of retaliatory strategies is to end the threat, not to go 'tit-for-tat.'

...but I would imagine that the first order of business would be to contact North Korea and ask them why the fuck a nuclear missile got launched at us. Find out if there was a glitch, or someone went rogue... And give them a chance to surrender lest they want to feel the wrath of our military, an event that would mean the end of their government and military.

Slight problem. So far as I know, there is no hotline between Washington and Pyongyang, and the North Korean government is not especially flexible. Just reaching someone with the authority to speak for the regime could be difficult, and might take more than the 20 minutes or so we'd have before the missile lands.

Plus, the longer you wait, the greater the risk of more enemy launches. After all, one of the obvious reasons for one or two missiles to get fired is that they might be having technical difficulties with the other missiles. Or that one commander accidentally heard a phone call saying to launch at "eleven oh five in the morning" to be "five in the morning."

For a nuclear response to a nuclear attack, I would think the US would reserve that for larger countries that wouldn't fold as fast as North Korea...

Current US nuclear doctrine is to meet nukes with nukes regardless of who's shooting them, as I understand it. The whole point of this doctrine is to avoid a situation where someone decides they can get away with a 'limited' nuclear attack on US forces (more likely than an attack on one or two US cities).

To make it just Not Worth It to even think about it, because it would be insanity for, say, Iran to nuke the three or four largest military bases within their missile range as a way of keeping us out of their hair. An act like that would seriously disrupt our ability to launch any conventional campaign against them in retaliation... but it wouldn't do a thing about our nuclear capabilities.

[Broomstick]

...but I would imagine that the first order of business would be to contact North Korea and ask them why the fuck a nuclear missile got launched at us. Find out if there was a glitch, or someone went rogue... And give them a chance to surrender lest they want to feel the wrath of our military, an event that would mean the end of their government and military.

Slight problem. So far as I know, there is no hotline between Washington and Pyongyang, and the North Korean government is not especially flexible. Just reaching someone with the authority to speak for the regime could be difficult, and might take more than the 20 minutes or so we'd have before the missile lands.

That scenario is exactly why a hotline was installed between Washington DC and Moscow after the Cuban Missile Crisis, so we could have a direct line to ask questions in such circumstances.

There is no such hotline between DC and Pyongyang.

[GuppyShark]

A nuclear strike on North Korea would be suicide - China is in the neighborhood.

[Elheru Aran]

A nuclear strike on North Korea would be suicide - China is in the neighborhood.

If we did it, we are accurate enough to not hit China by accident, and you can be guaranteed we would let the Chinese know they're about to see a mushroom cloud on the other side of their border. I see an overpowering conventional response as being somewhat more likely, but then again, it's quite likely that there's an Ohio class or two sitting in the Pacific and the Sea of Japan with codes to train their missiles on Pyongyang sitting in the captain's safe.

[phred]

China would be washing their hands of the whole mess real quick if the Norks launched on us. They might ask for, and the US would probably offer, help cleaning up afterward, but they wouldn't get involved.

[Elheru Aran]

Like I said in the NK thread, China doesn't get a whole lot out of North Korea. A little prestige, some minor trade relations, ideological allies... but overall, they are quite aware that North Korea is barely a blip on their radar, highly conscious of the risks of having such an insane neighbor, and very likely to not step in if North Korea is the initial aggressor in any conflict. Now if North Korea was actually attacked first (as unlikely as that is) they might intervene... but it's much more likely that in any conflict the Norks would be the aggressor, get stomped in short order, and then the Chinese quietly help clean up and let the South Koreans take the whole peninsula in exchange for favorable economic connections. It's not the 1950s anymore.

[Simon_Jester]

That scenario is exactly why a hotline was installed between Washington DC and Moscow after the Cuban Missile Crisis, so we could have a direct line to ask questions in such circumstances.

There is no such hotline between DC and Pyongyang.

This is, in essence, what I said.

A nuclear strike on North Korea would be suicide - China is in the neighborhood.

If we did it, we are accurate enough to not hit China by accident, and you can be guaranteed we would let the Chinese know they're about to see a mushroom cloud on the other side of their border. I see an overpowering conventional response as being somewhat more likely, but then again, it's quite likely that there's an Ohio class or two sitting in the Pacific and the Sea of Japan with codes to train their missiles on Pyongyang sitting in the captain's safe.

Also, Washington and Beijing do have a hotline, so it would not take long to notify the Chinese.

[Iroscato]

I do wonder how reliable an ally the NK elite think China really is. To be a fly on the wall of their meetings...

[Sea Skimmer]

I do wonder how reliable an ally the NK elite think China really is. To be a fly on the wall of their meetings...

The answer is not at all. Modern China views North Korea as an irritant far more then an ally and North Korea has massive fixed defenses covering the only mechanized approach route between China and Pyongyang.North Korea actually has a historical fear of Chinese domination, as does all of Korea to lesser degree, for rather obvious reasons.

The idea that China would lift a finger to say, protect North Korea from a nuclear strike after the later already attempted one, is completely absurd nonsense. If anything China would far prefer that the economy, political and military liability that is North Korea was replaced by a thriving unified capitalist Korean economy which would only serve to further profit China. Not just from direct trade but simply so Manchuria could have better access to the ocean without relying on difficult deals to access North Korean ports over horrible railroads. But since North Korea won't go away without a massive war China is willing to provide limited economic subsidies simply so North Korea doesn't implode without a war, which could cause utter chaos (generally any government beats no government) and very bad things happening like sub national groups obtaining nuclear arms.

[Purple]

I am somewhat curious as to why China has not already attempted to pull an america and instigate a coup of some sort to replace the Kims with someone they can more easily control into turning the DPRK into something more suitable to them. I very much doubt anyone who is anyone in the world would object.

[Solauren]

I can see China launching an invasion into NK to PREVENT problems beyond conventional retaliation.

If China were to hit NK with troops, all the stuff aimed at SK would have to turn around to try to stop China. then SK and the US hit them, and NK collapses.

China occupies part of North Korea, the rest is merged to South Korea.

[mr friendly guy]

I am somewhat curious as to why China has not already attempted to pull an america and instigate a coup of some sort to replace the Kims with someone they can more easily control into turning the DPRK into something more suitable to them. I very much doubt anyone who is anyone in the world would object.

They supposedly cultivate allies in NK inner circle like the Fat Boy's uncle. These guys push for more trade liberalisation (usually with China presumably), but the added aim is that NK doesn't collapse and have refugees flood into China.

Of course given the way NK politics work, if you fall afoul of the Fat Boy, he executes you. Like that uncle.