Nuclear armed rogue state

[Speakpigeon]

Although George W. really made the nest for this cuckoo.
EB

So did Bush sr as well as Reagan. The Republicans have consistently gone for populistic bullshitters with no plan and less solutions. "Reaganomics", The idea that you don't have to worry about how much you're spending. Just borrow the money you want and let the next sucker pick up the bill. It's funny how Thatcher's quote "the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money". That quote fits Reaganomics equally well.

I agree.

Reagan initiated the trend as a Republican president and the rest followed. The party itself started in that direction in the sixties, probably out of frustration that American society was moving consistently somewhat to the left. Democrats have their share of responsibilities but don't forget that they've had two recent presidential elections where they won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote. Basically, Republicans are not democrats and many voters are not either.
EB

 

[bilby]

So in practice, Trump can only order a nuclear strike if his SecDef - Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis - agrees.

And if someone called "Mad Dog" turns out not to be as crazy as his boss, there's nothing to stop Trump from firing him, and appointing a new SecDef who will do as he is told.

So that's not entirely reassuring.

They would not do something like Hiroshima, we can hope, because there would be no military value in that and everybody else would condemn such an action. Instead, they would much more likely target facilities, and not necessarily using a nuclear weapon because they may not need that much destructive power. They would probably do like in Irak with a prolonged campaign of destruction using so-called 'surgical strikes' without actually going in with ground troops at the end. However, even this scenario is not very likely. I guess it's a plausible scenario given the psychological makeup of the main characters but lots of people in the administration would probably advise against it as being too much fraught with uncertainties. What makes it much more likely is that North-Korea is getting apparently very close to effective nuclear dissuasion capability. The Trump administration may want to strike before that happens. Alternatively, they may well have already put the Chinese on notice: take care of him or we'll do it our way. This could be a much better solution, if the Chinese are up to it.
EB

Certainly it seems likely that a US preemptive strike on NK would be against military facilities, and specifically nuclear weapons facilities, rather than against cities.

But I wouldn't be confident that it would not involve US nuclear weapons.

Many of NK's nuclear weapons facilities are underground in serious bunkers, so something like an RNEP might be deployed (if the US has one - it's not known for sure whether it went beyond the drawing board) to be sure to reach the target.

And the necessity to eliminate an artillery response against Seoul might draw the Americans into lobbing one or more airburst nukes over the NK batteries, to be sure to knock them all out in one strike.

I have no doubt that the Pentagon will have plans to do this; Whether Trump would sit still long enough to try to understand the implications of such an option, or whether he might just say 'go ahead and do it' is less certain. If the plan targets specifically military targets only, it might not seem like a particularly bad idea to someone as dim as Trump. And given the political structure of NK, I imagine that most of the country could be considered a military target if one was looking to make such a claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have no doubt that the Pentagon will have plans to do this; Whether Trump would sit still long enough to try to understand the implications of such an option, or whether he might just say 'go ahead and do it' is less certain. If the plan targets specifically military targets only, it might not seem like a particularly bad idea to someone as dim as Trump.

so the question is how dim are his most trusted advisors...

What does Ivanka know about targeting?

 

[barbos]

I have no doubt that the Pentagon will have plans to do this; Whether Trump would sit still long enough to try to understand the implications of such an option, or whether he might just say 'go ahead and do it' is less certain. If the plan targets specifically military targets only, it might not seem like a particularly bad idea to someone as dim as Trump.

so the question is how dim are his most trusted advisors...

What does Ivanka know about targeting?

She sells her stuff at Target, no?

 

[Speakpigeon]

But I wouldn't be confident that it would not involve US nuclear weapons.

Many of NK's nuclear weapons facilities are underground in serious bunkers, so something like an RNEP might be deployed (if the US has one - it's not known for sure whether it went beyond the drawing board) to be sure to reach the target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
The Bush administration removed its request for funding of the weapon in October 2005. Additionally, then U.S. Senator Pete Domenici announced funding for the nuclear bunker-buster has been dropped from the U.S. Department of Energy's 2006 budget at the department's request.

While the project for the RNEP seems to be in fact canceled, Jane's Information Group speculated in 2005 that work might continue under another name.

We won't know for sure until they decide to use it.
EB