Two wars at once?

[Occhidiangela]

The first use fears are groundless. The removal of tactical nukes from our inventories in 1991 was a landmark decision toard not risking first use. We still retain nukes as a deterrent, simply because the genii has been out of the bottle since Hiroshima, and the deterrent threat is one way to convince some others not to risk using them on us. Trouble is, extra national players, such as terrorist groups, don't have a country at risk, so the deterrent will not work versus them.

There are some accounts that claim Eisenhower threatened the North Koreans and Chinese with Nukes in 1953 to force a cease fire. There is some question whether or not a not-so- subtle message was sent to Saddam via third parties, pre 1991, about "if you use gas, wear lead underwear." Not sure if either is true. A policy of no first use was not adopted in the 1980's (publicly) simply to scare the Russians. With Pres Reagan at the button, that bluff worked. That public position was very contentious in Europe, to say the least, but the Wall came down. :o How much that little piece of the puzzle helped is anyone's guess, given the complex mosaic that was European politics of the Cold War.

Insofar as North Korea, I agree with your assessment of "why would they attack now?" There was never an armistice, never and end to hostilities, there has only been a cease fire for 50 years. Should the North decide that hostilities will commence, they will attack. That has been the case since 1953. The Japanese have a stake in the outcome, as do the Chinese, and I don't think we have heard the last from either of them.