Alaska Looks at a Nuclear Threat, and Shrugs It Off

Either side of that cement wall is a death sentence, I'd hope that I picked the instantaneous side!

“we would definitely be avenged.”

That statement indicates both deep ignorance about nuclear effects and an ugly, vengeance-driven set of warped personal values.

What, me worry?

Technically speaking, it's not 55 miles from Alaska to Russia, it's closer to two miles. The Diomede Islands in the Bering Strait are that close. Big Diomede is Russian and Little Diomede is Alaskan. In 1986, a drifter named John Weymouth walked across the ice from Little Diomede to Big Diomede, was captured by the Soviets and brought to the mainland, detained and interrogated for two weeks, and then flown back to Anchorage. So if you think Palin was talking about seeing Russia from her yard in Wasilla, well, no, of course not. But she was right about seeing Russia from Alaska.

"I lived a good life, and if something happens (nuclear strikes) it happens...That could not be a more selfish response.

Digging a bunker might not improve your chances not dying in a nuclear war, but voting for a President who is willing to attend daily intelligence briefings might.

I feel sad to read how many ppl think there is 'nothing we can do' about nuclear war/global destruction.

Wow.

Globally, more people on the planet want to get RID of nukes, thank think there is 'nothing we can do'.

In the USA everyone fights to NOT have nuclear waste stored in THEIR state.
Fossil free I know, but this energy source is not viable because of the nuclear waste.
So let's s get organized, that's what we can do.
These are global trends.
A peace economy, with a new Green Deal, will kick the economic butt of the current military industrial complex.

They know that North Korea would never attack a worthless piece of real estate that is so sparcely populated that it can hardly be called a state.

Now, Seattle, that is another thing... Boeing, you know. But not Alaska. Anyway, if N Korea dared launch such a missile, one touch of a computer will make it turn and go into Mongolia.

I live in Alaska. A big state that dwarfs Texas in size, beauty and general coolness. Just ask any Alaskan. That said, I have no worries concerning NK nukes. I never voted for, or support Palin or Trump. All the Alaskans that I know(Juneau) detest both Palin and Trump. Trump likely more. Trump is much more worrisome than NK.

I suspect a Korean use of nucs would be used on a much more impactful target than Alaska, since the after effects for NK would be devastating. The story has entertainment value but thats about it.

It's been well documented that the average military service member (or veteran) is less intelligent than the society from which he/ she is selected. People of limited intelligence are prone to a fatalistic outlook on life since they are mentally ill-equiped to solve complex problems that might threaten their survival. We see the same behavior in lower animals, where lesser intellects accept their circumstances rather than attempt to affect change in the world they inhabit. While American society sadly makes it socially acceptable to think this way, it would be the absolute height of folly to allow any of these people to have any real decision making abilities. Allow their intellectual superiors to control Alaskans lives on their own behalf, and they will live longer, healthier, happier lives.

These people in Alaska elected Palin The Hillbilly as governor, and went overwhelmingly for Trump.

I suggest these facts demonstrate that their ability to engage in critical thinking is limited, and so their shrugging off the possibility of nuclear annihilation comes as no surprise.

I live in anchorage. Both of my oars in in the water; which is always cold, and icy, by the way. We worry about bears, the price of oil, and the weather. And that vulgarian in the white house and his minions, and his children. North Korea is not the overriding issue up here right now.

The people in Alaska "Live Their Dash", if you don't what that means look it up.

"Mr. Chatterton at 907 Surplus also finds comfort in the idea of justice and retribution — that assured destruction would rain down on North Korea if its leaders made such a foolish mistake as to attack. “If it did happen, we would definitely be avenged,” he said."

Toe to toe noo-klear combat with the North Koreans!!!

The most credible and immediate threat to the well-being of ordinary Alaskans are the condescending and ill-informed liberals from the lower 48.

Come on New York Times. What do you expect people to do? Move? Panic? The reality is that most of us live in areas that are dangerous (please see hurricanes, the Juan de Fuca plate, 9/11, etc.). Some threats are natural, and some are man made. Regardless, people's lives don't revolve around the multitude of threats that may or may not ever impact them. This issue is no different.

