Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
Even if the North used WMD, the US response would not do so.
The reason here is that WMD policy for the US - for decades (and Obama has upheld this) is that we will use our weapons ONLY in defense (or MAD). Even with a WMD strike, conventional arms are sufficient to stop a Northern invasion. An attack such as you describe - targetting Japan for example, would be seen more as a terrorist act than a military action - because the North has no ability to invade Japan with boots on the ground. A move against the south, while being deadly, and followed up by military invasion from the the north, would still see the northern advance halted and then pushed back with conventional arms. NK simply lacks the military power to force a WMD response, regardless of whether it uses its own WMD's or not.
Simply put, when conventional weapons can do the job, you do not escalate the conflict by using (in the case of the US)) nukes.
|
So if NK would attack US with a Hiroshima strength nuke you wouldnt strike back with nukes because you can beat them conventionally?
Or is there different policies for allies under US nuclear umbrella and US itself?