This is not about whether NK can stage a nuclear attack against South Korea - it is about the consequences of such actions. Such an attack would be
terminal for NK regime because in a prolonged war with support from either China and Russia, simply cannot succeed and survive.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I know that in its current state of development, NK's nuclear weapons are not able to be mounted on missile, but why would they need to do that. They
clearly have devices that work. Why could they not deliver a device on board a ship or a plane?
NK navy is the weakest branch of their armed forces, and South Korea with US assistance has very capable coast defenses and a sizeable navy of its
own, which no doubt is standing by right now. NK ships would be destroyed before they reached South Korean waters.
Same goes for the jets. Both sides have substantial military buildup on their side of the DMZ, including SAM systems. Both US and South Korea are
able to monitor skies about North Korea for at least 100 miles within the DMZ. By the time NK planes reach the DMZ, the SAM systems will already
detect them and US and South Korean jets would intercept just in case.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
If they accomplished that it would open the door for their 950,000 man standing Army and its 600,000 reserves to unload all their artillery and swarm
over the border. How do you defend against a huge Infantry on your own or your Allies land? You don't without huge losses.
US carrier groups can no doubt stage critical strikes against both North Korean cities and bases as well as the advancing troops within 12 hours if
not less. Then there are US air assets stationed in Japan, and the heavy bombers stationed in Diego Garcia which can reach NK with air refueling.
One thing NK does not have is the most modern SAM defenses. US wouldn't need to fight them on land for the most part - but would debilitate them
extensively from the air, establish air supremacy. The land campaign that would follow wouldn't be too problematic after the airforce does its
job.
Modern warfare is not like the warfare of the Korean War or WWII. NK stands no chance in a prolonged campaign, and any military conflict with US
involvement is guaranteed to end with capitulation of the NK regime. NK military has a lot of manpower, but comes nowhere near US in terms of
technology.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Imagine what this scenario would unleash? All they would have to do is get the device near to this area.
In reality NK has no more than a few nukes. Possibly as little as 1 or 2 operational ones. Given that, it is not even guaranteed that the nukes will
work (they might fizzle out like the first nuke tested by NK). Almost any coherent military tactic in such case would be to save the precious nukes
for the end, not use them up at the start of a conflict.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
This would leave us facing a scenario similar to WW1. Hand to hand combat on the ground with this huge Army.
Hand to hand combat isn't needed when you have cruise missiles, smart bombs, and stealth bombers. We are not talking about an insurgency here -
defeating a standing professional army is much easier for a power like US than fighting an invisible enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whichever way you look at it, NK poses no significant threat to US forces and would not be able to win the war. The nuke is primarily a political
tool and last resort defensive option - even for someone like Kim. A preemptive nuclear attack only makes sense when you have a sizeable stockpile of
warheads, and some sort of missile defenses to protect those warheads from a retaliatory strike.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
If NK's Leaders are on a suicidal course imagine the carnage they could unleash. We were out of our minds allowing them to develop to this point.
Kim is not suicidal and not insane - if he was he would not have tested the nuke in NK but rather "tested" it over South Korea to at least get an
element of surprise.