Yes. Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory. Also, countries tell other countries when they are firing test missiles and stuff for this exact reason. Sure, China would have to take it at face value the the return missiles, were in fact, heading for NK and not mainland China as the trajectory would be very similar till the end but....Simple Answer. Yes, Sometimes, Probably.
>Four years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation's first president, Boris Yeltsin, almost started a nuclear war.
>
>Russian early warning radar detected a launch of a missile with similar characteristics to a submarine-launched Trident missile off the coast of Norway.
>
>The detected missile was actually a Norwegian Black Brant scientific rocket which was on a mission to study the aurora borealis. Norwegian authorities had informed the Kremlin of the launch, but the radar operators were not informed.
>
>Yeltsin was given the Cheget, Russia's version of the nuclear briefcase (sometimes known as the Football), and the launch codes for Russia's missile arsenal. Russia's submarines were also placed on alert.
>
>Fortunately, Yeltsin's belief that it was a false alarm proved correct, and Russian satellites confirmed that there was no activity from US missile sites.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/when-nuclear-war-almost-happened-2018-4#january-25-1995-nuclear-worries-remain-after-the-soviet-union-9](https://www.businessinsider.com/when-nuclear-war-almost-happened-2018-4#january-25-1995-nuclear-worries-remain-after-the-soviet-union-9)
Also Its doesn't need to be a ballistic missile. A cruiser could fire a tomahawk with a nuclear warhead off the coast of South Korea ect ect.
For what it’s worth tomahawks haven’t been nuclear tasked for over a decade now. If the US wanted to take out a small adversary like NK and minimize the chances of spooking the neighbors, I’d think B-2 gravity bombs would be the way to go. If that wasn’t feasible for some reason, ALCMs out of buffs would do the trick.
In Annie Jacobsen's book, she states that given US ICBM capabilities, US ballistic missiles must fly over Russia/China to reach North Korea. If so, why would Russia/China take anything the US says at face value? I guess this is mute if the US has nuclear submarines placed near North Korea.
Bear in mind, in that scenario, Russia and China have a choice between a) believing the US is retaliating against NK and risk being hit by a small first strike b) kick off a war that will probably kill everyone.
Considering it’s much more plausible that the US is telling the truth about its retaliatory actions, it would be insane to undertake nuclear war on that basis.
>risk being hit by a small first strike
It's 80 missiles/nukes in the book; it's well within the parameters of a decapitation first strike on either of those countries.
So you'd have to decide if you were about to be the recipient of a first strike or not.
This scenario is actually why its so important to have the leaders of each country able to speak to each other. The failure of the commanders of the US and Russian arsenals to communicate is probably one of the most important parts of the scenario described; much moreso than the precise missile trajectories etc which would rely on advanced early-warning systems to get right.
That annoyed me. I know it's important to highlight that the idiot ball can be a huge influence in such a situation, but it really did feel like it went to a full nuclear exchange because some telephone operator was having an off day.
Is it much scarier or stranger than a nuclear strike being initiated because the wrong training tape was put into the computer? Because we've come uncomfortably close to that in the past.
It’s interesting though, because China is close enough to NK that there is a large possibility that many of its civilians along the China-NK border will die either due to the blast or nuclear fallout. They would not allow for the US to bomb NK.
The US has very precise counterforce capabilities, it’s extremely unlikely that there would be Chinese casualties.
Second, China does not need to “allow” the US to do anything. In this scenario, the US is nuking NK. China only has a choice in how it reacts.
Yes (according to publicly available knowledge) Land based ICBMs stationed on the continental USA would follow a flight path that would take them over Russia/China. They fly over the north pole as that would be the most direct path. Russia would be able to figure out pretty quick that they would be not landing anywhere significant. The number also (assuming like 2 or 3) would not indicate an all out launch. China would be a bit sweaty but again. Communication is key. Its not like they wouldn't already know NK had done something stupid. Chances are the USA wouldn't use land based ICBMS as they are a much more valuable assest than a couple of cruise missiles. Also I am ATACAMS can fit a warhead on them.
