What is an acceptable level of risk of having one American city nuked?

[DrDelirium]

I ask because Trump says our missile defense system is "97% effective." Is three per cent per Nork missile an acceptable level of risk? What if the Norks have ten missiles- the probably of one getting through rises to about 28%. Is that an acceptable level of risk?
Of course, the "97%" claim is based on a series of tests in which 10 out 18 targets were shot down. The reasoning is that that 56% success rate translates to 97% if we use four ABMs for each incoming nuke. This assumes that the hit/miss probability is simply cumulative as for flipping a fair coin, and that North Korean missiles will not 'cheat' by, say, traveling at night, or conducting evasive maneuvers. The tests these numbers are based on were conducted under ideal circumstances, and many experts suggest that the actual combat effectiveness of our anti-missile system could be as low as ten per cent per shot.
When I say 'ideal circumstances,' I mean that some of the warheads were pre-heated to make them easier to track, and others were equipped with transponders, making them extremely easy to track. Clear skies, daylight, and lack of adverse weather.
So, we really don't know what the odds of hitting an NK missile in a timely fashion are, and at least one retired General thinks they are shit, because of the ease with which warheads can be modified to look different than expected to defense systems, and also made to engage in terminal maneuvering and sensor deception.
You can regard that "97%" figure as pretty optimistic.
So, at what odds are you willing to start a nuclear war with NK?

 

[OldJourno]

I've read that the military is developing lasers that would operate from drones circling high over NK. The idea is that the lasers will destroy the missiles before they leave NK airspace.
I think a lot of the story was speculation but it sounded plausible.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, at what odds are you willing to start a nuclear war with NK?

And whatever "odds" people come up with, they should, in all fairness, address why we should or shouldn't have played the same odds as nuclear arms were proliferating in China and Russia.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

And whatever "odds" people come up with, they should, in all fairness, address why we should or shouldn't have played the same odds as nuclear arms were proliferating in China and Russia.

The biggest risk of a launch of Nukes is between Pakistan and India.

The chances of NK nuking the US is between slim and none and slim left town.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And whatever "odds" people come up with, they should, in all fairness, address why we should or shouldn't have played the same odds as nuclear arms were proliferating in China and Russia.

Because the leaders of China and Russia are and were far less demented than Little Kim. Iran would be the same set of problems if they have nukes.

 

[Hypoxia]

The biggest risk of a launch of Nukes is between Pakistan and India.

The chances of NK nuking the US is between slim and none and slim left town.

Quite. Kim is not suicidal.

Because the leaders of China and Russia are and were far less demented than Little Kim. Iran would be the same set of problems if they have nukes.

Kim and the ayatollahs are not demented -- they'd be dead if they were. Vicious, ruthless, sociopathic, but also craftily toxic, crazy like a fox. Kim will be in power long after Tromp blows away.

History: Saddam Hussein proclaimed (truthfully!) that Iraq had no nukes. USA invaded and killed him. Kim and ayatollahs observed, learned, and proclaimed their nuke programs. USA has not invaded them. Yet. See, deterrence works!

 

[darlasmaster01]

There is no acceptable level

 

[DrDelirium]

And whatever "odds" people come up with, they should, in all fairness, address why we should or shouldn't have played the same odds as nuclear arms were proliferating in China and Russia.

An excellent point.

 

[DrDelirium]

Because the leaders of China and Russia are and were far less demented than Little Kim. Iran would be the same set of problems if they have nukes.

Of course, at the time, Stalin was denounced in the West as a brutal psychopathic mass murderer with no regard for the lives of the Russian people. Oh, wait, that's still the mainstream story. And it's the same story we are told about Mao, about Kim, about Saddam, about Gaddafi, about Assad, about Khamenie, about- well, about everyone we don't like.

 

[DrDelirium]

I've read that the military is developing lasers that would operate from drones circling high over NK. The idea is that the lasers will destroy the missiles before they leave NK airspace.
I think a lot of the story was speculation but it sounded plausible.

Even our current crop of ground-based lasers can be defeated by the simple expedient of adding ablative coatings to the launch vehicles, and spinning them. We're a long way from an airborne laser missile defense, but, if Trump is to be believed, only about thirty days from war with NK.

 

[DrDelirium]

Quite. Kim is not suicidal.

Kim and the ayatollahs are not demented -- they'd be dead if they were. Vicious, ruthless, sociopathic, but also craftily toxic, crazy like a fox. Kim will be in power long after Tromp blows away.

History: Saddam Hussein proclaimed (truthfully!) that Iraq had no nukes. USA invaded and killed him. Kim and ayatollahs observed, learned, and proclaimed their nuke programs. USA has not invaded them. Yet. See, deterrence works!

Yes and yes. So why is Trump behaving as if Kim is suicidal?

 

[Rightguide]

I ask because Trump says our missile defense system is "97% effective." Is three per cent per Nork missile an acceptable level of risk? What if the Norks have ten missiles- the probably of one getting through rises to about 28%. Is that an acceptable level of risk?
Of course, the "97%" claim is based on a series of tests in which 10 out 18 targets were shot down. The reasoning is that that 56% success rate translates to 97% if we use four ABMs for each incoming nuke. This assumes that the hit/miss probability is simply cumulative as for flipping a fair coin, and that North Korean missiles will not 'cheat' by, say, traveling at night, or conducting evasive maneuvers. The tests these numbers are based on were conducted under ideal circumstances, and many experts suggest that the actual combat effectiveness of our anti-missile system could be as low as ten per cent per shot.
When I say 'ideal circumstances,' I mean that some of the warheads were pre-heated to make them easier to track, and others were equipped with transponders, making them extremely easy to track. Clear skies, daylight, and lack of adverse weather.
So, we really don't know what the odds of hitting an NK missile in a timely fashion are, and at least one retired General thinks they are shit, because of the ease with which warheads can be modified to look different than expected to defense systems, and also made to engage in terminal maneuvering and sensor deception.
You can regard that "97%" figure as pretty optimistic.
So, at what odds are you willing to start a nuclear war with NK?

