CDC Schedules Briefing To Prepare The Nation For A Nuclear Attack
THE AGENCY WANTS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO GET READY FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is scheduled to hold a meeting on January 16th to review the nation’s preparedness to deal with a nuclear event.
The announcement by the US health agency was released quietly over the Christmas period and comes amid an ongoing mutual exchange of threats between Pyongyang and Washington.
Announcing the discussions on America’s preparedness to manage a nuclear attack, the CDC said: “While a nuclear detonation is unlikely, it would have devastating results and there would be limited time to take critical protection steps….Despite the fear surrounding such an event, planning and preparation can lessen deaths and illness.“
Several CDC employees, including those specializing in radiation, will be present at the upcoming event. The official invitation is below:
RT reports: The briefing –’Public Health Response to a Nuclear Detonation’ – will consider input from a number of key experts about the general preparedness levels of the US to deal with a nuclear event. The timing of the briefing follows the persistent heated rhetoric between Donald Trump and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, who have for months threatened each other with a nuclear strike.
Just this week, the North Korean leader announced to the world that his “red button” is ready to strike the US mainland. Trump responded that he has a “much bigger & more powerful button” in working order, and is ready to wipe out the communist regime.
On Thursday, American reporters challenged Trump’s “mental fitness” after his “bigger button” boasts, questioning if his “taunting” tweets might provoke a nuclear strike from Kim. “I think the president and the people of this country should be concerned about the mental fitness of the leader of North Korea,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders replied. “The president is well aware of how the process works and what the capacity of the United States is. And I can tell you that it’s greater than that of North Korea.”
It’s been a busy year of nuclear and ballistic development and testing for North Korea, having staged 16 missile tests over the course of 2017, but Pyongyang now appears to be warming up for dialogue with the South – albeit mainly focused on the participation in the upcoming Winter Olympics, for now. In the same New Year’s message that featured the nuclear button boast, Kim announced he was ready to talk with Seoul, and later re-activated a communication hotline that had been silent for almost two years.
What if Kim Jung Un successfully launched a nuke? So what he fails to so?
Would NK survive if it launched a nuclear missile?
If NK launched a nuke and it failed (or was shot down) would there be an immediate retaliation?
What if NK successfully launched a nuke?
What does NK have to gain by attacking another country with a nuclear missile? Should we be worried?
NewM_: If a rogue regime discovers it can use nuclear weapons on the battlefield without triggering immediate and overwhelming retaliation, that pretty much kills the entire concept of the nuclear deterrent. That’s unacceptable to the entire world.
Even if Trump didn’t immediately order them bombed off the face of the earth (by nuclear or conventional means), someone else would.
Fortunately, North Korea has no incentive to try to start a nuclear conflict because they know that doing so would result in their obliteration. That’s not to say that war is impossible, but it is completely avoidable because neither side has an incentive to actually start one.
QuantumDischarge: > would there be an immediate retaliation?
Yes, the US would likely bomb every military facility they know of; followed by a rapid deployment of ground troops
> What if NK successfully launched a nuke?
Same scenario, but Russia and China would likely not get in the way at all
> What does NK have to gain by attacking another country with a nuclear missile?
Well if they manage on literally destroying the world through a chain of nuclear missile strikes, they don’t have to worry about being taken over as everyone would be dead or dying
The_DongLover: If North Korea launches an actual nuclear weapon, the regime will not last 6 months. If it fails, then America (and possibly NATO, definitely South Korea and Japan) is going to invade, capture as much of the aristocracy as possible, and probably execute most of them for crimes against humanity. If it succeeds, then America will first nuke Pyongyang, then the *entire world* will participate in the invasion. Ballpark half a million deaths for the former, 2-5 million for the latter, depending on what city they hit.
There is absolutely nothing North Korea would gain by actually attacking another country, nuclear or conventional. Threats and insults can be ignored, but an actual attempt to kill civilians can’t be. The absolute last thing North Korea wants is to piss off the richest most powerful nation in the world.
narutouz: I’m more worried about the aftermath. It would cost trillions to rebuild North Korea. North Korean refugees are uneducated and will be a drain for South Korea.
Not to mention North Korean citizens are completely brainwashed. How will they react when their glorious leader dies ? They will fight until their last breath.
sjkeegs: * China has stated that they won’t defend NK if they initiate hostilities.
* They will defend them if someone else initiates hostilities against NK.
It’s also questionable whether or not NK has the ability to launch a nuke at this point. We know they can set one off (although their test area is trashed right now), and that their missile tests appear to be productive. That doesn’t equate to combining the two elements and having them work together as designed.
thatnameagain: This question assumes, as many do, that the main reason NK could or would launch a nuke would be out of some sort of unprovoked aggressive desire. Few people thought a nuclear war would begin this way between Russia and the US, instead they recognized that either uncontrolled escalation of conventional skirmishes or a misidentified launch by the other side would be the most likely causes of a nuclear launch. This same principle holds with North Korea.
