What to do with North Korea...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

Spetulhu wrote:
Rallies, ofc, but the USA is also one of the very few countries posed to strike back immediately over vast distances.

Which is really a function of the size and capability of the US, rather than its culture.

I think really the message here is that if NK strikes SK, NK is toast. If it strikes Japan, NK is toast. If it strikes China, NK is toast. If NK digs a tunnel to Pakistan and sends a donkey with a nuke tied to it's tail in to downtown Lahore... NK is toast. There's no magic element to US culture that produces a more severe or more certain result than if NK attacked any other country.

**Witzkatz**

At this point, I'm not wondering how and when NK would be defeated in a war, because they will be defeated. I'm more wondering if the surrounding states and the world in general will be able to set up SOME kind of plan to buffer the unimaginable human catastrophe afterwards, with millions of starving and bombed-out-of-their-houses civilians on that peninsula. Everybody knows - this would be the result of war. Everybody has had time to get some planning done on how to deal with it, but if it really happens, I fear those plans won't stand up to reality...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

sebster wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No offence intended to American dakka members, but years of studying American history and meeting a lot of Americans in my time has lead me to this conclusion:

You guys like a moral crusade, an us Vs. them situation, the Deputy facing the bad guys at high noon. IMO, it's built in the national American character. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.
And we've seen it in the past with the civil war when the North rallied behind Lincoln, and WW1, and famously, when the USA demanded justice for Pearl Harbout in 1941...

IMO, any NK attack would provoke a similar national sentiment in the USA, and if NK is smart, they won't risk the wrath of the USA.

I agree with your point that a NK attack on the US (or Japan or SK for that matter) would remove any diplomatic cover for NK, and also remove any argument for patience with NK.

But I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that the US is somehow unique in how it addresses an attack upon itself. Sure, the US rallies to the flag when attacked by an outside force, but is this not true for every country?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jhe90 wrote:
Give em some credit.
There tech may be outdated.

But a majority of that is well tested and with maitence and spares very reliable as older.

NK had chronic issues getting spare parts for its fleet of vehicles. A lot of its fleet has been cannibalized to provide spare parts to the remaining vehicles. There's a whole lot trucks that are still formally part of the NK military, but haven't moved in decades, and likely have had their interiors stripped for the other vehicles.

State art tech has kinks in it.
Older, worked out and well tested. A Ak47 is ancient... But when did you last hear there reliability claimed as bad.
Moder Nato rifles, sure more précise etc. Easier to jam.

Not really. The rifle these jamming stories most commonly refer to is the AR-15 and its many variants. Not only is this rifle far from 'state of the art', being 50 years old, the stories of its unreliability come primarily from its troubled original roll out, also 50 years ago. The rifle now is very reliable, mature tech.

Nor is it as simple as older tech being inherently more reliable. Motor vehicles 50 years ago had much higher maintenance requirements, far greater reliability problems, and much greater sensitivity to environmental factors like the cold than they do today. And that's if we're talking about new builds based on old, proven tech. In many cases NK is using the same actual vehicles given to them by the Soviets 60 or 70 years ago. Stuff that's been in use that long has reliability issues, no matter good and robust the design was back in the day. And Soviet vehicles were pretty crappy, even by the standards of the time, so...

All that said, this doesn't mean war against NK is automatically a walk over. It means we can take for granted that the US and allies will have the absolutely dominant military. That dominance will mean NK will be allowed minimal mobility, and certainly be allowed no conventional offensive ability. But overcoming the thousands of fixed position bunkers and extensive underground networks will be an absolute gak of a job, and while that work is underway NK will deliver a horrible payload on to SK civilian areas.

For sure, most countries would not take an attack lying down, but the USA is one of the very few nations who can back up the talk with direct action.

Within a few hours of any attack on the US mainland, the US military would be hitting back hard.

For the record, I don't want to see any fighting. So don't mistake me for some war monger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:
At this point, I'm not wondering how and when NK would be defeated in a war, because they will be defeated. I'm more wondering if the surrounding states and the world in general will be able to set up SOME kind of plan to buffer the unimaginable human catastrophe afterwards, with millions of starving and bombed-out-of-their-houses civilians on that peninsula. Everybody knows - this would be the result of war. Everybody has had time to get some planning done on how to deal with it, but if it really happens, I fear those plans won't stand up to reality...

Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'

**Witzkatz**

Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'

Setting up a damn good aid plan and having a concerted effort by a large coalition of nations in solving that humanitarian post-war crisis efficiently - I think that is the one "good" thing that could come out of a possible 2nd Korean War. Because, as many others said, smashing NK to bits and glassing the whole place with radioactive or long-term-toxic ordnance is NO problem at all, that's what a lot of nations are good at. But defeating NK militarily and THEN making sure the oppressed masses get fed, healed and taken care of instead of leaving them to rot, that's where "the West" in a wider sense has a chance to show itself to be "the good guys" again. Naturally, Chinese cooperation would be necessary, but I think they'd help out for their own sake anyway.

**Rosebuddy**

Witzkatz wrote:
Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'

Setting up a damn good aid plan and having a concerted effort by a large coalition of nations in solving that humanitarian post-war crisis efficiently - I think that is the one "good" thing that could come out of a possible 2nd Korean War. Because, as many others said, smashing NK to bits and glassing the whole place with radioactive or long-term-toxic ordnance is NO problem at all, that's what a lot of nations are good at. But defeating NK militarily and THEN making sure the oppressed masses get fed, healed and taken care of instead of leaving them to rot, that's where "the West" in a wider sense has a chance to show itself to be "the good guys" again. Naturally, Chinese cooperation would be necessary, but I think they'd help out for their own sake anyway.

I wouldn't be too optimistic here. I mean, let's look at how gracefully the West has handled Iraq or the refugee situation from Syria. Western countries would only rebuild the Korean peninsula if doing so was profitable and/or a power grab against China and Russia.

**Frazzled**

Freddy Kruger wrote:
djones520 wrote:

While I don't want to take away from your point, I was amused at you mocking early 90's technology, and then immediately referencing using a B-52 to hit them.

Whoops. Due to a syndrome I call "fat fingers" it seems that I hit both the 5 key and 2 key while trying to type 'B-2' which would have been a FAR more apt choice!

Also, while I take nothing away from the greatest assault rifle ever made, I was talking more about the users rather than the item in question. Anyone can actually fire a gun. Either or not they hit something at 100m+ is another thing entirely.

you know who authorized the B2? Carter. You know 1970s Carter.

**Witzkatz**

Rosebuddy wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'

Setting up a damn good aid plan and having a concerted effort by a large coalition of nations in solving that humanitarian post-war crisis efficiently - I think that is the one "good" thing that could come out of a possible 2nd Korean War. Because, as many others said, smashing NK to bits and glassing the whole place with radioactive or long-term-toxic ordnance is NO problem at all, that's what a lot of nations are good at. But defeating NK militarily and THEN making sure the oppressed masses get fed, healed and taken care of instead of leaving them to rot, that's where "the West" in a wider sense has a chance to show itself to be "the good guys" again. Naturally, Chinese cooperation would be necessary, but I think they'd help out for their own sake anyway.

I wouldn't be too optimistic here. I mean, let's look at how gracefully the West has handled Iraq or the refugee situation from Syria. Western countries would only rebuild the Korean peninsula if doing so was profitable and/or a power grab against China and Russia.

Absolutely. There would be some underlying incentive to do this, I guess, but maybe gaining support in other regions of the world as a result of "altruistic" re-building might be enough. And Iraq and Syria are exactly the places I was thinking about where things didn't go well - I'd hope that, by now, think-tanks and analysts would have enough information about how NOT to do things that the West could at least theoretically come up with a workable plan.

**Grey Templar**

Witzkatz wrote:
At this point, I'm not wondering how and when NK would be defeated in a war, because they will be defeated. I'm more wondering if the surrounding states and the world in general will be able to set up SOME kind of plan to buffer the unimaginable human catastrophe afterwards, with millions of starving and bombed-out-of-their-houses civilians on that peninsula. Everybody knows - this would be the result of war. Everybody has had time to get some planning done on how to deal with it, but if it really happens, I fear those plans won't stand up to reality...

Nobody likely has any plan sufficient.

What likely happens is you have another split. The North Koreans who have totally bought into their own propaganda flee northwards into China since for them that is the closest to "friendly" territory. Chinese forces might gun them down as they flee northwards, but many will make it across into China, where they become China's problem. The remainder either flee south or stay where they are.

