4 ms·

"It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing" The norm is toothless though. If a country wants nukes, they just

"It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against nuclear testing" The norm is toothless though. If a country wants nukes, they just have to suffer through the economic sanctions by a few countries. NK government has every incentive to continue with the research and development. They don't give a damn about their starving population, and they get the ultimate terror card that they can milk for decades. We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity.

alacombe 9y ago
> We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity If I'm not mistaken, to some extend, both the Russian and the US already have this tech operational. Though, this would not protect with the obvious "first blood" intent of NK, in which case, Kim better pray for cover (rightfully so).
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    You say we can't tolerate even a single one getting through, but… what would a war look like between Russia and the USA if there were no nukes? Sure, a conventional war would never be as bad as 7,000 nukes, but one? Seven? Seven hundred? I expect conventional munitions would likely be better targeted, simply out of necessity, so the difference would be smaller than the ratio of TNT-equivalents.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    And then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then that land becomes unusable for decades.
    - imaginenore 9y ago
      It's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon
- imaginenore 9y ago
  None of the countries have a technology that can reliably stop a modern ICBM, let alone 7000 warheads simultaneously that Russia has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current_counter-ICBM_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current...
  - joering2 9y ago
    Why you assume such technology would be on display or general public knowledge? I'm sure there is tons of technology we regular civilians have no idea of, and its actually a good strategy.
    - imaginenore 9y ago
      That's not a convincing argument. Whatever is shown to us doesn't work well. From 2 months ago: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-to-intercept-target/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-...
      - joering2 9y ago
        The fact that most military projects are secret/top secret is not convincing argument? Everyone knows that what's "on display" is basically 10 years behind what military such as USA keeps in secret to use it as a last-resort type of response.
RobertoG 9y ago
"We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity." Maybe, but this is a very strange assessment of the NK situation. The obvious explanation is that the, in my opinion disgusting, NK regime is a rational actor that try to perpetuate itself in time. The only way to ensure that it's to avoid external interference. The only way to avoid external interference (Iraq style) is to have nuclear weapons. From this follow that they are not more eager to start a war that other nations. Probably less.
- nindalf 9y ago
  They have two goals, not one. The first is obviously self perpetuation, but the second is to flourish. The nukes give them the ability to blackmail their neighbours for everything they want and need, like food, money, weapons etc. I imagine Kim Jong Un will get a real kick out of getting South Korea and Japan to pay for all of his bills, even the concentration camps.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    I doubt very much this is the case. Suppose they ask for something to South Korea and they say "no way". What happens then? A war is suicide and they know it. I suppose you could extract a few sweets from things like "I will stop creating nuclear weapons" or something like this, but not serious blackmail is possible. It's just the old MAD (1) doctrine. We (the world) have a lot experience with that. As an European I'm used to the idea that my life is in the hands of some crazy guy in the Kremlin or the White House. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      MAD long term requires a world without accidents. I don't think the past 70 years and the number of near misses we've had should give anyone confidence that it will work long term.
      - RobertoG 9y ago

alacombe 9y ago

> We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity If I'm not mistaken, to some extend, both the Russian and the US already have this tech operational. Though, this would not protect with the obvious "first blood" intent of NK, in which case, Kim better pray for cover (rightfully so).

enraged_camel 9y ago
Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.
- ben_w 9y ago
  You say we can't tolerate even a single one getting through, but… what would a war look like between Russia and the USA if there were no nukes? Sure, a conventional war would never be as bad as 7,000 nukes, but one? Seven? Seven hundred? I expect conventional munitions would likely be better targeted, simply out of necessity, so the difference would be smaller than the ratio of TNT-equivalents.
- gambiting 9y ago
  And then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then that land becomes unusable for decades.
  - imaginenore 9y ago
    It's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon
imaginenore 9y ago
None of the countries have a technology that can reliably stop a modern ICBM, let alone 7000 warheads simultaneously that Russia has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current_counter-ICBM_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current...
- joering2 9y ago
  Why you assume such technology would be on display or general public knowledge? I'm sure there is tons of technology we regular civilians have no idea of, and its actually a good strategy.
  - imaginenore 9y ago
    That's not a convincing argument. Whatever is shown to us doesn't work well. From 2 months ago: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-to-intercept-target/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-missile-defense-test-fails-...
    - joering2 9y ago
      The fact that most military projects are secret/top secret is not convincing argument? Everyone knows that what's "on display" is basically 10 years behind what military such as USA keeps in secret to use it as a last-resort type of response.

RobertoG 9y ago

"We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity." Maybe, but this is a very strange assessment of the NK situation. The obvious explanation is that the, in my opinion disgusting, NK regime is a rational actor that try to perpetuate itself in time. The only way to ensure that it's to avoid external interference. The only way to avoid external interference (Iraq style) is to have nuclear weapons. From this follow that they are not more eager to start a war that other nations. Probably less.

nindalf 9y ago
They have two goals, not one. The first is obviously self perpetuation, but the second is to flourish. The nukes give them the ability to blackmail their neighbours for everything they want and need, like food, money, weapons etc. I imagine Kim Jong Un will get a real kick out of getting South Korea and Japan to pay for all of his bills, even the concentration camps.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  I doubt very much this is the case. Suppose they ask for something to South Korea and they say "no way". What happens then? A war is suicide and they know it. I suppose you could extract a few sweets from things like "I will stop creating nuclear weapons" or something like this, but not serious blackmail is possible. It's just the old MAD (1) doctrine. We (the world) have a lot experience with that. As an European I'm used to the idea that my life is in the hands of some crazy guy in the Kremlin or the White House. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    MAD long term requires a world without accidents. I don't think the past 70 years and the number of near misses we've had should give anyone confidence that it will work long term.
    - RobertoG 9y ago