Trump isn't worried either. If fact, he said we have nuclear bombs so why don't we use them. Are these Alaskans the same ones that voted for that nuclear knucklehead?

For many of the New Yorkers making fun of Alaskans due to Palin, guess where the POTUS is from.

That's right NY, you don't get to make fun of Texas or Alaska or any state for that matter.

Obviously most catastrophes have only a remote probability of occurring.
So it's doesn't make sense to worry too much about any particular catastrophe unless it has a high probability of occurring (like human-caused global warming and human-caused habitat-destruction).
But I lived in Alaska for a time, and most Alaskans are not bright enough to understand the possibilities.
That's for sure.

Of course they shrug it off. These are the same brains that brought them to vote for Sarah Palin. Just because they can't see North Korea from Alaska doesn't mean they cannot be nuked. Sorry to say, but these people don't seem to have both oars in the water.

Some Alaskans are concerned. I am very concerned, especially with the idiot in the White House. But I would be more concerned if I lived in Japan or South Korea.

I'm certain I won't be the first person to point out that most Alaskans would be quite pleased if North Korea eliminated Anchorage and parts of Wasilla.

The good people of AK have other things to be concerned about. Like whether their freezer is full of fish/game and that the wood pile is high by Sept. or so.

The N.K.'s are MUCH more likely to try and put a weapon into the wrong hands than they are to launch a missile that would ensure their own destruction.

While most people quoted in this article are not in a state of anxiety because of the threat posed by North Korean nukes, none of those quoted here are of the logical opinion that there is zero possibility that North Korea would ever even consider nuking Alaska, or any other part of the US for that matter in a first strike, if they get the capability to do so.
And the reason that this is what logic dictates is that North Korea and its leader do not have a death wish along with a desire to see their country destroyed, which they understand will happen virtually automatically if they ever use their nukes on the US.
In addition it is extremely unlikely that North Korea would even ever use conventional missiles against either the US or any of its neighbors. And this is because while the North is limited in its ability to doing nothing more than firing off a missile, which is basically nothing more than a bomb, in retaliation the US can destroy every last asset that country possesses, military and otherwise. And since North Korea understands this they will never go up against the US in a conventional war.
This is in addition to the fact that Kim Jong-un thrives on being popular. And so the last thing he would want to do is invite destruction to come raining down on his country. This in addition to the fact that him not being able to do anything to stop the relentless destruction being rained down on his country will completely destroy his image as a man able to stand up to the US.

How bout an Alaskan preemptive strike on that lunatic?

Well, it seems they backed the right candidate, as he just shrugs off nuclear war.. So be it.

The reality is that North Korea is unlikely to launch a nuclear weapon that would mean that they would also be attacked. And, when they are attacked, so is China, so they will not do that. The Kim dynasty is desperate and is out of moves. We should treat him as such. Either leave him alone, which is my preference, or allow S. Korea to invade, which we should have done thirty years ago. The US is the problem.

Hawaii is closer to North Korea by a couple of thousand miles. And yes, Hawaii is still one of the 50 states in our country. Why is there no focus on what people in Hawaii think? You may recall that there was an incident awhile back at a place called Pearl Harbor.

And shrug they should! What good would that do the attacker?
This is not a story of any use to anyone.
The entire world is under the threat of annihilation each and every day.
A quick vaporization may be preferable to living a long slow death by toxics.
Who wants to attack Nowhere,USA?

I suspect that Alaskan's indifference is in part due to the common sense understanding that no country would purposely bring on its own destruction just to bomb a sparsely populated state of their enemy.

We should send "common sense ambassadors" from Alaska to Washington, New York and other sophisticated erudite sections of the country to help calm them down.

This extended story smells mostly like the usual hype that is needed when the military industry needs its next infusion. It's tiresome, but we seem so accustomed to it that most people don't even talk about it anymore. Kudos to Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.