So really it will likely end up where South Korea and China split the refugee burden in half. You end up with millions of people starving to death or being killed in the weeks and months to follow. Likely a lot of mental breakdowns from culture shock as they experience the modern world. And even for decades afterwards, these people will have no useful skills to contribute to society outside of manual labor, and have a host of psychological issues from having lived under the regime for so long.

Both China and South Korea probably would experience economic downturns as a result of this, and the world at large would feel some effects too.

**Frazzled**

Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.

I suspect a combination of inertia and sunk cost fallacy.

From NK's point of view, they have a huge state apparatus committed to maintaining the status quo, and they've gone so far, they can't afford to admit it was all a mistake and start again.

**Grey Templar**

feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.

I suspect a combination of inertia and sunk cost fallacy.

From NK's point of view, they have a huge state apparatus committed to maintaining the status quo, and they've gone so far, they can't afford to admit it was all a mistake and start again.

There is that, plus given what we know about their economy and natural resources they don't have much of anything that they could base a functioning modern economy on.

**jhe90**

Grey Templar wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively, NK could decide to get filthy rich like China. I cannot figure out why they do not go that route.

I suspect a combination of inertia and sunk cost fallacy.

From NK's point of view, they have a huge state apparatus committed to maintaining the status quo, and they've gone so far, they can't afford to admit it was all a mistake and start again.

There is that, plus given what we know about their economy and natural resources they don't have much of anything that they could base a functioning modern economy on.

They have some valuable natural resources, and maybe more than we know. Its a very closed country.
There may be greater material than we know.

Maybe hidden, unable to found by there tech, but possible by China or others.
There's alot we do not know. Its a very opaque nation.

**Co'tor Shas**

I mean, the land hasn't changed dramatically since the Koeran war. We aren't dealing with pre-Perry Japan or something.

**Easy E**

Containment and leaking in $$$ is the only way forward.

We have seen this strategy work to often and too successfully on other enemies for it not to work again.

**jhe90**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, the land hasn't changed dramatically since the Koeran war. We aren't dealing with pre-Perry Japan or something.

Meant maps, last "free" information is 50-60 years old. Nee wtch has moved forward rapidly.

There may be vast reserves of ores, fuels or rare earths hidden away no one ever found.
China might find them, but China and NK are not friends anymore exactly.

More just a nation of convenience.

**sebster**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For sure, most countries would not take an attack lying down, but the USA is one of the very few nations who can back up the talk with direct action.

Within a few hours of any attack on the US mainland, the US military would be hitting back hard.

Sure, but as I said that's a measure of US capability, not national culture. But I agree with your overall point that directly attacking is basically the national version of 'suicide by cop'.

For the record, I don't want to see any fighting. So don't mistake me for some war monger.

Cool. I didn't get that impression from your posts, but its still good to clarify, given there's a fairly worrisome number of posts in this thread that seem a bit gung ho.

Good point. The aid effort needed would probably bankrupt the UN, need hundreds of billions in cash, and would probably take years to bring the situation back to 'normal.'

South Korea is a strong economy, but so was West Germany and they still struggled with re-integrating East Germany. And North Korea is many times more screwed up than East Germany was, and that transition happened peacefully, the North Korean situation might happen after a war.

It will be a money pit that'd make occupation of Iraq look frugal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
you know who authorized the B2? Carter. You know 1970s Carter.

Carter also authorised the Abrams, and a whole lot of other weapon system. It's funny that the vaunted military build up under Reagan was largely due to the realisation of new weapon platforms begun under Carter.

Not that Carter was a warmonger or anything like that, but he like every US president wanted a military capable of meeting the threats of the day. Before Carter the dominant theory was that the US didn't need to be prepared, as war was industrial and between the US and Western Europe they had 5 out of 6 of the major industrial sectors. They would steadily out produce the Soviets in the event of a hot war. The conflicts of the middle east shattered that assumption, fighting ended in weeks, even days, with thousands of units destroyed. It became clear you couldn't make your army once the war has started, what you had at the start was all you were going to have to fight the war.

So the joint chiefs took a new plan to Carter, to make sure the US had a technological edge over the Soviets all the time. So you got the B-2, the Abrams and a bunch of other stuff.

**jhe90**

Best option I think is China quietly takes over and slowly modernizes the nation not integrating them into China directly to preserve a buffer zone.

They are not ideal but a slightly more gentle way.

...

After a war things get hard as NK uses infrastructure that's out of the past, some people will never stop hating US, Gorilla tactics.

