Just because there's failures in Iraq, and failures in the past, doesn't mean there will be a failure in the future. The Intelligence community is not without it successes as well.
Agreed, but what Im saying is that in a nuclear situation, one in which we've already been struck, you dont hope we know everything and everythings going to be ok, like we did with Iraq. IMO you just dont have that luxury in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear strike on US soil.
In all likelyhood, the Chinese would come to our aid with intelligence as well.
Would they? Thats just an assumption. We know theyd go on maximum alert thats for sure, but in those heady first few minutes and hours, would they be sure of who there friends were in the coming conflagration? They might see it as a 'use em or lose em' situation. We just dont know.
Certainly we wouldn't strike within minutes of the bombs falling,
Why not? If we didnt, it would be a massive failure of everything we've been doing for the past 60 years developing our nuclear capabilities.
but I bet the planes would be in the air shortly thereafter.
Planes? This isnt Dr Strangeglove, our missiles would be over their targets within minutes.
There would be enough time to get the planes in the air and towards the target while Intelligence confirmed the locations of the missiles. They are, after all, pretty big and hard to hide.
Theyre also pretty quick too launch.
I'm against a nuclear strike simply because of the NK citizens. They didn't ask for the war, and the probably didn't want to launch a nuke at Seattle. They're the victims, as much as those killed in Seattle. A hard, strong, conventional strike would be more merciful towards those civilians who simply had the bad luck of being there.
Bozo agrees with Turner, but President Erectus and President Turner would have the duty to make sure, absolutely sure, that not one more missile strikes American soil, and to do so as quickly as possible without hesitation. Safety first, mercy later.
I'm also operating under the assumption that our ballistic missile defense shield missed the first shot for unknown reasons but presumably would have a shot at intercepting subsequent inbounds, and also our Aegis cruiser/destroyer stationed in the Sea of Japan would now be alerted, ready to take the ICBMs down in the booster stage, and might be joined by its friends momentarily. Also joined by the fact that North Korea might be bluffing in any case, and even if they aren't they've probably shot their best missile first and remaining ones might be less reliable than the first one.
Thats an avalanche of assumptions, and for all of the reasons Ive cited above, in a nuclear war involving ICBMs, the only safe assumption to make is that the enemy has more missiles and will strike again at any moment.
Anyway, in your scenario the implication is that if the US holds back, NK won't launch again.
You mean NC-1701s scenario? If I recall his OP correctly, he says that NK claims that they wont attack again if we dont retaliate. Does it seem plausible to you as President to say, "Oh, wait! Kim said he wouldnt strike again? Well why didnt ya say so! The guy who just took out Seattle wouldnt lie to us, would he?"
Thus, minutes don't necessarily count - you can wait for the missile defenses to go to maximum readiness, for AWACS to launch and start giving local radar coverage, for fighter cover to scramble, and for Aegis ships to go to general quarters.
Nope, I do not concur Captain. In a nuclear war, the least thing you have is time to sit around waiting for things. Thats why a guy follows the President everywhere with the nuclear football.
