Our nuclear threat

"It has been said in the past, the greatest threat to world peace in the post World War II environment, is a country who thinks a nuclear war is winnable. It is not. Nor will it ever be."

Is it just me, or has there been a whole lot of talk about the use of nuclear missiles as of late? First off, we get a continual stream of banter from North Korea. Once again this weekend, North Korea was flexing its tiny muscles by telling the west "it might use nukes as a first option". Then there is also some talk (I will assume it is just talk), that Russia is flexing its nuclear option once again. Kind of like everyone missed the Cold War.

This kind of talk is dangerous for a good reason. It has been said in the past, the greatest threat to world peace in the post World War II environment, is a country who thinks a nuclear war is winnable. It is not. Nor will it ever be. The world was kept safe for decades by the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Somehow that message seems to have been lost by some countries.

Truthfully, I don't put a lot of stock in what Russia has to say about using nukes. They are not stupid people. The Russians know that if either they or us decided to attack the other with nukes, it would be the end game. With over 8,500 warheads between the two countries, an exchange would end the world as we know it. However, North Korea is a different story. They ARE crazy enough to try an launch a nuke at us.

What would happen if they did? Would we lose a city to a North Korean missile? Probably not. First off, there are questions about their rocket technology. How accurate for example. But assuming the rocket is accurate, and aiming for Los Angles, what can we do besides "duck and cover"?

We have a missile defense. It has evolved quite a bit since the Nike-Zeus system from the 1950's. Today we have the National Missile Defense (NMD) system, which is to protect our country from a limited missile strike. Now if the truth be known, it is NOT adequate to handle a full out attack from countries such as Russia or China. But it should be more than adequate to handle a missile coming in from a rogue nation such as North Korea or Iran.

The system is made up of some ground based interceptors as well as a growing number of sea borne interceptors. A program I worked on for over two decades, the AEGIS weapon system, hosts the sea borne interceptors. As time as evolved, this has proven to be the preferred component of the NMD system. Why? Because they are mobile and can get closer to where the threat is. And the technology keep improving every year. 

We also have the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which is meant to augment the Patriot anti missile system. By the way, earlier this year, a THAAD battery of ten missiles was also installed in South Korea. Plus we have equipped the AEGIS destroyers we have sold Australia and Japan with equipment which would make them compatible with our missile defense system. Finally, we have blanketed the Korean Peninsula with state of the art radar, so sensitive we can detect most anything they are up to.

Finally there is this. Just as a full out nuclear exchange would end the world as we know it, a missile, or few missiles coming in from North Korea would not. It would however, end North Korea. And that is just a simple fact of life.