The world is currently watching - and to some extent, expecting - the diplomatic battle unfolding between USA and North Korea. Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un engaged into a bout that may have catastrophic consequences if it ever comes down to mutual aggression. In a time where we have some of the most powerful weapons ever developed by man, it's comprehensible and expected that when superpowers collide, sparks may come out in form of armed conflict, which would be a lose-lose situation for everyone in the case of a direct attack. Wars were fought at a high expense of resources and human lives until the creation of the world famous nuke. Now there's a lesser expense of resources, but with a tremendously higher cost of human lives and environmental disaster possibilities.
It is notorious that the USA could wipe out North Korea easily using both nuclear weaponry and direct military action, but nukes take some time to reach its targets, especially in this case, where the US is a few thousand miles away from North Korean territory. An early warning system detects the missiles and then there's the second strike. Kim's arsenal is obviously outdated, since it's comprised mostly by soviet era weaponry, but although old, the still do good damage. And not to mention that the supreme leader has invested a surprisingly great amount of resources and money into its nuclear program, so that arsenal is not THAT outdated, so the expected damage is far greater than we could imagine.
A marriage that may have a very litigious divorce
Say North Korea attacks first, what could happen? Depending on the amount of warheads pointed at US soil, the American anti missile defenses could easily intercept the scarce amount of ICBMs - Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles - launched by the NK military. That's a huge distance, right? So USA starts on the lead. But guess what, the United States of America is not just that country formed by 50 states, one federal district, which is Washington D.C. and BINGO: several ultramarine territories. We are talking about Hawaii, Guam, Mariana Islands, Midway, we're also talking about its wholehearted allies, like Japan and...wait for it...wait for it...SOUTH KOREA! The scoreboard is tied now.
No matter how advanced a said, let me borrow from the Isarelis, Iron Dome, is effective, if you're like a siamese twin with your enemy, how could you react? Places like Seoul, Incheon and even Busan at the far end would be decimated without the slightest bit of time for a reaction and millions of lives would be instantly claimed. Let's put it into numbers:
Let's suppose that the most advanced ICBM in NK's arsenal targets Seoul.
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. March–April 2003' issue, the maximum cruise speed of the Taepodong-2 (top of line ICBM currently in NK arsenal), is 800 m/s. According to www.distancefromto.com, the distance between Pyongyang, North Korean capital city, and Seoul, South Korean capital city, is of 195 km in a straight line. Just do the math.
- Distance = 195 km
- ICBM cruise speed = 800 m/s
Total travel time: 195000 m / 800 m/s = 195000 / 800 = 1950 / 8 = 0,24.
0,24 of 60 minutes is...
3 MINUTES AND 36 SECONDS
HOLY SCHMOOKIE! What would we do if we had THIS much of time to react to a fully loaded nuclear warhead coming straight into our faces?
This is hardly a David vs. Goliath scenario anymore. At least not at its literal meaning. The collateral damage is what must be taken into account since it would be severe
Now lets say that the US makes a preemptive attack to neutralize NK's capabilities. The North Koreans have some good fighting experience - vide The Korean War - and some military force to be reckoned with. Not much, but there is. And although the defeat would be massive and quick, there still would have time to activate the final solution. I mean, what would they have to lose? Lil' Kim is has already signaled that he would bring the country down to ashes just to stop the American advance and punish its allies. We're going, but we'll take you with us and as we all know, Mr. Trump never holds back when the subject is about making threats or telling people who they're dealing with.
It's undoubtedly a dangerous mix and little we know about what might be ahead. All we can do is get comfy, sit back and watch as the world burns...or not. But regarding the question I asked in the title, I personally believe that this is all like a Shepard tone, constantly rising, but going nowhere and I couldn't expect more to be right. I think that no one wants to be the first to press the red button, but if someone had the balls to do so, things would get out of hand real quick. I'll put it again: it's a lose-lose scenario. Let's hope they talk trash to each other, a lot, but without wanting to measure who has the bigger stick. I like chill weather, but you know, nuclear winter isn't by any means cozy...at all.
--
