ZenOps

I do wonder where the US tanks will go though. I can imagine there may be a few placed at the New California borders just in case there in instability from splitting the state in half.

Yup, single smartest thing that North Korea ever did was build nukes. South Korea got lucky because North Korea built nukes - or the US would have already turned it into Hawaii - Where Zuckerburg buys land for hundreds of millions and then sues the natives off their land. The greatest bargaining chip in history, the nuke.

The perks for being native in Canada really only extend to the chiefs. Now if you are a native Hawaiian welfare bum, you get a solid $60,590 US in benefits each year.

Also: Going by the historical disregard for US nuclear fallout safety for their own population, I can imagine that the US would see dropping a nuke on North Korea resulting in loss of 1 million lives as acceptable, but also 100,000 South Koreans as acceptable as well. I mean really South Korea, the US radiated their own population - what makes you think they won't nuke yours a side effect? Its almost impossible to drop a nuke in that small an area and not have neighboring countries affected (if not increased cancer rates, and knock maybe five years off the entire population for at least one lifetime) The devil that South Korea knows is North Korea, but the US is just as big a devil if you ask me.

That's not how nukes are delivered - in US or Soviet style war scenarios. I can absolutely with 100% see Kim Jong modifying a Cessna for high altitude flight take out all the passenger comforts and load it up with fuel tanks, probably remotely controlled - but also having one patriotic suicide pilot as a backup that has limited ability to change course. A nuke would be strapped to it, but there would not be a bomb chute, because the nuke will *never* be dropped. It will simply try to attain as much height as possible and the nuke will go off - plane and all for as close as they dare get to their target, wherever that may be. I mean, the entire notion of launching a nuke from the ground or submarine at supersonic speed is purely a USA thing. Having a nuke explode close to the ground, also an antiquated idea. Alternate scenario, is that North Korea makes a specialized torpedo that travels at 5 miles per hour, launched two days, or even two weeks in advance, probably from a false flag cargo ship in the middle of the ocean. Sneak one in like the dolphins. The US has very little detection for that type of activity, especially if done under something like a tropical storm. But as such, only useful for targets like New York and LA, you will not be hitting Ohio with a torpedo nuke. If you can wait two weeks, I'd say that it can be a more reliable system than an ICBM. One need only look at the condition of the USS John McCain, to know what the capability of the US navy is at detection and avoidance. I mean really, if you have waited half a century for retribution, what is another two weeks to simply swim a nuke in?

I'd be willing to bet blonde people have the problem just as often if not more so. Its just that its easier to see in black haired peoples.

Strategically speaking, a show of force would probably be far more effective than using an actual nuke on the greater populace of the USA. One nuke launched perfectly vertically in the Gulf of Mexico and one perfectly vertically in Hudsons bay would probably be sufficient. Again, nukes don't have to be accurate at all to be considered effective, you just have to be within a few thousand miles (which is basically, anywhere) These would with absolute certainty not be interceptable, because there is no tradgectory where it falls back to earth to be intercepted, and once you have the advantage of speed going up, nothing is going to catch it. The advantage of that is that there will be zero casualties, but almost certainly will destroy every satellite in the hemisphere. It would be not much different that what the USA is doing now, flying bombers over Korea twice a year. The USA would probably have a much harder time trying that type of nuke as a show of force, as you will pretty much hit everyone in the area (you will instantly make enemies of anyone within the sightline of a nuclear blast, including South Korea and Japan) By my estimation, the USA very large landmass (including Alaska, which is a lot bigger than it looks on most maps) makes it much more "nuke"- able. North Korea is tiny by comparison, and not really a good nuke target because of proximity to everyone else (including a nuclear China and Russia)

I'd also say that its *not entirely impossible* that the USA would nuke a small section of the USA as a false flag. I mean really, look at the history of how many surface, sub surface and atmospheric nukes were tested on US soil. What is the difference between that and pretending that one of those lesser nukes was set by someone else? It looks like they are going to deport half of New Mexico to Mexico anyhow, so might as well get some sympathy off of it? The USA does like to use this type of tactic because they have historically been able to control the media. While North Korea has little regard for starving people or selling them into slavery, the USA seems to have absolutely no regard for exposing its people to radiation.

If North Korea used nukes as a first strike, they would probably use the full compliment of sixty maybe 100 that they probably now have ready. In about a year, they will probably have enough to mini-nuke every city in the USA if they wanted to do small scale nuclear bombardment. Arguably this would be the primary scenario if Kim Jong were assassinated (maximize death say greater than 35 million nuke retaliation) The coastal cities would be relatively easy to hit if they used a LORAL type cargo ship with mobile launcher (doable today) but its not impossible that the primary goal would be one gigantic very high altitude EMP smack in the Middle of the USA, or one on each coast to maximize the number of eyeballs as a show of power.

As far as I know, you technically cannot shield entirely from a nuclear EMP blast. As long as its attached to the greater power grid through three prong outlets, the EMP will actually use the power lines themselves as conduits even if you say enclose your computer in a six inch lead block. Lets also remember that Starfish Prime was an *extremely* weak EMP made with 1962 nuclear technology. By now I'm sure Russia has one that is 1,000x stronger even though a 1962 EMP would probably still take out half the US power grid. Arguably, with atmospheric reflections, a singular EMP from a modern nuke could destroy power systems around the entire earth, nevermind what its actually over at time of detonation.

ICBM is actually not the best technology, SLBM are. Not knowing the point of origin, and having it be several minutes closer to the intended target makes it much harder to hit. I don't believe there has ever been an attempted SLBM interception, just for the simple fact you would be throwing your money away because its that much harder to hit than an ICBM.

Arguably no missle defense system is adequate. Take "Starfish Prime" for example. The effects of that high altitude nuclear blast was evident a thousand miles away. So technically, if a bomb was dentonated dead center over Toronto, it would probably completely destroy every single piece of electronic equipment in New York. So, if the US does not shoot down nukes, they do it at their own peril. As well, check the fallout pattern of the 100 or so above ground nukes that the US tested in Nevada (idiots BTW) the worst of which was "Sedan". You can blame overeating on why the US has two to five years less lifespan than other first world nations, but I tend to believe its simply because of this map:

Since when is caring for your populace important? British Imperialism was perhaps strongest during its period of serfdom (slavery) Kings and Queens of incredible power and reach.

Psshh, it hit Cuba harder. They might not even be 100 billion dollars worth of damage. That being said, FEMA probably won't have enough money to give $10,000 to each applicant looking for flood damage relief - that is unless they raise the debt ceili- Oh wait its all good, just print more money.

South Korea seems to be protesting US deployment of THAAD. I just wonder when the US is going to station nukes on South Korean soil, because its way more useful to have nukes than the ability to shoot down nukes if your end goal is global destruction. Is South Korea ever in the next two centuries going to be without a US military presence? Who knows. I can imagine that the US will not only shoot at North Koreans, but any South Koreans of *any* military rank to protect said nukes if they should happen to station them there. Poor South Korea, Rich North Korea. Story of every conquered nation ever, came as friends - died as enemies. It does beg the question, should Russia or China pay up a few dollars and put a THAAD system in Cuba (instead of nukes?) Or is it just better to station nukes in Cuba.