4 ms·

So Russia and China may now worry that we'll make a first strike because we could disable their counterattack. And we have to worry about them doing it to us. T

So Russia and China may now worry that we'll make a first strike because we could disable their counterattack. And we have to worry about them doing it to us. This was the whole reason the US & Russia tried to restrict building anti-missile defense systems in treaties - because it increased the chance someone might think a first strike could work. If true, this is bad.

jeffdavis 10y ago
The US and Russia have a special relationship because we've been to the brink and backed away respectfully. I hope that experience continues to instill mutual trust that we won't annihalate each other. No such trust exists with DPRK or Iran, which makes them dangerous. China doesn't seem particularly worried about nuclear attack, otherwise they would be more cooperative when it comes to DPRK. Disclaimer: I am not even close to an expert on this subject and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  China is the main supporter of the DPRK regime. It acts as a buffer against the US sphere of influence in the region.
  - yladiz 10y ago
    One possibility of what would happen if there were a war/conflict would be China would take over NK and create a buffer Chinese state, possibly another country in the Two System, One Country philosophy. China is becoming increasingly intolerant of DPRK's actions, as evident by their stopping importing of coal due to the killing of Kim Jong-nam (which will hurt DPRK's economy as it is a large part of their exports). My guess is that the buffer country would be a compromise, since SK doesn't want China directly at their door and vice versa, but SK wouldn't be able to really support NK's terrible economic situation as their economy is too small, and the US wouldn't want China's influence in the region to too much grow. I could see another part of that compromise would be to allow NK citizens to go to SK to be with family, be reeducated, etc, as well.
dogma1138 10y ago
Russian tried the US walked out of the treaty and has been pulling quite a few risky moves.
- jandrewrogers 10y ago
  In fairness to the US, their missile engineering was sufficiently advanced that by the 1990s their "anti-missile" and "anti-aircraft" systems started to converge into general platforms that were indifferent to aerial target type. In effect, many of its anti-aircraft defense systems are also classified as anti-missile defense systems. Many decades ago, these were distinct kinds of systems due to technical capability limits that forced specialization. This is why the US pulled out of the ABM treaty. The distinction between their anti-aircraft systems and anti-missile systems blurred, and the US was not going to suddenly stop deploying air defense weapons. The notion that a distinction exists is archaic and reflects the practical limitations of its time but doesn't exist today for the US.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    Also, shooting down rogue nation launches has value and any hand-wringing over 'destabilization' is fairly ridiculous as nukes have counter measures and are launched in numbers that make it impractical to shoot down in mass numbers. The US's very limited shield may stop Iran or N Korea from hitting a population center (Tokyo, Tel Aviv, etc) but won't stop nuclear war with China or Russia if a full launch happened. There is no practical counter-measure over hundreds of ICBM's, sub launches, and bomber launches with many warheads per missile.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      US ABM deployment has nothing to do with rogue nations it has everything with reducing the effectiveness of Russia's strategic arsenal.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    I'm sorry but this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and a borderline fabrication. The US pulled out of the Anti-AMB treaty and followed it up by decades of increasing spending on purposefully built missile defense that has had nothing to do with air defense. SDI had nothing to do with air defense. GDB has nothing to do with air defense. THAAD has nothing to do with air defense. The only somewhat capable system which is dua use is SM3 and it's ABM capabilities are questionable at best. The US has an entire agency dedicated to missile defense https://www.mda.mil https://www.mda.mil. The US has also being playing it fast and loose with strategic launch platforms converting SSBNs to cruise missile subs without notification and planning to deploy dual use warheads on its balistic missile subs which is as ideas goes might win us all a Darwin Award.

jeffdavis 10y ago

The US and Russia have a special relationship because we've been to the brink and backed away respectfully. I hope that experience continues to instill mutual trust that we won't annihalate each other. No such trust exists with DPRK or Iran, which makes them dangerous. China doesn't seem particularly worried about nuclear attack, otherwise they would be more cooperative when it comes to DPRK. Disclaimer: I am not even close to an expert on this subject and my opinion is worth what you paid for it.

ekianjo 10y ago
China is the main supporter of the DPRK regime. It acts as a buffer against the US sphere of influence in the region.
- yladiz 10y ago
  One possibility of what would happen if there were a war/conflict would be China would take over NK and create a buffer Chinese state, possibly another country in the Two System, One Country philosophy. China is becoming increasingly intolerant of DPRK's actions, as evident by their stopping importing of coal due to the killing of Kim Jong-nam (which will hurt DPRK's economy as it is a large part of their exports). My guess is that the buffer country would be a compromise, since SK doesn't want China directly at their door and vice versa, but SK wouldn't be able to really support NK's terrible economic situation as their economy is too small, and the US wouldn't want China's influence in the region to too much grow. I could see another part of that compromise would be to allow NK citizens to go to SK to be with family, be reeducated, etc, as well.

dogma1138 10y ago

Russian tried the US walked out of the treaty and has been pulling quite a few risky moves.

jandrewrogers 10y ago
In fairness to the US, their missile engineering was sufficiently advanced that by the 1990s their "anti-missile" and "anti-aircraft" systems started to converge into general platforms that were indifferent to aerial target type. In effect, many of its anti-aircraft defense systems are also classified as anti-missile defense systems. Many decades ago, these were distinct kinds of systems due to technical capability limits that forced specialization. This is why the US pulled out of the ABM treaty. The distinction between their anti-aircraft systems and anti-missile systems blurred, and the US was not going to suddenly stop deploying air defense weapons. The notion that a distinction exists is archaic and reflects the practical limitations of its time but doesn't exist today for the US.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Also, shooting down rogue nation launches has value and any hand-wringing over 'destabilization' is fairly ridiculous as nukes have counter measures and are launched in numbers that make it impractical to shoot down in mass numbers. The US's very limited shield may stop Iran or N Korea from hitting a population center (Tokyo, Tel Aviv, etc) but won't stop nuclear war with China or Russia if a full launch happened. There is no practical counter-measure over hundreds of ICBM's, sub launches, and bomber launches with many warheads per missile.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    US ABM deployment has nothing to do with rogue nations it has everything with reducing the effectiveness of Russia's strategic arsenal.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  I'm sorry but this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and a borderline fabrication. The US pulled out of the Anti-AMB treaty and followed it up by decades of increasing spending on purposefully built missile defense that has had nothing to do with air defense. SDI had nothing to do with air defense. GDB has nothing to do with air defense. THAAD has nothing to do with air defense. The only somewhat capable system which is dua use is SM3 and it's ABM capabilities are questionable at best. The US has an entire agency dedicated to missile defense https://www.mda.mil https://www.mda.mil. The US has also being playing it fast and loose with strategic launch platforms converting SSBNs to cruise missile subs without notification and planning to deploy dual use warheads on its balistic missile subs which is as ideas goes might win us all a Darwin Award.