I agree, but I think people are missing a point. I guess that NK could possibly hit Alaska. It’s a big target; too easy to miss Hawaii altogether.
Now suppose NK manages to hit Alaska with a small nuke.
Probably hardly anybody will be killed or even seriously inconvenienced. Would you go to war over that?
But it’s a signal that yes, we could easily hit Japan.
What’s your strategic response?
Hitting the West Coast would be an entirely different proposition.
In WW2 the US had the opportunity to drop the first bomb on a deserted part of Japan with the second one in reserve against a populated target. But at that point they were winning the war with no credible successful opposition, and there was a great deal of pent up anti-Japanese hatred.
Not really. US production won the naval war. We were unable to replace lost shipping, and in the Far East it was a US war with a little British support. Our carriers were technically superior but we had far fewer of them.
Except that US retaliation would be against the hardened bunkers of NK, not so much the unfortunate civilians on the surface. Bunker destroying nukes provide lots of fallout. NK might go for an air blast to show capability.
(I note the same lack of understanding elsewhere on the use of MOAB - it is not a bunker buster but a blast weapon.)
We had live fire displays for kicks (to wow on-board visitors) in the US Navy back in the day. Thought it was cool at the time, but now I just think of all the mayhem a 2000 lb bomb does in the ocean to any unfortunate sealife in the area.