Be a very expensive gak show.
And worse. Germanny reintergrated decades ago, the east still is economically slightly weaker than the western half.

**Easy E**

I changed my mind, forget containment.

We need President Trump and Chairman Kim to resolve control of the Korean penninsula in a high stakes game of golf.

Problem solved since we know Trump is the greatest presidential golfer in history, and Kim's father invented the game!

**feeder**

Easy E wrote:
I changed my mind, forget containment.

We need President Trump and Chairman Kim to resolve control of the Korean penninsula in a high stakes game of golf.

Problem solved since we know Trump is the greatest presidential golfer in history, and Kim's father invented the game!

I think they should ro-sham-bo each other for supremacy.

**BaronIveagh**

Ouze wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:

For South Korea? I highly doubt the South Koreans are stupid enough to leave their entire military command in a position where they can be wiped out by pre-positioned artillery. Or at least I'd hope so.

I remind you the United States frequently has the entire chain of succession inside the blast radius of a 'first strike'. Keeping key people at a distance from the capitol is great in theory, but in practice it quickly falls by the wayside.

If only someone else had considered this possibility in the 70ish years since ICBMS have become a thing!

Take it from someone who works deep underground in a somewhat newer protected facility designed to survive the end of the world: One, being rated to withstand nuclear attack is like being bullet resistant. It comes in varying grades of protection. I'm under 300 feet of mountain and concrete and we have a (supposedly) 75% chance above a 400 kiloton direct hit. That's about one W87 warhead, fyi. That bunker under the east wing? That's to make the president feel better, because it's not saving gak in the face of anything reasonably modern.

**Grey Templar**

Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC. And if it's Russia or China it's possibly going to be sub-launched missiles launched on depressed trajectories from just off the coast. And there you're talking about ~5 minutes from launch until impact, way too little time to attempt any kind of evacuation. That would be the whole point of launching a decapitation strike without warning, to leave no opportunity for key targets to survive.

Of course, the much more likely scenario for a nuclear war is that it's an escalation from major crisis -> conventional shooting -> tactical nuclear weapons -> strategic nuclear weapons. That leaves hours, probably days or more, to get the president to a secure location. Or, in the case of our current president, to leave him behind and rescue someone more useful.

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.

4 minutes. The rule of thumb is four minutes.

It assumes a sub launch. Passing over North Warning at Inuvik or Yellowknife from Siberia an ICBM will hit Galveston in 15 min. Depending on trajectory, though, it might bypass North Warning entirely and not be detected until Joint Surveillance picks it up coming in over California, and then we're back to 4 min or less.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC.

Peregrine, you may want to brush up on just how potent a SINGLE ICBM is anymore. Dropping a single 500 kiloton airburst over DC will cause an overpressure wave all the way to Arlington and 3rd degree burns from Silver Spring to Alexandria. A surface blast will intensify local destruction and have noticeable fallout all the way to the New York metropolitan area. A hit of this type in the center of down town will eliminate pretty much everything from ground zero across the River at the Pentagon. The White House would be inside the actual crater, which between the in-rushing Potomac and the being vaporized, pretty bad all around.

**Grey Templar**

True, I was not accounting for a sub based missile.

**AlmightyWalrus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.

4 minutes. The rule of thumb is four minutes.

It assumes a sub launch. Passing over North Warning at Inuvik or Yellowknife from Siberia an ICBM will hit Galveston in 15 min. Depending on trajectory, though, it might bypass North Warning entirely and not be detected until Joint Surveillance picks it up coming in over California, and then we're back to 4 min or less.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC.

Peregrine, you may want to brush up on just how potent a SINGLE ICBM is anymore. Dropping a single 500 kiloton airburst over DC will cause an overpressure wave all the way to Arlington and 3rd degree burns from Silver Spring to Alexandria. A surface blast will intensify local destruction and have noticeable fallout all the way to the New York metropolitan area. A hit of this type in the center of down town will eliminate pretty much everything from ground zero across the River at the Pentagon. The White House would be inside the actual crater, which between the in-rushing Potomac and the being vaporized, pretty bad all around.

And that's ONE of the how many MIRVs on a modern ICBM? Twelve or something?

**jhe90**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Though I would be shocked if there wasn't always a helicopter standing by to evacuate the President if an ICBM is detected heading in the general direction of DC while he is there. It's not like ICBMs travel across the world relatively instantly. You'd have 15-20 minutes, at least, of warning of a missile coming from, say, Russia or China.

