Military response to failed enemy nuclear strike

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I think people forget that no matter who intervenes in NK or how China is the one to bear the brunt of any refugees that pour over the border.

[Patroklos]

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.

The point of launching before a missile hits us, which we can definitely do, is to ensure you have the ability to guarantee destruction of your opponent even if he attacks massively. If they know they can hit you massively and have those hits land before you launch yours, which presumably means a good portion of whatever your response could be is destroyed on the ground, MAD breaks down. We have never had enough confidence in the survival of silos to just bunker down for the first strike and respond later which explains our bombers being in the air and/or alert at all times. SSBNs addressed this to some degree by making it near impossible to target all an enemies methods of retaliation reliably but a response solely by SLBMs may not count for enough damage to truely uphold MAD.

In the case of North Korea there is little point in launching a nuclear strike against them while their potential strike is still in the air because NK does not have the ability to seriously degrade our nuclear arsenal. Whether we launch before theirs hit or after is really of no consequence other than we risk nuking them in error if they in fact did not launch nukes but rather something else.

In a small exchange situation like this I do wonder if we respond with nukes at all actually. One or two nukes on the west coast of Hawaii is tragic for sure but do we just absorb it and be the better man and respond conventionally or vaporize the oppressed millions in NK out of vengeance? A Machiavellian politician could play either role to good effect depending on how the public reacts.

Also the nuke strike in retaliation doesn't have to be on a population center. We could just nuke portions of the DMZ to aid in a conventional invasion and maybe still placate and vengeance demands. There is also the risks posed to SK and China and maybe Japan for detonating atmospheric nukes in their vicinity. I suspect China may solve this problem for us conventionally on their own in large part to avoid just that sort of thing from happening.

A more interesting question to me is what we do if NK nukes someone under our umbrella protection. Sake a couple nukes into SK or Japan.

[TimothyC]

A nuclear strike on the US without a nuclear response would immediately call into question all US defense treaties around the world, and would likely result in mass proliferation combined with a massive decrease in America's geopolitical standing in the world.

[Patroklos]

Not exactly, it depends. For instance SK, facing a situation where their long lost countrymen are now going to be liberated one way or the other, could beg for us NOT to vaporize them just before the long sought reunion. Its not that our resolve was disproved, but rather our commitment to our allies is reaffirmed. We can be off the hook, but at the same time the situation is so niche that it obviously is not exploitable in other circumstances.

There is actually a lot about the North Korean situation that would make it unique from say an Iran or a Pakistan. One of the most stark ones is that once NK nukes someone it will become impossible for the regime to remain in power. The only reason they are currently in power is that the effort to remove them does not balance in a cost/benefit analysis. Once a regime ending outcome is inevitable either via retaliatory nuking or overwhelming conventional invasion, there is zero reason for anyone to cooperate at the top and rather fight to be the first one to ingratiate themselves to the inevitable victors. They survive based on what they could do and continuing to not do it, once they upset that the house of cards falls.

[Broomstick]

In a small exchange situation like this I do wonder if we respond with nukes at all actually. One or two nukes on the west coast of Hawaii is tragic for sure but do we just absorb it and be the better man and respond conventionally or vaporize the oppressed millions in NK out of vengeance? A Machiavellian politician could play either role to good effect depending on how the public reacts.

Seriously? The American public is going to react by wanting blood, and lots of it. No way in hell will the US "just absorb it".

[Borgholio]

Seriously? The American public is going to react by wanting blood, and lots of it. No way in hell will the US "just absorb it".

I think he meant as far as damage. One or two nuke hits in Hawaii is not going to collapse the nation, as a full Soviet nuclear strike could. The idea that we need to use nukes to respond to a nation that is only capable of hitting us with one or two EVER is what he's questioning.

[The Infidel]

South Korea has a lot of american troops and is also very friendly to the US, and even though China and US have a lot of trade going on, they're not that good friends military speaking AFAIK. I think China looks upon NK as a buffer zone between US influence and themselves, and would like to have it that way.

Anything military the US will want to do with NK, China needs to know fast, and if not agree, at least turn the other way, but nukes are like Pandora's box, when they're out, they're out. According to Stuart Slade, there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, but then again... This is NK and most of the world doesn't really like the leadership there.