You want infrastructure? health care? clean energy? education? Well, it's simple. There's no money for that because it all goes to our inflated military.

Of all the ridiculous scenarios, a nuclear strike by North Korea on Alaska? Dumb. There's no other word. Why would they possible do that - other than, of course, madness? If they want to really inflict damage and to demonstrate their ability to do so, without guaranteeing their own nuclear annihilation, they could do so much more easily by using chemical weapons in a major American city or two. Their nuclear weapons only make sense, if they do at all, in the same way ours do: as a deterrent.

Let's see, what could be next? Maybe some "clear choices" offered to the North Koreans? That's always a good one.

I've liked in a ground zero environment my entire life in or around San Diego. Now I'm more worried about the environment damage that could happen any time from left-over WWII, Korean and Vietnam War ammo supplies that are slowly decaying into ...., but nobody around here seems to care much. As for Alaska, if the North Koreans were smart enough to be able to be reasonably sure of hitting their chosen target they'd pick something like the northern terminus of the oil pipeline which which would do a lot of economic and environmental damage but cause little loss of life --- hardly the kind of thing worth starting a modern Holocaust over, right?

"Alaska Looks at a Nuclear Threat, and Shrugs It Off"?

Well, this fits with an indifferent and ill-informed mentality that elected Sarah Palin...

'“If it did happen,” he said of a North Korean nuclear attack, “we would definitely be avenged.”'

And somehow THAT makes him feel better?
He DOES realize, doesn't he, that he, his family, and everyone he knows will be vaporized, with many thousands more suffering the horrors of radiation poisoning? So much for being "avenged"!

To get out of a US-centric bubble for a moment, South Korea, by far, faces a much more significant threat as a result of Kim's nuclear weapons. Mobile heavy-lift, short-range missiles, which Kim already has plenty of, gives Kim the ability to lob every one of his nuclear warheads into South Korea, putting at grave risk the 50 million people who live there (along with the 30,000 US service members stationed there). A rapidly escalating confrontation between Trump and Kim could easily result in 10 to 20 million or more killed or seriously injured, and the Korean peninsula largely turned into a nuclear wasteland.

I'd put this threat in the same basket as the Yellowstone Caldera going off. If it happens, it happens. No sense in worrying about something you can't do anything about.

I think Alaskans are right to shrug off this threat, because there's nothing much that can be done about it, and it's nothing new. They've been living with the same threat from Russia and China for decades. And while it's uncertain that North Korea can either use its longest range missiles for nuclear payloads, or get its missiles to hit their target, it's quite certain that Russia and China have those capabilities.

In any case, it's not Alaska's worry specifically. If North Korea suddenly hit Alaska with a nuke, America would have no choice but to retaliate, and once our birds flew, China would have no choice but to hit back. So that first nuclear missile pretty much guarantees full nuclear war, and no place in America is safe from that.

At the age of 10, having heard way too much about nuclear weapons, I recall telling people I was happy to live in a primary target, NYC. I'd say that no matter what, NYC would get a direct strike, and thus if nuclear war broke out, I'd be vaporized, which would be far preferable to living through the strikes and dying slowly of radiation poisoning, in the wreckage of the end of civilization.

So in a way, there's nothing to worry about, because a nuclear exchange would kill most of us and end civilization, and in that case, it's all over.

Would Kim Jung Un risk his life for a shot at Alaska, the 48th largest state by population? Unlikely. In a few years he will have developed the technology to strike major population centers on the West coast, a much more enticing prospect. As a current resident of Alaska, I was much more concerned about nuclear destruction when I lived in Washington, D.C.

Lest anyone forget, we've been all been living with the prospect of nuclear destruction at the hands of several "enemy" states for decades. Mutually assured destruction has been a successful deterrent thus far, and I suspect if Mr. Un has any sense of self preservation, it will continue to be so. After all, DPRK's development of nuclear weapons is in response to the very real threat from the U.S. Clearly his continued existence weighs heavily, not just on the development, but likely the use of such weapons as well.