Do The Americans Not Afraid Attacks On Its Territory

Will you blame Trump (even partly) if North Korea attacks America, its territories, or allies?

This is probably a question for Trump voters, and not the 74 million Americans that voted for another candidate (65 million for Clinton and 9 million for Johnson, Stein, McMillan, and other minor candidates) but no other individual has been as flippant with nuclear weapons as has the Republican president. It is a difficult transition from screwing up business after business and never being held accountable for repercussions of his actions to going to being held accountable to even the least thought through tweet. His nonexistent ability to make a deal is the reason that even with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, he still wasn't able to hammer out a deal. The level of his incompetence is only matched by his undeserved feeling of entitlement.If North Korea strikes first it is very plausible that the regime was literally dared to do so by the president who received the smallest percentage of votes but still became president in a century. There will be zero chance that a North Korean first strike will be borne out of Trump's genuine attempt to make peace and show personal restraint as well as emotional maturity that it would take to seek out a diplomatic solution.

Should Americans be afraid of North Korea?

“Afraid” is a strong word. Americans, along with every other responsible power in the world, should be deeply concerned about NK’s weapons programs.Although it’s highly unlikely that even NK would be crazy enough to shoot down America warplanes over international waters, let alone any of the other actions they have threatened such as bombing Guam or California, it’s highly likely that they will sell their weaponry to nefarious regimes and stateless entities around the world.Nuclear proliferation along with the commoditization of delivery technologies such as ICBMs and stealth cruise missiles is of very grave concern and importance.Suppose NK sold a warhead or two along with a mobile launch vehicle to an ISIS group in central Asia, or to the rebels in Yemen, or to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This would alter the global balance of power and possibly lead to World War Three — a nuclear war. The Israelis for example would never tolerate such weaponry in the hands of enemy states and groups in their vicinity.What can be done? Possibly not a lot, unless an international coalition can agree to take out the NK regime in the near future. China/Russia would almost certainly veto such a decision, unless NK struck first. If NK did take out a U.S. aircraft carrier, for example, or launch some kind of vehicle toward Guam or the U.S. mainland, the U.S. and allies would be forced to declare war, and China/Russia would swiftly find themselves on the wrong side of a very hot conflict.The other possibility is that the Chinese, while outwardly defending the maniac in Pyongyang, will covertly have him poisoned or otherwise neutralized, ending the Kim dynasty and probably leading to a military dictatorship that would be less cult of personality and more about maintaining a stable state.

Would nuking ISIS territories for each terrorist attack in Europe or America be a good strategy?

I disagree with the tactic for the following reasons.1. Nuclear Weapons don't just effect your enemies. The radiation from the fallout will effect everyone on earth to some extent.2. Lots of areas we could nuke is viable farmland and regions that bear oil and other resources that can be used. Nuke these places and this stuff can't be used for a long time.3. The enemies we fight in ISIS are not afraid to die they welcome death because they are a genocidal death cult. Destroying a small portion of their armed force will not break their will.The type of tactic you are speaking of is similar in some ways to scorched earth. But the main goal of your Nuclear strike is to break the will of your enemy to fight because of the threat of what they could lose taking up arms against you is so great. However ISIS doesn't care how much they lose.For something like this to really work it would be an apocalyptic scenario where the west was committed to completely putting the Islamic world to the sword the Islamic world would have to be on the brink of absolute destruction and vanishing from the earth as a collective civilization.Basically we would have had to have killed a significant portion of them to begin with. Then the threat of not being a civilization would force every Muslim everywhere to consider their actions and dealings with the west. It would be a crucible of violence against Islam so severe and so surely that it would change cultures and religions. no society would be the same and no society destroyed by it would be able to recover.This is what happened with Japan. They had been pushed back to their islands were assaulted on all sides losing so many lives and after two nuclear strikes were on the brink.Same with the American South Sherman's march made the thought of resisting the Union army so painful that it contributed to the end of the conflict. (Though it didn't completely break them they are still bitter about it today)I don't think anyone wants to live in Hell on earth and the threat of harsh reciprocity is just that.

Why is Obama afraid to attack Da'esh (ISIS)?

Thanks for the A2A. I read the other answers and I agree with their points (i.e. civilian casualties, operation inherent resolve, the military advisors currently in Iraq). As such, I will just add a new point.I will address a norm of post-Cold-War U.S. (read Democrat party) foreign policy.Starting with Bill Clinton, the U.S. started avoiding operations that may cause high numbers of American casualties. This trend seemed to reflect onto Republicans as well (till 2003, the invasion of Iraq, which still had low casualties considering how big of an operation it was), both Bush senior and junior, but not as much.With Obama, this policy ("minimize army casualties") was reintroduced. This can be explained if you think about who Democrats appeal to.Has the U.S. stopped intervening? No, it has not. It just takes more cautious approaches. See for example the war against drugs in South America.For a relevant book on the policy norm of low casualties, see: The American Empire - Andrew Bacevich.He did publish it in 2002, and he did get some things wrong (both before and after the publication), and it may seem too "U.S. centered", but it worth a notice.