Neither US (as the only country to ever have used nukes in wartime), Japan (as the receiving end) or China (as the neighbor of a possible mushroom cloud) would be very happy to see Pyongyang as a nuclear wasteland, so I'm not too sure that the US would retaliate with a nuke, but the US would most likely do Dresden-style conventional bombing of the capital and known military installations and then "liberate" the poor civilians from their horrible leadership via a joint attack on NK with the help of other countries. Politically kinda like Gulf war #1.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe I'm just succumbing to cynicism, but I have a hard time imagining the US not responding to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons, even if it was from North Korea. Just as I find it difficult to imagine the majority of the American public and Congress not demanding a nuclear retaliation.

I do question the assumption that that would lead to a larger nuclear exchange with China, for example, if that's what you're talking about. I'd like to think that other countries would have enough self-preservation and sanity to let the nuclear warfare be limited to North Korea vs. the US. But I really don't know how other nuclear powers would be likely to respond.

[Broomstick]

If NK launches a nuke at the US, and if the US quickly calls up the other nuclear powers and say "we're going to retaliate with nukes but JUST at NK" then we might see a limited nuclear war. While it may not be a good thing, it is certainly understandable that a country hit with a nuke or two will want to answer in kind. As long as everyone else knows what's going on I think the exchange will remain limited.

That's a big "if" or two.

That's also why there are hotlines between nation capitals, to allow rapid communications under such circumstances.

[The Romulan Republic]

Obviously speculation here, but I think a plausible US response might go something like this:

1. The US detects North Korean launch.
2. Obama immediately calls the governments of Russia, China, and its allies and more or less says "We're using nukes, we're only firing them at North Korea, please don't start the apocalypse over this.", like you said.
3. The US does a limited nuclear strike on North Korea (as opposed to carpet-nuking the entire country, which they obviously could theoretically do) to limit the collateral damage to neighbouring countries like China while making the point that nuclear attacks will be met with nuclear retaliation for the sake of deterrence and satisfying the bloodlust of the American public. Hopefully on the demilitarized zone's defences rather than on the civilians in a city.
4. US and South Korean troops invade.

If we're really lucky, China and Russia stay the hell out of it. But the US economy crumbles and the debt rises under the cost of a war bigger than Iraq, and much of the world condemns America for responding with nukes.

Long term, I'm not sure what the consequences of this would be regarding use of nuclear weapons. It might be that the horror of seeing them in action again would lead to a strong backlash against using them in the future. Or it might be that seeing them used without it leading to the end of the world would cause people to be less afraid of using nuclear weapons in the future.

Does this seem plausible?

[Broomstick]

Yep.

Although where, exactly, a retaliatory strike would hit is debatable. Regardless, there will be civilian casualties and a whole lot of ugly.

It would establish that the US is dead serious about responding in kind.

I suspect a retaliatory strike is the one instance where the rest of the world won't fuss too much about a nuke strike. Especially if NK managed to hit a US city as opposed to a wilderness area. If Honolulu or one of the US West Coast cities got hit dropping a bomb on Pyongyang starts to look like a proportional response.

The effect? I think seeing the immediate after-effects of a nuke strike on live streaming video (and you know that shit will be on YouTube like three seconds after it happens) will cause thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable people to recoil in horror and make most people more reluctant to use them in the future. Unfortunately, some batshit crazy fanatics will look at the mess and think "Cool! I want one!"

[Borgholio]

I have a hard time imagining the US not responding to a nuclear attack with nuclear weapons, even if it was from North Korea.

Here's the big question...what would we target? If NK launched one nuke at us, a proportional response would be to launch ONE back. Would we aim for their biggest military base? Would we aim for the maximum number of civilian casualties in a tit-for-tat exchange? If we just destroy one of their many bases, that's a bit pointless. If we kill a million innocents, that would make the "collateral damage" we got in Iraq seem like an outbreak of food poisoning. The only things that make sense are to either use many more nukes to take down their entire military infrastructure and then invade, or try to take the moral high ground and say to the rest of the world, "They nuked us, but we're being the bigger man / country and not going to kill a million innocent people in retaliation. We ARE going to use are conventional forces to forcibly re-pave the country though."

Now I can immediately see the political appeal of the second option. "The US deciding NOT to take the course of action that results in mass civilian casualties? Splendid!"

On the other hand, would it weaken the idea that we're willing to use nukes against an opponent that deserved it? Or would our other possible enemies (China, Russia, etc...) see it the same way that we did, that responding to NK with conventional arms is still the best way to go but that we'll still nuke back if we're hit with a major strike?