4 minutes. The rule of thumb is four minutes.

It assumes a sub launch. Passing over North Warning at Inuvik or Yellowknife from Siberia an ICBM will hit Galveston in 15 min. Depending on trajectory, though, it might bypass North Warning entirely and not be detected until Joint Surveillance picks it up coming in over California, and then we're back to 4 min or less.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:

I'd be surprised. There's really no point to it, getting a helicopter in and out is going to take a while and it's not going to be one ICBM. It's going to be a lot of them, blanketing the entire DC area to ensure destruction of the many significant targets in and near DC.

Peregrine, you may want to brush up on just how potent a SINGLE ICBM is anymore. Dropping a single 500 kiloton airburst over DC will cause an overpressure wave all the way to Arlington and 3rd degree burns from Silver Spring to Alexandria. A surface blast will intensify local destruction and have noticeable fallout all the way to the New York metropolitan area. A hit of this type in the center of down town will eliminate pretty much everything from ground zero across the River at the Pentagon. The White House would be inside the actual crater, which between the in-rushing Potomac and the being vaporized, pretty bad all around.

And that's ONE of the how many MIRVs on a modern ICBM? Twelve or something?

About 12. Per missile for largest ICBM.
And most nations have a arsenal of those in nuclear powers.

A sub launched ICBM might have less warheads than a big minutemen in the silos.

**BaronIveagh**

jhe90 wrote:

A sub launched ICBM might have less warheads than a big minutemen in the silos.

Sub launched missiles tend to just have one warhead. 'Tend' is the key word, but the simulation for DC I ran used the data for a US trident D5 SLBM for both air burst and low level detonations. Projections showed the air burst killed more people directly (about 450,000) but did less damage to persons in concrete buildings. The low level detonation yielded the deaths of everyone in central DC, even those in protected facilities, but at the same time did not have the wide area effect of an airburst leading to an overall lower casualty rate FROM THE BOMB BLAST. It does not take into account that the fallout would radiate people in a massive plume up into New York or the people killed by the Potomac flooding DC as ground subsidence takes place post nuke.

**Bromsy**

Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.

**BaronIveagh**

Bromsy wrote:
Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.

The military chain of command that is ALSO in the same blast zone? The Pentagon sits right on the projected crater lip assuming that downtown DC is the target. While I know that there are other commands elsewhere, that pretty much decapitates all branches of service in a worst case scenario. Imagine the anarchy losing the heads of both the military and civilian sides of the government. At the same time as entering war with a foreign power.

**jhe90**

BaronIveagh wrote:
jhe90 wrote:

A sub launched ICBM might have less warheads than a big minutemen in the silos.

Sub launched missiles tend to just have one warhead. 'Tend' is the key word, but the simulation for DC I ran used the data for a US trident D5 SLBM for both air burst and low level detonations. Projections showed the air burst killed more people directly (about 450,000) but did less damage to persons in concrete buildings. The low level detonation yielded the deaths of everyone in central DC, even those in protected facilities, but at the same time did not have the wide area effect of an airburst leading to an overall lower casualty rate FROM THE BOMB BLAST. It does not take into account that the fallout would radiate people in a massive plume up into New York or the people killed by the Potomac flooding DC as ground subsidence takes place post nuke.

Bromsy wrote:Well, you don't want your first strike to actually take out the entire chain of succession, because then the surviving military chain of command takes over and might actually be able to prosecute an effective counter strike. You want to leave like... the secretary of health and human services alive to sow confusion.

Tend does not be so much as a problem when you can carry over a dozen per submarine and with nuclear defense missiles, well your going to bracket the key targets with multiple strikes to ensure the destruction of critical targets such as capitals, and key military bases.

And air burst, or ground explosions.
You can pick and choose when you have multiples of ICBM.

First strike can be a heavy impact, and though most nations have defence command and the civilian in same area to allow senior defense and civilians officials to be able to keep in contact.

However there's always pre planned tactics, pre planned missions and secondary command centres.
If primary command goes down the second layers kick into the system.

Its cold but the system is fully capable of mantiaining redundancy with pre planned strike missions, pre planned orders.
If x ccommand goes quiet for x time, second layer protocol activates, second layer opens sealed orders and exacutes a counter strike.