The British press raises the spectre of nuclear war

The right-wing (and alt-right) media in the US tends to agree that Trump is right to “take out” North Korea and shouldn’t listen to anyone else.

Meanwhile the British press is more anxious (like the rest of us) and is raising the ‘what-if” scenario of a nuclear war.

Never mind Kim who I believe to be reflexively aggressive (not insane) but the instability of the No.1 terrorist nation is a real worry. We have different parts of the government saying different things while Trump tweets from his golf course.

Alex Jones and his supporters seem to think that rule- by-decree (or rule-by-Twitter) is OK and is what needs to happen.

If a nuclear bomb explodes, these are the emergency supplies you should have prepared or grab on the run

If a nuclear bomb were to hit, these are the items should should keep to hand.

the independent

North Korea on Tuesday reportedly launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile — a rocket capable of travelling more than 3,400 miles with a weapon on top. The feat suggests that the isolated country, one of nine nations that together wield more than 14,900 nukes, could strike Alaska.

However, the rest of the US faces a much different and shadowy nuclear threat: a terrorist-caused nuclear detonation, which is one of 15 disasters scenarios that the federal government has planned for — just in case.

"National Planning Scenario No. 1 is a 10-kiloton nuclear detonation in a modern US city," Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist and expert on radiation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Business Insider. "A 10-kiloton nuclear detonation is equivalent to 5,000 Oklahoma City bombings. Though we call it 'low yield,' it's a pretty darn big explosion."

Buddemeier couldn't say how likely such an attack might be today. But the concern isn't unfounded, since weapons-grade nuclear materials have proliferated in recent years, along with smaller, kiloton-class bombs. And while governments do their best to safeguard nuclear-weapons materials, there's no guarantee a terrorist couldn't succeed in obtaining them.....

From the BBC

A limited strike, full-scale invasion or pressure on China: MARK ALMOND outlines the possible military options the US is considering against North Korea

• Mark Almond, director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford, lists the options open to Western leaders
• He discusses a limited strike, full-scale invasion, decapitation strike, nuclear strike and international action
• Donald Trump has vowed any threat to the U.S. will be met with 'fire and fury like the world has never seen'
• US officials believe Kim Jong-Un has built a miniaturized warhead and has an arsenal of 60 nuclear bombs

Daily Mail, 

10 August, 2017

The war of threats between President Trump and the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un, is setting global nerves on edge.

We’re used to blood curdling propaganda from Pyongyang, but an American president using the same kind of language – ‘fire and fury’ – is a new departure. The threat of nuclear war in East Asia is suddenly alarmingly close.

But before this hysterical rhetoric reaches a climax, Western leaders must consider what history and strategic analysis teaches us about how to avoid calamity – or how best to contain it.

The devastating nature of the first Korean War in 1950-53 is a warning of the huge costs of a second, which could also drag in countries as close as Japan, as remote as Britain or as reluctant as China.

The options Washington is considering, range from the tried-and-trusted – to the once unthinkable.

Option 1: A Limited Strike

In 1994, President Clinton considered using strategic bombers to attack North Korea’s nuclear facilities before an atomic weapon could be produced. 

Then, as now, the US had a range of airbases in South Korea, Japan and Guam from which to strike, with B1 bombers and cruise missiles plus its fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers, each with more attack planes than the entire RAF. 

Clinton decided against military action because of fears North Korea’s huge ground force would wreak havoc across the South Korean border. A major war would be needed to defeat it.

Today, North Korea is far better prepared to survive even a severe air attack by the US. Its nuclear forces are not sitting ducks. It has repeatedly deployed mobile launchers so it can move and hide missiles. 

The newer North Korean solid-fuelled missiles can also be launched much more quickly than the older liquid-fuelled rockets. These developments make neutralising Kim’s atomic warheads by a massive airstrike far from fool-proof.

2: Full-Scale Invasion

The US military routed the North Koreans in the first Korean War, but the US had many more troops and landing craft at its disposal. The US navy facilitated the D-Day style landing on the coast behind the North Korean Army, trapping it in the South. 

North Korea has no navy to speak of to protect its coastline, and it’s tempting to imagine US Marines pouring ashore and marching to Pyongyang, just as they did in October 1950. But this time the North Korean army – ill-equipped but vast in size – would be waiting. To win quickly and decisively the US would require the bulk of its military man power to be deployed to Korea.

North Korea said it is 'carefully examining' a plan to strike the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam with missiles. The strike plan will be 'put into practice in a multi-current and consecutive way any moment' once leader Kim Jong Un (file above) makes a decision

But Washington has other problems, from Afghanistan to Syria. War in Korea would tie down the army and marines – unless South Korea’s 650,000 troops also took part. However, South Korea is reluctant to engage in a pre-emptive war that would threaten Seoul and other cities with destruction from the North.

Then there is China. It is vehemently hostile to the US THAAD missile defence system that has recently been deployed in South Korea. Beijing’s fear is the real target of any US military action in the region is ultimately China. To act without being sure of Chinese neutrality runs the risk of a wider and far more perilous conflict – World War III in all probability.

Even if China was ready to accept the fall of Kim’s regime, a conventional invasion would not be quick enough to prevent Kim launching some kind of nuclear strike, as well as firing off his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

The North has as many as 60 nuclear bombs, according to US intelligence. If only a couple were successfully launched at South Korea, the scale of the casualties would be horrendous.

3: A Decapitation Strike

A successful set of airstrikes on North Korea’s nuclear stockpile will not halt Kim’s ambitions. As long as the regime survives, it will be attempt to rebuild. So knocking out the North Korean leadership in a so-called decapitation strike is being widely touted in Washington.

Smart bombs could surely locate and kill Kim and his key commanders before they could organise a deadly counter-attack?

Tens of thousands of North Koreans gathered for a rally at Kim Il Sung Square today carrying placards and propaganda slogans as a show of support for their rejection of the United Nations' latest round of sanctions

Unfortunately, a successful strike wouldn’t stop a barrage of a rockets being fired in instant retaliation.

In any case, assassinating foreign leaders is easier said than done. It would be a very lucky strike that took out Kim and his fellow leaders. If it failed, Kim’s revenge would be indiscriminate attacks aimed at South Korea, Japan and any US bases within range.

In practice, a decapitation strike would mean all-out war. And even if that was successful, a US-South Korean occupation of North Korea could face guerrilla resistance using Kim’s poison gas and bacteriological weapons. 

Nor would China – faced with the prospect of millions of refugees – be pleased by a speedy collapse of Kim’s regime.

4: A US nuclear strike

Hotheads in Washington talk about using America’s massive nuclear superiority to ‘eliminate’ N

Has Trump Threatened Nuclear War on North Korea?

TheRealNews