3 ms·

Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent?

pm90 9y ago
ICBM's are a way of threatening civilian population centers, which usually gets the attention of a country much more than military troops, even if they might be sizeable. I mean, there are ~37,500 US soldiers on the Korean peninsula right now, not to mention equally large detachment in Japan, which are already well within range of DPRK's nuclear armaments. But its only when you read the news that a missile could hit NYC that Americans pay more attention/panic etc.
adventured 9y ago
Because with ICBMs, if the US attacks, the US faces a scenario of trading cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, DC, etc. for Pyongyang. The real problem North Korea has presented the US, is it's forced into a stalemate with a drastically inferior nation in all regards (much smaller population, few major cities, hyper small economy, weak overall military capabilities). Picture tiny, hyper impoverished Cuba holding the US hostage with hundreds of nukes so close to US territory, it's a similar concept once ICBMs get into the mix. Standing off with Russia and China, two great powers in most regards historically, the US could respect that context begrudging. If any entity goes nuclear, the exchanged loss is immense in all regards on both sides; China has a billion people, Russia has 144 million (the USSR had near 300 million); both have lots of major cities; both have vast military capabilities; and so on. It's a horribly bad exchange problem when you start adding up the trade. The US could lose a dozen or more major cities, millions of people, while North Korea loses hundreds of thousands of people living in a couple cities that are barely developed to begin with. Simply put, the US has dramatically more to lose in every regard, the scale is so far tipped to one side it's almost unthinkable to make such a trade with North Korea.
arwhatever 9y ago
The respondents here seem knowledgeable enough that I should take the opportunity to be more precise with my question: Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent, which itself should be adequate to secure their country against invasion? I guess the obvious answer would be that they want to be even more secure. But that is just a deduction on my part and as such, it feels like a bit of an unconfirmed piece in my understanding of the situation.

pm90 9y ago

ICBM's are a way of threatening civilian population centers, which usually gets the attention of a country much more than military troops, even if they might be sizeable. I mean, there are ~37,500 US soldiers on the Korean peninsula right now, not to mention equally large detachment in Japan, which are already well within range of DPRK's nuclear armaments. But its only when you read the news that a missile could hit NYC that Americans pay more attention/panic etc.

adventured 9y ago

Because with ICBMs, if the US attacks, the US faces a scenario of trading cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, DC, etc. for Pyongyang. The real problem North Korea has presented the US, is it's forced into a stalemate with a drastically inferior nation in all regards (much smaller population, few major cities, hyper small economy, weak overall military capabilities). Picture tiny, hyper impoverished Cuba holding the US hostage with hundreds of nukes so close to US territory, it's a similar concept once ICBMs get into the mix. Standing off with Russia and China, two great powers in most regards historically, the US could respect that context begrudging. If any entity goes nuclear, the exchanged loss is immense in all regards on both sides; China has a billion people, Russia has 144 million (the USSR had near 300 million); both have lots of major cities; both have vast military capabilities; and so on. It's a horribly bad exchange problem when you start adding up the trade. The US could lose a dozen or more major cities, millions of people, while North Korea loses hundreds of thousands of people living in a couple cities that are barely developed to begin with. Simply put, the US has dramatically more to lose in every regard, the scale is so far tipped to one side it's almost unthinkable to make such a trade with North Korea.

arwhatever 9y ago

The respondents here seem knowledgeable enough that I should take the opportunity to be more precise with my question: Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent, which itself should be adequate to secure their country against invasion? I guess the obvious answer would be that they want to be even more secure. But that is just a deduction on my part and as such, it feels like a bit of an unconfirmed piece in my understanding of the situation.