Poll: Would the regime collapse of a nuclear nation warrant a US invasion?

[sanahtlig]

A coup or popular uprising has just occurred in the nuclear hotspot nation of the moment.  Rioting, plundering, cities in flames.  Total chaos.  The US military is contemplating intervention to secure the nuclear weapons.  You're the US President.  Today, right now, you must make a fateful decision that could determine the course of history.

Some US officials, including Vice President Biden, consider "loose nukes" to be one of the most dire security threats facing the US and its allies.

I was reading an old article in the Atlantic and this scenario came to mind.

The Atlantic: Pakistan, The Ally from Hell

The US has also modeled similar scenarios in war games.

ABC News: U.S. Wargames North Korean Regime Collapse, Invasion to Secure Nukes

Comment on your choice below.

[Soulless Watcher]

Perhaps an immediate takeover/drone strikes of the compounds where the nukes are located and than wait for deliberation with UN/NATO before any further action is taken. 

[sanahtlig]

7 minutes ago, Soulless Watcher said:

Perhaps an immediate takeover/drone strikes of the compounds where the nukes are located and than wait for deliberation with UN/NATO before any further action is taken. 

Elaborate on this.  What's a "drone strike"?  What weapon would it use?  What would it target?  By "takeover" are you implying targeted incursions by special forces, followed by occupation of the facilities by US ground forces?

[Silvz]

Sorry, but why to start another war?

[Soulless Watcher]

11 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

Elaborate on this.  What's a "drone strike"?  What weapon would it use?  What would it target?  By "takeover" are you implying targeted incursions by special forces, followed by occupation of the facilities by US ground forces?

Well I'm not a big expert on military weaponry or nuke facilities in general, aside from what I have seen in the movies . But, like if the nukes were stored in an underground facility have a drone fly by and collapse the entrances.  

Yes I suppose essentially that is what I meant, not a huge occupational force though. Just enough to secure the area and deter anyone from trying to take over the base. 

Ideally/Naively, I believe that the nuclear threat should be neutralized as soon as possible, but any more involvement should be limited until the global community reaches a consensus.

[sanahtlig]

4 minutes ago, Soulless Watcher said:

Well I'm not a big expert on military weaponry or nuke facilities in general, aside from what I have seen in the movies . But, like if the nukes were stored in an underground facility have a drone fly by and collapse the entrances.

Do drones carry the necessary firepower to "collapse" the sorts of hardened concrete bunkers where these weapons would be stored?

5 minutes ago, Soulless Watcher said:

not a huge occupational force though. Just enough to secure the area and deter anyone from trying to take over the base.

If you were a Pakistani officer in charge of an anti-aircraft battery or aerial fighter division, how would you respond if you saw helicopters or troop transport planes carrying US special forces or paratroopers passing near your position?  If you were an American commander, would you give this Pakistani officer the opportunity to shoot down such elite units?

[Okarin]

You should point out what you think the situation will be after the "regime collapse".

Most probably the weapons will stay there, untouched, like they did with the fall of the Soviet Union (that had a large arsenal and no one stole anything or went rogue a la Hunt for the Red October. Of course, you can't "steal" silo ICBMs. But no warhead ended up in terrorist hands. Although the situation is worse now).

Also, said collapse implies a new government taking over, and they should handle things sensibly.

In the case of North Korea, it's hard to conceive a democratic transition, since there had been so many purges and the people are so accustomed to their leader's narrative and lies. Who would take over? There's not even any opposition within the country, unlike in Cuba. There could be, but it probably is in exile.

Pakistan is a case I don't know much about, but I guess a fall of the Muslim regime could mean it would fall under India's influence. I think, too, that it's a very ingrained regime and it's difficult to find any opposition.

In both cases the most possible cause of regime fall would be an economic crack or serious supply shortage. But, you know, North Korea manages to pressure the UN to get what it wants all the time. Pakistan... it seems that they are strained by their opposition to India, but they are doing well at the moment.

Also, as far as I know, Best Korea isn't a "nuclear nation". They have the missiles, but haven't done yet the miniaturisation of the warhead to get it in there.

[Soulless Watcher]

11 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

Do drones carry the necessary firepower to "collapse" the sorts of hardened concrete bunkers where these weapons would be stored?

Like I said, I'm not a huge expert on military weaponry so I'm not entirely sure why you are asking me. But if not drones than missiles.

11 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

If you were a Pakistani officer in charge of an anti-aircraft battery or aerial fighter division, how would you respond if you saw helicopters or troop transport planes carrying US special forces or paratroopers passing near your position?  If you were an American commander, would you give this Pakistani officer the opportunity to shoot down such elite units?

I would obviously open fire on them, and no I would not. People are going to lose their lives in this situation, that is inevitable.  

 

[Down]

Ah yes invading countries has always very well proved to be a good way to stabilize risky situations so far (no) (also why would a country whose regime collapsed be more of a nuclear threat than a stable country, that makes little sense to me)

[Okarin]

By the way, I acknowledge that Pakistan is a full nuclear power (I don't know, is it? I think so). Notice how they haven't gone berserk and started to nuke places.