Instead of a misidentified launch, NK could easily misidentify an imminent invasion. We can debate whether they would launch unilaterally, but everyone seems to agree they would launch in response to an invasion. Nobody seems to be asking what their threshold for confirming an imminent invasion would be, necessitating a launch. This is what people should be focusing on.
SelfLoveDotGov: >If NK launched a nuke and it failed (or was shot down) would there be an immediate retaliation?
Unlikely. Immediate retaliation is a function of MAD, which NK can’t accomplish. The US has zero incentive to undertake the risk of immediate retaliation. If it were to retaliate, it would warn Russia and China of the launches and their targets to avoid either nation “retaliating” against a US “first strike”.
The US is unlikely to retaliate in this scenario, however, except by conventional means. That is so certain that North Korea would already be invading the South by the time the US acted. Launching means they must go for broke and seize the peninsula before the US fully mobilizes.
>What if NK successfully launched a nuke?
Immediate retaliation is unlikely for the reasons above. But bets are off: the level of anger and fear would be so high that push-button genocide would be on the table.
>What does NK have to gain by attacking another country with a nuclear missile?
The elimination of ports and bases the US would use to launch a war or he result of a Dead Hand-type system implemented as a deterrent to conventional invasion.
>Should we be worried?
Not really, no. In fact, there are opportunities in this situation. The Kim family atomics theoretically release NK from the need to maintain a large conventional force, in turn eliminating the need for SK to maintain a similar one.
ced1956: > What does NK have to gain by attacking another country with a nuclear missile,
Nothing. Everything to lose nothing to gain.
> Should we be worried?
The concern is NK selling capabilities to bad players or being sloppy such that bad players obtained their capabilities otherwise.
It you recall, in the aftermath of 9/11/01 the west went to great lengths to secure WMD that was or was potentially in the hands of various governments. Lybia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan… The west insisted that such governments either give up their capabilities or demonstrate that they could secure them. The west made it 100% clear that the source country of WMD used on a civilian population would be held responsible for such an act.
By becoming nuke capable NK gains leverage along with the responsibility of securing their WMD capabilities. If they do the latter I would expect a slow march toward normalization between the Koreas in some form or other.
Amtf232: If North Korea launched a nuclear missile and it was shot down or didn’t work, it would be only a matter of time before they had another one ready, and eventually odds are they would get a successful. The U.S probably wouldn’t have to resort to nuclear retaliation, but an immense bombing campaign would begin, and the U.S, South Korea and maybe Japan would throw everything they had North Korea airwise and an all out war would begin to liberate North Korea would begin. The Chinese and Russians would probably insist on a buffer zone that they could control be out on their borders so that they don’t end up with U.S and allied troops on their direct borders, but other than that they would wash their hands of the regime and let it be destroyed. Thousands of American soldiers would die and many more South Korean and North Korean military and civilians, but that’s just what would happen if North Korea actually tried to make good on its nuclear threats.
TheScienceMaster: Answers to each of those questions:
1. Yes. Nuclear weapons are not a joke, and are a serious issue to the international community. Very likely, the UN would issue a resolution condemning the act, and then authorize an invasion in support of self-defense. Obviously, the US, UK, and France would vote for it. Russia and China would likely not vote for it not because they like the West, but rather:
1. If they do vote for it, they are going to be super unpopular in the rest of the world. At least they don’t brandish nukes openly.
2. Relations with North Korea and those two countries aren’t exactly 100% the best.
3. If NK successfully launched a nuke, the country is going to face a combined force of Americans, South Koreans, Japanese, and possibly Filipino and Malaysians going against them. The threat would be pretty clear to civilians that if NK stays, the rest of the world is in danger.
4. It depends on where the missile lands. Obviously, if the nuke lands in an ocean, then there’s not going to be much effect. If it lands at a nuclear power plant without nobody noticing, then it might be just considered a nuclear accident. If the nuke landed in the countryside, and it was noticed, and it was determined to be from NK, then one, nothing would be gained, and two, everybody’s going to be pissed off at North Korea. However, if the nuke landed at the Pentagon, or Capital, or the White House, and successfully does its job, then maybe, just maybe, the US could be thrown in disarray, and then, if NK paratroopers seize important military installations, then maybe they could defeat the US once and for all. However, this is unlikely, as one, the military is scattered throughout the country, and six nukes will not mean the end of the US military. Not to mention, being revolutionaries themselves or the descendants of revolutionaries, the US population will likely rebel. A scorched-earth policy will likely decimate the North Koreans, who can’t even import food from their own country.