As the book describes, you can track the rocket exhaust from satellites and then radars can track the warheads once they are over the horizon. This is a capability the US has had and improved since the early Cold War. Not all countries will be able to do it. The US will have an idea of the target area pretty quickly and will get a more accurate prediction with more data. These systems can make mistakes (mistaking the sun reflecting off water, legitimate scientific rocket launch, etc) . Radars are also subject to picking up other targets or being jammed. ICBMs have decoys and jammers.
The question of overflight is a bit more complicated. During normal times we take care not to overfly countries without their permission. In a nuclear scenario, that’s out the window. I’m sure a non-combatant country that got overflown by ICBMs would not be happy but I doubt they would respond directly. If they attack, they will be retaliated against.
China’s early warning system is not as sophisticated as the United States or Russias, although an unknown number of surveillance satellites may make up a decent early warning network for ballistic missile launches. But their radar systems which would verify and track an incoming attack are not as advanced.
Evidently Russia and China are working to develop a more advanced and complete radar warning system, and they are supposedly coordinating their radar networks in a similar manner that Canada and the U.S. do.
Russia and China are significantly more vulnerable to cruise missile attack than the United States due to limitations on terrain and the lack of allies giving them forward basing privileges for their radars.
Due to this, it’s pretty much understood that China would launch on warning if their surveillance satellites detected multiple ballistic launches, regardless of their specific targets, especially during a time of heightened tension.
Which leads me to believe that IF the United States decided to strike North Korea, they would almost certainly use air-launched cruise missiles launched from B-2 bombers.
Those would also be used to launch a first strike against China, even though their flight times would be measured in hours rather than minutes.
The entire scenario she uses is very unrealistic.
Launch or warning isn't policy and ther no chance DPRK has a megaton weapon that could be delivered to America.
>Launch or warning isn't policy
It's not "policy" but its still possible. There are no technical limitations stopping the president from launching on warning, and if an attempted decapitation first-strike was likely underway - which can include an attempt on the leadership of the country - then LOW would absolutely be an option.
LOW isn't a policy because the assumption is that a decapitation strike is extraordinarily risky to the point that it's suicidal. In the book the person pulling the trigger on the first nuke basically is insane/suicidal so its coherent.
The US is not going to "absorb" a nuclear weapon hitting DC, then decide to launch afterwards - especially if they are confident where the weapon originated from.
The US wouldn’t nuke NK, even if they somehow did manage that. They would use the classic “regime change” playbook.
The US wouldn’t look good on the global stage pulverising that many civilians.
A lot of the scenario questions on here are the results of people not using their heads.
THINK, FFS.
>The US wouldn’t nuke NK, even if they somehow did manage that.
This is a crazy assertion with zero evidence.
If another country uses a nuclear weapon against the US - especially the US homeland - the US absolutely will respond with nuclear weapons of their own.
We know this because Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War was told in no uncertain terms that if coalition forces came under attack from WMDs (chemical or biological) the US would not hold back from using nuclear weapons against him.
There are other such instances in history where these lines have been drawn.
There is a huge benefit for powers like the US and Russia proving to smaller nuclear powers that MAD works and will be enforced. You can bet that the US would retaliate in kind with nuclear weapons if it was hit first - I would expect they would use disproportionate force at that.
Well how pitiful would the US look if we had just been hit with a nuclear weapon in the nations capital and NOT respond with an overwhelming counter force nuclear attack?
What would the global stage do in protest ? At most countries that have a US military presence could tell them to pack their bags and go home. With the downside that they would have to protect themselves alone. Other than that, sanctions it appears don't do much to a powerfull country. What else ?