[The Romulan Republic]

While I would prefer that nuclear weapons not be used at all, if it came down to it, I might opt for dropping a series of some of our smaller nukes along the North Korean side of the demilitarized zone to destroy what I understand to be very formidable defences their. It would send a message that nukes will be met with nukes, serve a useful tactical purpose, and probably result in less civilian deaths than nuking a city. The only major drawback I can see (aside from those that would result from any use of nuclear weapons) is that you'd get some damage on the South Korean side of the border. But I'm not a military officer, so there are probably factors I'm overlooking.

Edit: Or, for that matter, just drop one nuclear weapon as a demonstration on the strongest point in North Korea's border defences, if that would make for a more proportional response.

[Broomstick]

Now I can immediately see the political appeal of the second option. "The US deciding NOT to take the course of action that results in mass civilian casualties? Splendid!"

Invasion by conventional forces will also result in mass civilian casualties. The question is only whether those deaths will happen near-instantaneously (nuke) or over time (conventional).

[Borgholio]

Invasion by conventional forces will also result in mass civilian casualties. The question is only whether those deaths will happen near-instantaneously (nuke) or over time (conventional).

Depends on the number of casualties. A single nuke could kill a million people if it hit in the center of the city. A conventional attack could still kill lots of people, but a million is a bit much IMO. I would think that overall, a conventional attack would kill fewer people.

[Alferd Packer]

Why would you assume that North Korea has exactly one nuke in this scenario? Further, could you guarantee the safety of other US or allied targets (Seoul, Tokyo, Manilla, etc) upon launching a retaliatory nuclear strike? If NK could hit us once, why couldn't they hit us again when they detect our nuclear response inbound?

No, the doctrine of "one flies, or they all fly" still applies, even when the arsenals between the two actors of vastly different size. They hit us once, and we either glass NK with, oh, 100-1000 strikes, while they launch their remaining arsenal at whatever targets they deem appropriate, OR we streamroll them conventionally, and they launch their remaining arsenal at whatever targets they deem appropriate. There is no such thing as a limited exchange, at least for the actor with the smaller arsenal. Either way, most of the population of North Korea will be dead after all's said and done.

[Zixinus]

A thing nobody is asking: what would North Korea be saying about the attack and what is their response to their failure? Are the people responsible still in power after doing so, are they apologizing or have they just declared war? What is China saying? Would China go "You know what? After what my crazy neighbor pulled, let's invade North Korea together and sort this mess out without making things worse?"

Because the first response is probably going to be something along the lines of putting all military on high alert, maybe declare martial law. Then it would depend on what North Korea or whatever nuclear power just made the shot is going to do.

The US is going to scream for instant retaliation but unless they have absolute morons not just in elected officials but military as well, things are going to be more contextual. Then it depends on military doctrine or what standing policies are there. If it says "retaliate immediately" then that will happen.

Either way, the US will be the first time seriously attacked by another country since WW2. History does not bode well for the aggressor. Republicans will love that they will now have an excuse to start a war with genuinely unquestionable reasons.

Also, carpet-bombing with conventional bombs is not going to save that many lives, just from death by radiation. Since North Korea drafts nearly all able-bodied citizens into its military, that means a lot of cannon fodder. Unless North Korea revolts (military and all), which it might do if it might save them from nuclear annihilation. The Fat Man will be fried either way, unless he starts asking for an apology right away on his knees. That might work, but that's probably not going to happen if he allowed a nuke to be launched.

[Nephtys]

This is an interesting problem.

If a NK Nuclear launch blows up a US City, there's going to be no holding back the call for blood. Pyongyang is going to be a hole in the ground pretty much assuredly.
But since NK would have multiple bombs, AND there's multiple extremely high value targets in easy strike range (Yes, Seoul, Tokyo both come quickly to mind), then well... there's a moral argument suddenly for ultramassive retaliation still, even in the case of an initial ICBM fizzle against the US. A conventional attack would take longer and have a higher dollar cost than any nuclear response, and run the risk of having NK then decide to try again and hit a different city. In this case, would it be morally (and politically) correct to nuke as many military targets as possible in NK as quickly as possible?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I have to question th thinking that dropping nukes on NK's border defences will somehow be a better option, casualties-wise, than hitting Pyongyang. IIRC military bases and armour formations require ground bursts while cities require airbursts, the former produces waaaay more fallout than the later. And since the DMZ is closer to SK population centres than Pyongyang is, you could get far more civilian casualties, long-term, from a anti-military strike on the DMZ than a purely anti-city strike further north.

I remember some Cold War estimates that said (in a hypothetical attack on the USSR) that a counter-force strike (missile silos, airbases, command bunkers etc) would cause substantially mreo civilian deaths than a strike against cities with the same weapons.

