Alex WellersteinVerified account

In a few years. When they’ve miniaturized and miniaturized and hardened nukes for launch and re-entry. The time to prevent that is now. And many presidents prior.

That's an optimistic and probably incorrect view of things. There is much to suggest they have these capabilities now. It's a risk not worth taking. You need a *REALLY GOOD REASON* to think deterrence won't work with them before you decide to risk hundreds of thousands of lives.

What suggests they have those capabilities? (To marry a miniaturized nuclear warhead into a viable RV on an ICBM capable of accurately hitting the US). Outside of mountain nukes and the recent HS-15 test.... how do we get from that to there?

Let's flip the question: what would make you think they *don't* have the ability? Every other nuclear state at a comparable level of testing has had the ability. It is also +50-year-old technology. So what's the rationale for thinking they can't do it, besides unbridled optimism?

DPRK isn’t China, Russia, et al. Not even close. So let’s not flip the question. Why the unbridled pessimism? Let’s talk reality. They haven’t proven it, yet. If there was ever a state which needed to prove it, based on infrastructure and resource limitations alone, it’s DPRK.

The conservative assumption is: if it looks like a miniaturized nuke, sounds like a miniaturized nuke, and looks like a pretty decent mobile ICBM — you should assume it is.

They've managed to do a pretty impressive and robust nuke and missile testing program. I don't know why anyone would look at their track record and think, "nah, they're just playing around, they've got no idea what they're doing."

As for "proving it" — ask yourself what would constitute sufficient proof. What do you want them to actually do? Do you really want them to do it? Etc. This is a losing game.

Have you considered adding EMP radius to Nukemap? Would be interesting to see how many areas would be without computers after a nuke went off.

It's very tricky to calculate the ranges correctly, and it's even trickier to accurately guess the actual effects on electronics. I have looked into it but not tried to implement it. There are too many tricky uncertainties, and I think EMP is the wrong thing to focus on anyway.

Really? Given how much of society relies on electronics these days, that might kill more people when supply networks, 911, infastructure shut down.

The ability for EMP to actually do that kind of damage is pretty speculative. In any case, if North Korea is going to use nukes, they won't risk it on the uncertainties of an EMP. They'll just aim for cities. We know what carnage would be caused by that.

Ah, I didn't realize how speculative it was. I'm guessing that map exaggerated the imapact a fair bit?

The EMP literature is half people who say "it's the end of the world" and half people who say "it's nothing at all." There are large uncertainty bars when you're talking about real-life effects on the ground. I don't think a state with limited nukes would risk it.

Dr. Wellerstein, how likely do you think it is that Trump will launch a preemptive strike on NK? Does he really have the will for it, or is his tough talk (like much else of his behavior) just hot air and puffing himself up?

I think it will entirely depend on the people who surround him. I think some of them (notably Mattis) know full well this is not a good idea and would not advocate for i. I think others of them do not.

("advocate for it". The "t" key on my keyboard has been acting up lately.) Which brings up all sorts of questions about who is really in charge, how a decision like this would be made, what Mattis would do in the face of others, etc. I do not know the answers here.

A colleague who had Thanksgiving with a long-time State Department employee reported to me that said employee related that "it feels just like the run-up to the Iraq War in State" as of late. For whatever that is worth.