3 ms·
The only realistic option is to wait this out. As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike. For NK, it would mean a swift, per
by crispyambulance 9y ago
The only realistic option is to wait this out.
As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike. For NK, it would mean a swift, permanent end to the regime. For the USA, it would mean an unacceptable level of causalities (not to mention a global economic disaster).
There is dissent in NK, it will eventually take out dear leader. This is the most desirable end-game for NK.
- program_whiz 9y agoIf the missle had hit japan this morning, would you still think that?
- DarkKomunalec 9y agoWhat he said was: Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties. Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides. How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?
- program_whiz 9y agoWhat I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike" My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.
- nazgul17 9y agoThe missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- crispyambulance 9y agoYes. The missile did not have a warhead on it. If, somehow, it ended up hitting Japan it certainly would have been a big scary incident but few causalities if any.