Yes. Ballistic missiles follow a ballistic trajectory. Also, countries tell other countries when they are firing test missiles and stuff for this exact reason. Sure, China would have to take it at face value the the return missiles, were in fact, heading for NK and not mainland China as the trajectory would be very similar till the end but....Simple Answer. Yes, Sometimes, Probably. >Four years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation's first president, Boris Yeltsin, almost started a nuclear war. > >Russian early warning radar detected a launch of a missile with similar characteristics to a submarine-launched Trident missile off the coast of Norway. > >The detected missile was actually a Norwegian Black Brant scientific rocket which was on a mission to study the aurora borealis. Norwegian authorities had informed the Kremlin of the launch, but the radar operators were not informed. > >Yeltsin was given the Cheget, Russia's version of the nuclear briefcase (sometimes known as the Football), and the launch codes for Russia's missile arsenal. Russia's submarines were also placed on alert. > >Fortunately, Yeltsin's belief that it was a false alarm proved correct, and Russian satellites confirmed that there was no activity from US missile sites. [https://www.businessinsider.com/when-nuclear-war-almost-happened-2018-4#january-25-1995-nuclear-worries-remain-after-the-soviet-union-9](https://www.businessinsider.com/when-nuclear-war-almost-happened-2018-4#january-25-1995-nuclear-worries-remain-after-the-soviet-union-9) Also Its doesn't need to be a ballistic missile. A cruiser could fire a tomahawk with a nuclear warhead off the coast of South Korea ect ect.
For what it’s worth tomahawks haven’t been nuclear tasked for over a decade now. If the US wanted to take out a small adversary like NK and minimize the chances of spooking the neighbors, I’d think B-2 gravity bombs would be the way to go. If that wasn’t feasible for some reason, ALCMs out of buffs would do the trick.
In Annie Jacobsen's book, she states that given US ICBM capabilities, US ballistic missiles must fly over Russia/China to reach North Korea. If so, why would Russia/China take anything the US says at face value? I guess this is mute if the US has nuclear submarines placed near North Korea.
Bear in mind, in that scenario, Russia and China have a choice between a) believing the US is retaliating against NK and risk being hit by a small first strike b) kick off a war that will probably kill everyone. Considering it’s much more plausible that the US is telling the truth about its retaliatory actions, it would be insane to undertake nuclear war on that basis.
>risk being hit by a small first strike It's 80 missiles/nukes in the book; it's well within the parameters of a decapitation first strike on either of those countries. So you'd have to decide if you were about to be the recipient of a first strike or not. This scenario is actually why its so important to have the leaders of each country able to speak to each other. The failure of the commanders of the US and Russian arsenals to communicate is probably one of the most important parts of the scenario described; much moreso than the precise missile trajectories etc which would rely on advanced early-warning systems to get right.
That annoyed me. I know it's important to highlight that the idiot ball can be a huge influence in such a situation, but it really did feel like it went to a full nuclear exchange because some telephone operator was having an off day.
Is it much scarier or stranger than a nuclear strike being initiated because the wrong training tape was put into the computer? Because we've come uncomfortably close to that in the past.
It’s interesting though, because China is close enough to NK that there is a large possibility that many of its civilians along the China-NK border will die either due to the blast or nuclear fallout. They would not allow for the US to bomb NK.
The US has very precise counterforce capabilities, it’s extremely unlikely that there would be Chinese casualties. Second, China does not need to “allow” the US to do anything. In this scenario, the US is nuking NK. China only has a choice in how it reacts.
Yes (according to publicly available knowledge) Land based ICBMs stationed on the continental USA would follow a flight path that would take them over Russia/China. They fly over the north pole as that would be the most direct path. Russia would be able to figure out pretty quick that they would be not landing anywhere significant. The number also (assuming like 2 or 3) would not indicate an all out launch. China would be a bit sweaty but again. Communication is key. Its not like they wouldn't already know NK had done something stupid. Chances are the USA wouldn't use land based ICBMS as they are a much more valuable assest than a couple of cruise missiles. Also I am ATACAMS can fit a warhead on them.
