Would the U.S. sacrifice Los Angeles to save Tokyo？

 

続）米国の国家安全保障戦略の大きな失敗であり、私もそれに加担しています。…ロシアの脅威を見逃していました。米国の戦略的文化は、ロシアを格下げし、中国を国家安全保障上の脅威として格上げすることでした。…これは「戦略的近視」と言って、目の前にある脅威が見えていない状態を意味します。

— 高野遼 / Ryo Takano (@takano_r) March 25, 2022

安倍元首相インタビュー　北に核使わせぬ抑止力議論を 

2022/3/2 

No missile defence system has been shown to be effective against realistic ICBM

  How to Deal With North Korea There are no good options. But some are worse than others. MARK BOWDEN,THE ATLANTIC | JUNE 21, 2017

With such missiles, Kim might feel emboldened to move on South Korea. Would the U.S. sacrifice Los Angeles to save Seoul? The same calculation drove the U.K. and France to develop their own nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Trump has already suggested that South Korea and Japan might want to consider building nuclear programs. In this way, acceptance could lead to more nuclear-armed states and ever greater chances that one will use the weapons.

Here’s what war with North Korea would look like A full-blown war with North Korea wouldn’t be as bad as you think. It would be much, much worse. By Yochi Dreazen Updated Feb 8, 2018

“By the time you get to the late ’50s, the French in particular are saying, ‘Wait a minute, if the US uses nuclear weapons against Soviet ground forces in Europe, the Soviets are going to fire nuclear weapons at the US. Is the US prepared to trade New York City for Paris?’” Bennett told me.

 

To modify a phrase from the Cold War, would Trump be prepared to trade San Francisco for Seoul? If Kim decides the answer is no, using a nuclear weapon against South Korea no longer seems crazy or suicidal. It starts to seem rational. And one particular South Korean city starts to seem like the likeliest target.

ロサンジェルスを犠牲にして米国はパリを守らんだろうーーあたりまえ。

だったら、ソ連からの核攻撃を恐れて米国はフランス、イギリスを守らんだろう。

だったら、ソ連からの核攻撃を抑止するにために自分たちが核武装するしかなかんべ、と英米は核武装している。

まことに合理的な考え。

そして、同じことは、韓国や日本にも言えるのである。

なんでこういう現実的で合理的な話もできないのか？