Nuclear weapons are a tool for coercion and manipulation. They aren't meant to be launched carelessly. Even the stupidest monkey understands this. North Korea could write their name with blood in the book of History by nuking Japan, but they would have little time to be delighted. No, what the regime wants is to stay forever in power. They don't really want to blast people away, even if secretly they wish so. Because then there would be no restraints to wipe them out. North Korea's demonstrations are an empty threat, I think; it depends on how much of a stupid Kim Jong Un is.

[Soulless Watcher]

4 minutes ago, Okarin said:

Nuclear weapons are a tool for coercion and manipulation. They aren't meant to be launched carelessly. Even the stupidest monkey understands this. North Korea could write their name with blood in the book of History by nuking Japan, but they would have little time to be delighted. No, what the regime wants is to stay forever in power. They don't really want to blast people away, even if secretly they wish so. Because then there would be no restraints to wipe them out. North Korea's demonstrations are an empty threat, I think; it depends on how much of a stupid Kim Jong Un is.

Ok, perhaps I have been completely misunderstanding the question. I was under the impression that "regime collapse" was inferring to a loss of complete control of the country and the onset of a civil war. 

If we are talking about a brand new government that has completely replaced the old, I see no reason for any military intervention to be required. 

[sanahtlig]

3 minutes ago, Okarin said:

You should point out what you think the situation will be after the "regime collapse".

The scenario I'm envisioning here is "chaos".  Either a coup or popular uprising, possibly both.  Rioting, plundering, cities in flames.

6 minutes ago, Okarin said:

Also, as far as I know, Best Korea isn't a "nuclear nation". They have the missiles, but haven't done yet the miniaturisation of the warhead to get it in there.

They have fissile material and the means to detonate it on neighbors.  That fissile material could easily be handed off to units that specialize in asymmetric warfare (commonly known as "terrorists").

5 minutes ago, Soulless Watcher said:

Like I said, I'm not a huge expert on military weaponry so I'm not entirely sure why you are asking me. But well, I found this http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-worked-to-improve-biggest-bunker-buster-bomb-as-iran-talks-unfolded-1428078456.

A weapon like that almost certainly can't be mounted on a drone.  You're expecting the firepower of a tank on the equivalent of a humvee.

8 minutes ago, Soulless Watcher said:

I would obviously open fire on them, and no I would not. People are going to lose their lives in this situation, that is inevitable.

Then the mission is no longer "occupy the nuclear facilities".  It's "neutralize all Pakistani air defenses, occupy the nuclear facilities, and decimate any military forces that so much as look at you funny."

Then you have to consider whether airlifts would be appropriate for introducing the necessary firepower to accomplish all of this.  Maybe tanks and armor would be more appropriate?  Those can't be easily airlifted, especially without control of airfields.

12 minutes ago, Down said:

why would a country whose regime collapsed be more of a nuclear threat than a stable country, that makes little sense to me

Because regimes tend to act in a way that is self-preserving.  Non-regime forces are less predictable.  Especially "terrorists", who are more interested in causing as much damage as possible vs. self-preservation.

[Okarin]

My view on nuclear weapons as a whole is, "don't worry". No one should be so stupid as to start a nuclear war. And if they do... well, Mankind deserves it.

After all, it's equally possible a meteor wipes out the majority of Mankind; it's only because we're a young race that we haven't experienced this. Maybe there's a God after all?

The difference between both situations is that in one of them, humans have control. It all nails down to how stupid we really are.

So, there shouldn't be any worry if there's a democratic transition in those countries and they still hold the weapons. See the case of Kazakhstan; they had some leftover weapons from the Soviet Union, and they suffered so much for the nuclear tests that they banned nuclear weaponry forever and they don't want anything to do with it. See how sometimes we people can be sensible?

[Soulless Watcher]

Just now, sanahtlig said:

A weapon like that almost certainly can't be mounted on a drone.  You're expecting the firepower of a tank on the equivalent of a humvee.

Then the mission is no longer "occupy the nuclear facilities".  It's "neutralize all Pakistani air defenses, occupy the nuclear facilities, and decimate any military forces that so much as look at you funny."

Ok fine, I admit I'm just part of the common man that don't know anything about the world at large. I'll just go and vote for Trump and slit my wrist so I don't spread my idiot genes to the next generation. 

[Okarin]

10 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

The scenario I'm envisioning here is "chaos".  Either a coup or popular uprising, possibly both.  Rioting, plundering, cities in flames.

I don't know those regimes so deeply, but from what I understand, in Best Korea, if there's no Kim there's no regime. Probably the military would be reasonable enough to seek a democratic and peaceful exit to the situation. And from what you say, the country should be in shambles. See how Admiral Doenitz promptly surrendered after the occupation of Germany? There wasn't much to hold, to begin with.

If we went by your view, the fall of the Soviet Union should have been terrifying. Lucky that Russians are intelligent people. No, it should be possible to have an orderly dismantling of those regimes. At least communists are somewhat reasonable.

Maybe those countries would fall under the influence of their biggest neighbours. In any case, it's no US affair.

