4 ms·
The US wouldn't launch ICBMs at NK. They would be dropped from bombers or launched from subs/ships. Most likely bombers though, which is what all of the saber
by Brybry 9y ago
The US wouldn't launch ICBMs at NK. They would be dropped from bombers or launched from subs/ships.
Most likely bombers though, which is what all of the saber rattling in the news with B52s/B1s has been about.
Also, China has a defense treaty with NK and has very publicly stated that it will honor its treaty unless NK strikes first.
Personally, I don't think nuking North Korea would even be an effective use of resources.
With modern military precision bombing I'd say it's serious overkill unless you want to destroy something like an entire carrier strike group or deliberately cause loss of civilian life.
- marcoperaza 9y agoPrecision strikes could probably take out their nuclear and missile program, and much of the top leadership, and probably cause the regime to eventually collapse. The problem is their artillery, spread throughout the south of the country, that poses a major threat to South Korea.
- Brybry 9y agoAgreed. And which was the stated reason for the Clinton administration not bombing North Korea and why I find it weird that North Korea has pushed the nuclear weapon issue. If North Korea can kill tens of thousands of people in Seoul in a few minutes with just artillery and no one wants to be responsible for that... then why do they feel the need for nukes?
- marcoperaza 9y agoOne can envision a world where the US accepts South Korean losses as acceptable, if unfortunate. But I don’t think we would ever accept the loss of an American city.
- D-Coder 9y agoBecause they feel the United States might take the risk of damage to South Korea. As long as US citizens aren't involved (other than a few tourists and business people in Seoul), the US has less skin in the game. If NK can directly threaten the US, the US has to be more careful.