[easong]

Right, but imagine that you're the head of the DPRK military and you're reading this comment as the general attitude of America. Now you think that you have to get nukes ASAP, and you're risking US invasion at any time until you do (look what happened to Saddam!).

Once you have nukes, you think, you'll have a shred of leverage over the US since you'll have the capability to nuke Seoul. With that leverage, you can ensure that your glorious people's republic will continue to prosper without another devastating war. Who cares if you throw the economy under the bus until you're nuclear-armed - that's just the price you have to pay for security.

I personally don't think that the DPRK has any real intention of starting a war - they know that there's about five minutes between hostilities being declared and Pyongyang turning into a radioactive parking lot.

[kobayashi]

Pyongyang will almost certainly never be nuked by the US, even if the DPRK used nukes first. The reasons are manifold, and include the political costs (domestic + international) of using nuclear weapons against a captive and largely innocent people, as well as the actual nuclear fallout that would effect nearby neighbours.

Tom Nichols delves deeper into the topic in both article [0] and book [1] forms.

[0] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/if-america-could-rebuild...

[1] http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15090.html

[ekianjo]

> Pyongyang will almost certainly never be nuked by the US, even if the DPRK used nukes first. The reasons are manifold, and include the political costs (domestic + international) of using nuclear weapons against a captive and largely innocent people, as well as the actual nuclear fallout that would effect nearby neighbours.

On second thought, if the DPRK were to nuke New York or something, I can't see how the US could afford not to nuke back without looking weak. At the same time, that would probably trigger a nuclear apocalypse scenario pretty quickly with retaliation from China and the like.

[kobayashi]

A strong response would definitely be necessary, but that response is unlikely to be nuclear in kind. The USA and its allies have enough conventional firepower to permanently end the DPRK regime without needing to resort to nukes. Nichols spells it out in more detail.

[iSnow]

One would hope that in this case, the US had enough restraint and humanity to not nuke a city in retaliation but launch a decapitation strike against the leadership and the military - perhaps nuking a couple of the larger bases and military ports.

But I am not holding my breath either.

[ekianjo]

You don't need to nuke Pyongyang to put them on their knees in no time. Intensive bombardments with B52 are pretty effective as well.

[jessaustin]

Or we could just stop sending food aid.