I believe there's weaponry becoming operational we don't know anything about. Remember the F-117 was flying for years before the public found out about it during the Panama incursion. I think if there is an action against the Norks it could begin with a catastrophic failure of their electrical grid and electronic systems that could last for years.

 

[CuriousTxGuy]

.....
So, at what odds are you willing to start a nuclear war with NK?

That's nonsensical thinking. There are no "odds" in a situation with intelligent adversaries.

"Odds" refers to statistical measures and the term is not applicable here.

 

[DrDelirium]

I believe there's weaponry becoming operational we don't know anything about. Remember the F-117 was flying for years before the public found out about it during the Panama incursion. I think if there is an action against the Norks it could begin with a catastrophic failure of their electrical grid and electronic systems that could last for years.

They don't hardly have an electrical grid. But your answer seems to be, don't worry, we have magic!

 

[DrDelirium]

That's nonsensical thinking. There are no "odds" in a situation with intelligent adversaries.

"Odds" refers to statistical measures and the term is not applicable here.

And yet the president of the United States referred to odds as a foundation of making an important policy decision. So you are welcome to lecture Trump on the correct usage of the term 'probability,' but my question is still, what is the level of perceived risk of the annihilation of an American city that would make you willing to start a war? It doesn't really matter whether you can precisely quantify the risk in numerical, scientific terms or not- as my OP makes clear, all the numbers involved in the president's statement are at best unreliable.

 

[Rightguide]

They don't hardly have an electrical grid. But your answer seems to be, don't worry, we have magic!

No magic, just a reality that will force the use of catastrophic weaponry. You're right about the grid, but what they do have enables communication between military units and enables the electronic infrastructure that enables the use of their military technology. Remember how Sadaam's electronics were taken down in a matter of hours and multiply that capability by ten.

 

[FantasyXY]

It's not about Trump starting anything. It's a response that is all about assured destruction...

During the cold war deterrence was based on mutually assured destruction, and it worked.

Citing a 97% success rate in missile defense makes the deterrence factor equal to 100% assured destruction for NK if they start WWIII by launching.

We ain't starting shit, but we damn sure will finish it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Yes and yes. So why is Trump behaving as if Kim is suicidal?

Because Tromp is not a rational player. His one style is campaign-mode verbal attack. Lacking agenda and strategy, he can but yell.

 

[coachdb18]

America does not sacrifice its people in the hope of preserving the peace, though some will and do sacrifice themselves in the guarantee of that very peace. We don’t lie down or roll over and play dead in ‘hopes’ of despots leaving us alone. We always have, and always will be the guardians of freedom, and that may be challenged, and even ridiculed by some, but the country will stand strong so long as there are enough who believe in the worthwhileness of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[richard_daily]

That's nonsensical thinking. There are no "odds" in a situation with intelligent adversaries.

"Odds" refers to statistical measures and the term is not applicable here.

We're talking about Trump and Kim, not about intelligent adversaries.

Trump wants to play politics like a vegas slot machine, or a reality tv show, so he's made it about the odds.

 

[jezzilee]

0%

I would prefer that no American cities were nuked. I would also prefer that nuclear weapons were no longer an option for any part of the world.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's sad that in 2017 we're still debating the merits of "preemptive war".

 

[DrDelirium]

It's not about Trump starting anything. It's a response that is all about assured destruction...

During the cold war deterrence was based on mutually assured destruction, and it worked.

Citing a 97% success rate in missile defense makes the deterrence factor equal to 100% assured destruction for NK if they start WWIII by launching.

We ain't starting shit, but we damn sure will finish it.

Actually, it is about Trump starting something, because he is threatening to start something, and he keeps conducting maneuvers that are indistinguishable from attacks up until the very last moment- even beyond the last moment, from the NK perspective, because they can stay in international airspace well beyond the point at which possible NK defensive measures become almost certainly useless.
However, the question isn't about whether either will initiate a war, but at what level of risk people on the board would be willing to do so.

You have the math backward, btw. 97% missile defense is destabalizing because it takes the 'mutual' out of Mutual Assured Destruction. If Korea cannot nuke the US, the US can attack NK with impunity. So, while 100% assured destruction has always been the case for NK, the question is still, is 3%, or whatever chance you think is realistic, of an American city being destroyed worth attacking NK?
We may or may not be starting shit, but we are sure as shit talking the same shit that Kim is. If that doesn't count for anything, neither does Kim's shit-talk. That just means that there is zero reason for attacking NK, but it doesn't address what kind of chance you would accept of destroying Seattle to do it anyway.

 

[milehighcityman]

Seems to me that you have the premise backwards. If there is significant risk that North Korean warheads could get through, and war seems likely, then it increases the appeal of a US first strike. If we were to preemptively nuke NK, it would likely be done with submarine launched cruise or ballistic missiles. They would detonate in NK before they even knew they had been launched. In which case, no Nork Nukes would be launched, let alone get through. We have always had the ability to obliterate N.K. but we havent. And the only way it would happen now (under Trump or any other President) is if the North Koreans do something unbelievably stupid. And there is a significant chance that could happen, even if by accident. Kim has made incredible advances in his weapons programs in the last 5 years and has threatened his neighbors. The US is responding and acting appropriately.

 

[Wats_butthole]

I could live with 2 states getting nuked. Maybe even 3.