Okay, we've all made a big deal about the current issues with North Korea. With no small amount of hesitance, I am going to explain something that I find fairly simple.
They are not going to nuke anyone.
Why? Because the country does not yet have the firepower. An estimate on +CNN puts their current arsenal at "fewer than 10."Ten is a big number, right? You could take down most countries with that, right? Wrong.
Take a look at this link. This site shows us the blast radii of the various effects expected from a nuclear strike. As shown, at the maximum radius for a nuclear bomb, less than two percent fatalities have been shown. Admittedly, twenty-five percent were injured from various things including flying glass and debris. For a 500Kt nuclear bomb (Russia's current highest yield), this blast radius location is approximately 6.6 miles from the point of detonation.
So, one high-yield bomb is a circle of damage about 13.2 miles across.
Of course, as pointed out on the same site, complications ensue based on the thought that goes into deploying the bomb or bombs. If the tactic is engineered with multiple, spread-out payloads, then both the radius and damage increase. Even so, the range of a one-megaton weapon (total blast) configuration could theoretically extend to about 105 square miles of complete destruction with a similar pattern of diminishing destruction as distance from the cluster of blast points increases.
There are, of course, other considerations in the long term for the people and area targeted. However, I'm looking solely at initial survival at this point.
Even so, we've been working for years to develop methods of keeping other peoples' fatality-inducing toys out of the sky. We're pretty good at it and very confident that we will if the occasion calls for it.
So, what am I saying?
Well, if North Korea does launch their arsenal - in entirety - at a single point, depending on the total kiloton yield and these provided calculations, they could take out an area the size of two major cities and associated suburbs - each. Or, they could take out an area roughly the size of the entire United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
At the present time, there is no evidence to support that North Korea's weapons would be able to do much more than wipe out one of their neighbors. We don't have proof that they have a delivery system for long range. In fact, it's likely that they don't.
Why is this supposed to be good news?
There is a concept that we flirted desperately with in the Cold War era. This concept was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It's simple, really. If the USSR launched it's missiles at us, then we would launch right back. The same theory applies here.
Don't get me wrong. At that point, there would be thousands or millions of dead, depending on the target points. I would be furious and in tears. However, North Korea would be gone. Not damaged. Not in need of any form of aid. It would be gone.
See, the United States has a few warheads of its own. Over seven thousand of them, in fact. So does China. They have two hundred and forty, we think. Japan? Not so much. However, there are all sorts of treaties in place that say we have the right to retaliate when our friends are attacked. Generally, we consider those places that we have permanent bases to be friends.
That includes South Korea, Japan, and a few other locations in the Pac-Rim.
Also, launching a nuclear strike would be in direct violation of several treaties, including a few with the United Nations. Why is this a problem for Korea? Treaties with the UN enforce the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. Striking at South Korea in direct violation of those treaties could cause a war with everyone else in the UN.
Starting a war on that many fronts is so damned foolish that only one person - to my knowledge - has ever come close to a mistake of that scale. Who? Hitler invaded Russia, creating a third front. The result was that he had the full might of one of the largest standing armies of the time aimed right at Berlin. Add in the issues he was having in the European and African fronts.... He lost. Completely. Totally. Absolutely. Predictably.
Again, Good News?
Yes. If he's not stupid, then he won't start a variant of World War III that ends with almost every other nuclear-capable country (plus a few more) on the planet gunning for his head. If he is stupid....
We'll probably shoot down his bombs before they impact, throw our support behind anyone that wants to go express their displeasure, and get free reign to clean him - and his supporters - out of the gene pool.
They are not going to nuke anyone.
Why? Because the country does not yet have the firepower. An estimate on +CNN puts their current arsenal at "fewer than 10."Ten is a big number, right? You could take down most countries with that, right? Wrong.
Take a look at this link. This site shows us the blast radii of the various effects expected from a nuclear strike. As shown, at the maximum radius for a nuclear bomb, less than two percent fatalities have been shown. Admittedly, twenty-five percent were injured from various things including flying glass and debris. For a 500Kt nuclear bomb (Russia's current highest yield), this blast radius location is approximately 6.6 miles from the point of detonation.
So, one high-yield bomb is a circle of damage about 13.2 miles across.
Of course, as pointed out on the same site, complications ensue based on the thought that goes into deploying the bomb or bombs. If the tactic is engineered with multiple, spread-out payloads, then both the radius and damage increase. Even so, the range of a one-megaton weapon (total blast) configuration could theoretically extend to about 105 square miles of complete destruction with a similar pattern of diminishing destruction as distance from the cluster of blast points increases.
There are, of course, other considerations in the long term for the people and area targeted. However, I'm looking solely at initial survival at this point.
Even so, we've been working for years to develop methods of keeping other peoples' fatality-inducing toys out of the sky. We're pretty good at it and very confident that we will if the occasion calls for it.
So, what am I saying?
Well, if North Korea does launch their arsenal - in entirety - at a single point, depending on the total kiloton yield and these provided calculations, they could take out an area the size of two major cities and associated suburbs - each. Or, they could take out an area roughly the size of the entire United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
At the present time, there is no evidence to support that North Korea's weapons would be able to do much more than wipe out one of their neighbors. We don't have proof that they have a delivery system for long range. In fact, it's likely that they don't.
Why is this supposed to be good news?
There is a concept that we flirted desperately with in the Cold War era. This concept was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It's simple, really. If the USSR launched it's missiles at us, then we would launch right back. The same theory applies here.
Don't get me wrong. At that point, there would be thousands or millions of dead, depending on the target points. I would be furious and in tears. However, North Korea would be gone. Not damaged. Not in need of any form of aid. It would be gone.
See, the United States has a few warheads of its own. Over seven thousand of them, in fact. So does China. They have two hundred and forty, we think. Japan? Not so much. However, there are all sorts of treaties in place that say we have the right to retaliate when our friends are attacked. Generally, we consider those places that we have permanent bases to be friends.
That includes South Korea, Japan, and a few other locations in the Pac-Rim.
Also, launching a nuclear strike would be in direct violation of several treaties, including a few with the United Nations. Why is this a problem for Korea? Treaties with the UN enforce the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. Striking at South Korea in direct violation of those treaties could cause a war with everyone else in the UN.
Starting a war on that many fronts is so damned foolish that only one person - to my knowledge - has ever come close to a mistake of that scale. Who? Hitler invaded Russia, creating a third front. The result was that he had the full might of one of the largest standing armies of the time aimed right at Berlin. Add in the issues he was having in the European and African fronts.... He lost. Completely. Totally. Absolutely. Predictably.
Again, Good News?
Yes. If he's not stupid, then he won't start a variant of World War III that ends with almost every other nuclear-capable country (plus a few more) on the planet gunning for his head. If he is stupid....
We'll probably shoot down his bombs before they impact, throw our support behind anyone that wants to go express their displeasure, and get free reign to clean him - and his supporters - out of the gene pool.
Comments
Post a Comment