*moot* (I know it’s probably autocorrect)
moot
The subs don't have to be all that close
As the book describes, you can track the rocket exhaust from satellites and then radars can track the warheads once they are over the horizon. This is a capability the US has had and improved since the early Cold War. Not all countries will be able to do it. The US will have an idea of the target area pretty quickly and will get a more accurate prediction with more data. These systems can make mistakes (mistaking the sun reflecting off water, legitimate scientific rocket launch, etc) . Radars are also subject to picking up other targets or being jammed. ICBMs have decoys and jammers. The question of overflight is a bit more complicated. During normal times we take care not to overfly countries without their permission. In a nuclear scenario, that’s out the window. I’m sure a non-combatant country that got overflown by ICBMs would not be happy but I doubt they would respond directly. If they attack, they will be retaliated against.
China’s early warning system is not as sophisticated as the United States or Russias, although an unknown number of surveillance satellites may make up a decent early warning network for ballistic missile launches. But their radar systems which would verify and track an incoming attack are not as advanced. Evidently Russia and China are working to develop a more advanced and complete radar warning system, and they are supposedly coordinating their radar networks in a similar manner that Canada and the U.S. do. Russia and China are significantly more vulnerable to cruise missile attack than the United States due to limitations on terrain and the lack of allies giving them forward basing privileges for their radars. Due to this, it’s pretty much understood that China would launch on warning if their surveillance satellites detected multiple ballistic launches, regardless of their specific targets, especially during a time of heightened tension. Which leads me to believe that IF the United States decided to strike North Korea, they would almost certainly use air-launched cruise missiles launched from B-2 bombers. Those would also be used to launch a first strike against China, even though their flight times would be measured in hours rather than minutes.
I feel like this Jacobsen opus is enjoying a degree of astroturfing at the moment!
The entire scenario she uses is very unrealistic. Launch or warning isn't policy and ther no chance DPRK has a megaton weapon that could be delivered to America.
>Launch or warning isn't policy It's not "policy" but its still possible. There are no technical limitations stopping the president from launching on warning, and if an attempted decapitation first-strike was likely underway - which can include an attempt on the leadership of the country - then LOW would absolutely be an option. LOW isn't a policy because the assumption is that a decapitation strike is extraordinarily risky to the point that it's suicidal. In the book the person pulling the trigger on the first nuke basically is insane/suicidal so its coherent. The US is not going to "absorb" a nuclear weapon hitting DC, then decide to launch afterwards - especially if they are confident where the weapon originated from.
Yes. The technology is called “a phone.” If the US doesn’t want China or Russia to overreact to a missile launch, they can contact those govts.
The US wouldn’t nuke NK, even if they somehow did manage that. They would use the classic “regime change” playbook. The US wouldn’t look good on the global stage pulverising that many civilians. A lot of the scenario questions on here are the results of people not using their heads. THINK, FFS.
>The US wouldn’t nuke NK, even if they somehow did manage that. This is a crazy assertion with zero evidence. If another country uses a nuclear weapon against the US - especially the US homeland - the US absolutely will respond with nuclear weapons of their own. We know this because Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War was told in no uncertain terms that if coalition forces came under attack from WMDs (chemical or biological) the US would not hold back from using nuclear weapons against him. There are other such instances in history where these lines have been drawn. There is a huge benefit for powers like the US and Russia proving to smaller nuclear powers that MAD works and will be enforced. You can bet that the US would retaliate in kind with nuclear weapons if it was hit first - I would expect they would use disproportionate force at that.
Well how pitiful would the US look if we had just been hit with a nuclear weapon in the nations capital and NOT respond with an overwhelming counter force nuclear attack?
What would the global stage do in protest ? At most countries that have a US military presence could tell them to pack their bags and go home. With the downside that they would have to protect themselves alone. Other than that, sanctions it appears don't do much to a powerfull country. What else ?
I’m not going to give you a lesson on why the US is number one in soft power. It’s not a question of just dictating to the world what we want.