EP 31: Counterattacking North Korea with nukes: the reality
04:18 Share

Summary: In this episode we discuss the potential consequences of a nuclear attack on North Korea, highlighting the dangers of fallout and the international implications. We examine the reality of US retaliation options, emphasizing the significant risks posed by nuclear fallout to neighboring countries, particularly China and South Korea. We explore the concept of "zero tolerance" for nuclear proliferation, questioning its practicality and exploring the various measures that could be employed to prevent it, ranging from technology restrictions to military intervention. Questions to consider as you read/listen: What are the political and military implications of a "zero tolerance" policy towards nuclear proliferation? What are the potential consequences of a nuclear strike against North Korea, and how could these consequences impact regional stability? How might the US address the challenge of nuclear proliferation in a way that balances deterrence and the avoidance of unintended consequences?

Long format: Counterattacking North Korea with nukes: the reality What can’t be lost in a doomsday scenario of a NK nuclear spasm is that in reality the US retaliation options are very limited in reality. Here is why: Depending upon the yield of the nuclear weapon, how high up in the atmosphere it is detonated and winds, at a distance of 20-25 miles downwind, a lethal radiation dose (600 rads) would be accumulated by a person who did not find shelter within 25 minutes after the time the fallout began. At a distance of 40-45 miles, a person would have at most 3 hours after the fallout began to find shelter. Here, it's important to stress that even if the nuclear event doesn't happen in your immediate area—even if it's hundreds of miles away—the fallout could still potentially reach you in a day or less. Why does this matter? China If we think for one nanosecond that China is just going to sit idly by when we nuke NK into oblivion and just tolerate nuclear fallout on their land and to their people no matter how minimal and not lose its mind???? Then we are crazy. On the other side there’s SK an alley and irradiating their land is not going to be popular and never mind our 28,500 troops and approximately 48,000 US Citizens. So in reality nuking the hermit kingdom back is very very dangerous. Sources: https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-fallout-nuclear-weapons-testing) https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/effects/wenw/chapter-2.html#:~:text=At%20a%20distance%20of%2020,fallout%20began%20to%20find%20shelter) https://www.mirasafety.com/blogs/news/survive-nuclear-fallout#:~:text=Here%2C%20it's%20important%20to%20stress,in%20a%20day%20or%20less) I am in with folks who say there should be a “zero tolerance” for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation especially into states or actors who do not play by generally accepted international standards of behavior is to be avoided. When folks advocate "zero tolerance" what does that look like? Are we talking ITAR like restrictions on the technology involved in uranium enrichment such as photoexcitation equipment/technology, and gaseous diffusion and gas centrifugation equipment? This we already do. But in a global market, there are other spaces to get these items from. Do we drop bombs on foreign manufacturers of these technologies if they continue to export these items? Do we occupy all uranium mines? Do we pressure countries to close their existing nuclear facilities so that enriched uranium or plutonium cannot be as easily made? Do we bomb them if they do not close? What about targeted assassinations of folks like Abdul Qadeer Khan or other scientists? Do we put boots on the ground in this zero-tolerance stance for NK or Iran or others to stop them? What in practical reality does zero tolerance mean in reality? Get full access to GeopoliticsUnplugged Substack at geopoliticsunplugged.substack.com/subscribe)