Latest post-nuke environmental modelling
 

Nuclear warfare has been modified and updated well past "MAD" via underground tests and computer simulations. They would need to see the update simulation perimeters and calculate using them. Nuclear weapons are variable yield as well("Dial a yield"). They might as well use the B29 and plutonium pellet bombs for their study.

The author of the article is typical of a non-military (and Liberal) mindset. He is truly foolish to believe that ANY Nuclear Nation would limit themselves to just 100 Warheads "Since more than 100 weapons would result in the starvation of the attacking Nation's population."

The FIRST counter-question to this reasoning would be... "what do you do IF your enemy attacks conventionally and DISABLES most or all of your 100 warhead arsenal?" This would leave you helpless against their potentially "now imminent Nuclear strike."

The Genie is out of the bottle and we have to live that. That is what makes North Korea with Nuclear weapons so scary. Most of the other governments which possess them have a huge governmental bureaucracy which essentially runs the government. This acts as a "partial hedge" against any "punitive" or "retaliatory" Nuclear strikes (despite MSNBC's attempted misinforming of its watchers about Trump's ability to start WWIII "with the press of a button"). North Korea doesn't have such a mechanism in place and she replaces Pakistan (being so politically unstable) as my number ONE Nuclear worry now.

Swag.

He actually doesn't say that.
What he says is that only a hundred nukes wouldn't cause blowback and we all know no one leaves a nuke in the silo

Fair to say that Lil' Kim would only attempt to deploy his nukes if he thought he was about to be deposed or killed by a foreign force. That's the whole point of his nukes. He's only interested in survival. And whether his view of the situation is accurate or not, he almost certainly looks at what happened to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi and is of the view that if you are the leader of a minor nuclear power and voluntarily give up your nukes, you wind up dead. If you were Lil' Kim, would you voluntarily give up your nukes?

Yes if you are given explicit guarantees that your borders would be respected and that a final peace treaty would be signed between the US, South Korea, North Korea and the UN (keep in mind that the Korean War was a UN operation) that would offer guarantees to all sides involved - remember it wasnt outside forces that took down Gaddafi - it was his own people due to his own arrogance. As well as pledges of economic and agricultural aid as well.

Given the total loyalty of the North Korean Army to Kim I dont see any serious internal threat to him.

However, President Trump has shown that he perfectly willing to abrogate treaties. He has also shown that he is willing to antagonize and foment trouble with close allies with whom his nation has strong mutual concerns. That does not make him a trustworthy negotiating partner. What credibility could any negotiating points have?

Kim would be better off keeping his arms and waving them when he wants concessions. It worked well enough in the 90s, and he did not have a working weapon or missiles.

Uncle Ted

I don't see how the article has anything to do with Donald Trump or Kim Jong-un? am I missing something?

Or is it that this article was posted so we all you get an idea of what a post-nuke environment would look like?

Let keep Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, the liberal agenda, and US foreign policy decisions in an approved off topic thread.

This is not reasons we all joined this forum

We're playing a game set in 2020 that involves stand-ins for those two, but it's not like I want to discuss them on the internet.