[Borgholio]

Why would you assume that North Korea has exactly one nuke in this scenario?

I'm not. I'm assuming they only HIT us with one. Given the number of missiles they have, they'd have to launch them all to get through our missile defenses and hope they score a hit.

There is no such thing as a limited exchange

There IS such a thing as a proportional response. Launching a thousand nukes and killing millions even on a failed attack by a single nuke is more than a bit overkill I think.

carpet-bombing with conventional bombs is not going to save that many lives, just from death by radiation.

Civilian lives will be saved. That's why a tit for tat exchange by going after one of their major cities is a bad idea.

[Elheru Aran]

Given how close Seoul is to the DMZ hitting Nork bases there with nukes is probably out-- our allies wouldn't be too terribly thrilled if their capital gets irradiated due to fallout and all. No, if nukes were used along the DMZ they'll be small tactical units shot in via Tomahawk missile or some such. Do we even still have nuclear Tomahawks around?

It's more likely that Pyongyang would get turned into charcoal than that. Of course, if we have up to date intelligence about Fat Boy's movements, a random corner of North Korea might get vaporized, and later on it turns out that Dear Leader was sitting there in his favorite bunker... but it's pretty unlikely we have *that* up to date intelligence.

Honestly, conventional or otherwise, it's almost a given that a vast mass of North Korean civilians will die from pure starvation and disease. If war broke out, supplies will be almost entirely earmarked for the elite and the military.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nuclear Tomahawks no, all were converted to conventional strike missiles in the 1990s. However the bomber fired ALCM remains in service with the same warhead, and nuclear gravity bombs from fighters and bombers remain entirely viable weapons and more likely to be used against a limited North Korea strike then any form of missile weapon. Though if North Korea did manage to destroy a US or ROK city with a successful nuclear burst the US would almost certainly respond with ballistic missiles, to destroy known North Korean missile and nuclear installations as quickly as possible. Then B-2 strikes might or might not follow to target certain deep underground complexes that are not really desirable to attack with high yield, but surface detonating ICBM warheads.

Use of a very low yield 2-10kt tactical weapon though would actually increase the fallout risk, any nuclear yield that isn't into the tens of kilotons will produce significant fallout because its an inefficient use of the U-235/Pu-239 in the primary, simply the minimal amount of material that will produce a nuclear explosion by present methods want's to yield more. As well if you use a very low yield weapon you also require a near ground proximity burst to be useful against about any form of target except the civilian-industrial buildings of a major city, which is hardly a useful thing to do in this context. The North Korean population simply isn't a useful target even as a deterrent. The government is based on too much insanity, and clearly would have already lost its last marble if it fired a verifiable nuclear missile at the US. The whole country is more or less fake, its never been able to exist without external subsidies. Removal of those subsidies is what caused its massive 1990s famine, and they had to be restored to end it.

Low yield tactical weapons are about being 'safe' to use close to your own ground troops, reducing fallout isn't a real advantage of them. Nor is such use all that rational until we invent some kind of boron nanotube shielded powered armor, or something. A ~hundred kiloton high air burst would be more akin to the the best recipe for minimizing fallout. Which frankly from just a few air burst would probably be minimal to the point of being less relevant then the (highly ignored) toxic hazards of conventional warfare anyway. A second Korean War would be massively devastating even without nuclear arms; millions could starve to death in the North simply from the enormous level of disruption involved.

[Broomstick]

If a NK Nuclear launch blows up a US City, there's going to be no holding back the call for blood. Pyongyang is going to be a hole in the ground pretty much assuredly.

Yeah. Consider that after someone knocked down a few buildings in NYC, hit the Pentagon, and a failed attack made a hole in a Pennsylvania field the US attacked an entire nation for harboring the people behind it.

Do people really think the US is NOT going to go on the offensive if US territory is nuked? Hell, look what happened to Japan after Pearl Harbor, which was even part of an official US state at the time. If NK attacks US territory the response will be massive.

And yes, NK might also lob a few missiles at Seoul and Tokyo - that is not going to endear them to the world. If they manage to nuke multiple cities in multiple countries the world may well say "fuck it, we're stopping this shit even if it results in massive civilian death".

[Patroklos]

Has anyone suggested a not massive response? I don't think so. The question is does massive = nuclear.

[TimothyC]

Has anyone suggested a not massive response? I don't think so. The question is does massive = nuclear.

The response must be nuclear or the entire nature of the deterrent fails.

Seriously, what is so hard for everyone in this thread to understand that.