[Dark_blade64]

Starting a nuclear warfare would cause semi-permanent damage to the ecosystem, while poisoning many area and make probably the whole place not habitable for most living beings. (Chernobyl all over again.)

Not mentioning the risk present that radiation could spread out, expand itself and cause further damage. Anyway if two countries suddenly started a war against each other there is always a possibility when both have use most of their resources a third-party joins the conflict and finish off both of them. (Unless allies are involved which might impact how effective it becomes the use of a surprise atttack.) 

[sanahtlig]

6 minutes ago, Dark_blade64 said:

Starting a nuclear warfare would cause semi-permanent damage to the ecosystem, while poisoning many area and make probably the whole place not habitable for most living beings. (Chernobyl all over again.)

Not mentioning the risk present that radiation could spread out, expand itself and cause further damage. Anyway if two countries suddenly started a war against each other there is always a possibility when both have use most of their resources a third-party joins the conflict and finish off both of them. (Unless allies are involved which might impact how effective it becomes the use of a surprise atttack.) 

Nuclear warfare isn't part of the premise of this scenario.  The nation with the collapsed regime has not threatened to launch / use its nukes (yet!), and neither has the US or other nations.  But the nation is in chaos and there's no telling what could happen in the coming hours and days.

[Nosebleed]

This is like asking if the US should invade Russia because one day they could turn on them.

"They haven't threatened us YET!" is not an excuse to invade an entire country. Or do anything for that matter.

[Dark_blade64]

Just now, sanahtlig said:

Nuclear warfare isn't part of the premise of this scenario.  The nation with the collapsed regime has not threatened to launch / use its nukes (yet!), and neither has the US or other nations.

It's better it stays like that, using nukes won't result in things being better just will worsen the situation for them.

[Okarin]

The more reasonable idea is that Pakistan's and Best Korea's weapons are as heavily guarded as USA's or Russia's. As for the concept that it would benefit them if a crazy terrorist blew Los Angeles away... I don't know. There's just a handful of countries who could have facilitated the weapon. And you're forgetting intelligence, and the fact that pretty much every communications link is pinpointed and surveyed. Security is an industry going upwards.

[sanahtlig]

6 minutes ago, Nosebleed said:

This is like asking if the US should invade Russia because one day they could turn on them.

"They haven't threatened us YET!" is not an excuse to invade an entire country. Or do anything for that matter.

Once the weapons are used it's too late to prevent the damage.  That's the premise for action.  Likewise, proliferation is difficult to rollback once it's occurred.   And if organizaitons specializing in asymmetric warfare get ahold of such weapons, the consequences could be dire.

[Okarin]

"Action"... Yeah, also why not kill everyone? That way we wouldn't have to worry, about anything in fact.

"How to make everyone happy? Kill those being unhappy". This looks to me like Stalinistic thinking. As in, the worst oppressor turns out to be the alleged "liberator".

You could probably screw up things more by intervening than by sitting away.

[Darklord Rooke]

Let's put it this way:

If Syria had nuclear weapons, and the 'popular uprising' included a whole heap of tribal lords some of which have known terrorist affiliations ... oh, and ISIS (which want to create a nation, let's not forget.)

In fact let's make this simpler, if ISIS succeeds in its goal of carving out a nation by taking over parts of Iraq and Syria, and these parts had nuclear weapons, then yes America needs to intervene. If rebels took over Syria, and these rebels had terrorist affiliations, and Syria had nukes, then America needs to intervene.

If North Korea has nukes, they need to intervene.

But normally America would not. Because normally countries aren't run by extremists of any sort. 

People tend to forget that everybody has to share a world, and that countries need to look after their own citizens first and foremost. America has traditionally done this by ensuring World War 3 doesn't eventuate. There are statistics which verify that the world is at it's most peaceful when America was at it's most powerful. In fact, the only international situation America DIDN'T intervene in has created more war time refugees than any action since World War 2. Let me be very clear here - the early intervention of America SAVES LIVES, because most of the time it prevents a lot of countries of similar powers squabbling. They SAVE LIVES by stopping uprisings, for example, from reaching their natural conclusion, which is a populace vs army scenario. If America had chosen a side and entered the Syrian conflict militarily, they would have saved A LOT OF LIVES.

People are very soft hearted these days, they don't want America going invading. Sure, how did that work out for Syria and how is that affecting the rest of Europe? What's that? Millions of refugees and Europe is getting pissed off? Congratulations.

[Darklord Rooke]

I especially like how China has now entered and everybody's now crying WW3. Well, that wouldn't have happened if America had resolved this early, but if they had everybody would have been crying about how America shouldn't stick their noses into others affairs.

When the actions of a country threatens the stability of others, it becomes 'their affair'.

[Okarin]

Geopolitics is a delicate matter. Also Syria is a true mess and far different from the countries covered here. Like I said, (extremist) Muslims are more dangerous by a tad. While Marxism isn't a hate ideology per se, religion can be the most totalitarian of it all, like the grievous fights between Catholics and Protestant some centuries ago show.

Also, how do you like it that ISIS forged off the invasion of Irak? I just hope that everything remains status quo, that's the safest bet.