Response #2 is to do nothing. How does that dovetail, exactly, with our having "overwhelming nuclear superiority"? Would we really be willing to sacrifice Los Angeles; San Francisco; and, perhaps, Seattle and Portland also, just in order to retaliate effectively?
Why would North Korea sacrifice their entire country just to kill Los Angeles or Seattle? Doing nothing means maintaining the status quo. Under the status quo we have massive nuclear superiority of North Korea.
Then I would tell them to disarm North Korea. I would tell them I would never tolerate nuclear ballistic missiles that could reach the United States in the hands of the North Koreans. And I don't believe they would respond that way anyway. My offer would be that NK could remain communist and remain in their sphere of influence which is what they want. Putin and the Chinese leadership have too much to lose by going to all-out war and probable nuclear destruction over NK. It would not be worth it. And this is also why I would communicate this privately to them, so as to not let it appear that the U.S. was dictating to them. I would be asking them to take care of this problem, and they could take the credit for it. And furthermore, the Chinese and Russians could understand that the U.S. had a justifiable concern, and that nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of a lunatic. But my private message to them would be that I was absolutely serious and that North Korean ballistic nuclear weapons was not an option. That part would be non-negotiable.
And a US nuclear attack near Chinese/Russian territory would be unacceptable to them. Likewise, they can't force North Korea to disarm in any way that wouldn't make North Korea hostile to them. So we'd be at an impasse. By the way, exactly what makes Kim Jong Un "a lunatic"? His propaganda bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?
It is impossible to drop enough conventional bombs in a short enough time frame to take out every North Korean artillery piece and missiles before they get off a retaliatory strike. They have more than 6,000 MRL's alone.
So manybe NK gets a few off. Chances are they'll be defective or miss. If a few hit, small price to pay for destroying the empire.
I don't think the Japanese or South Koreans would agree with you that 10,000's or hundreds of thousands dead would be a small price.
A U.S. nuclear attack near Chinese/Russian territory may be unacceptable to them, but they'd just have to live with it. I do not believe either country would attack the U.S. in retaliation. And why can't the Chinese and Russians force the N. Koreans to disarm in a way that makes them hostile to them? They are not dependent on N. Korea for anything except as a buffer between them and the U.S.-allied South, and my offer would be that they could keep it that way. My offer would be that the status quo would be maintained. NK could have conventional forces. Ballistic nukes would be out of the question, though. I may not use the word "lunatic" in my discussions with the Chinese and Russians, but I would make it absolutely clear that his disposition made him utterly unacceptable as the owner of ballistic nukes. It's just a matter of semantics, really.
Again, what makes him a lunatic? What actions has Un done that are insane? He seems like any other dictator to me and certainly no worse than previous Chinese or Soviet leaders.
It was just a figure of speech. I think of him as similar in mindset to Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Stalin. Cruel, merciless, paranoid, and untrustworthy. Assign any word you want to it. I wasn't using it as a clinical definition.
So then why is it necessary to strip him of nuclear weapons? Do you think Un wants to commit suicide, destroy his personal playground, and end his life of luxury?
Because I don't know that he's not a lunatic either. Whatever he is, I judge him to be untrustworthy to a point where his possession of those weapons is not tolerable. I would tell the Russians and the Chinese that I trust them with those kinds of weapons, but I do not trust Un with them. His ability to reach the U.S. with them is not tolerable. Scenario: NK creates a ballistic nuclear arsenal that can reach Honolulu, Anchorage, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, L.A., and eventually further east. NK then mounts a conventional attack and invasion against SK and warns the U.S. to stand down. He tells the U.S. that if the U.S. helps fight the invasion, he'll launch. He would be gambling that the U.S. would be unwilling to sacrifice those cities for the defense of SK, and he may very well be right. And remember, when he launches the conventional attack against SK, he's all in. At that point, he's got nothing to lose. Even though we could and would retaliate with nukes of our own, would it be worth it? If you were the POTUS, and you had the choice of standing down our defense of SK or losing those cities and the millions and millions of people in them, what choice would you make? And if you were forced to make that decision, would you also be cursing your predecessors for not nipping this in the bud when they had the chance?
How does North Korea launch a conventional attack against South Korea without killing US military personnel and also initiating war against us that we would be forced to retaliate against, threats notwithstanding? BTW our BMD system is built with just that scenario in mind. We have 75 interceptor missiles in Alaska and California. And yes, Un does have things to lose. He could in the event of losing a conventional war, retreat in exile to China. He could mount a sufficient defense of North Korea to make regime change untenable. It's not necessarily all in as you claim.
"Hey, you're going to have thousands of people die totally unnecessarily and probably have your governments taken down by protests, but here's some shiny toys and few bucks." Something like that?
There's that pessimistic nonsense again. Here: "Look guys, we're going to handle that north Korean problem for you. There may be some residual blowback but nothing too serious"
Thousands dead from nerve gas strikes is not "residual blowback". And the South Koreans and Japanese know that. They'd never consent to us using their bases or airspace for such an attack.
