4 ms·

There are engineering reasons why NK can't build an ICBM yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A00QWVHem3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A00QWVHem3A Also, Kim

There are engineering reasons why NK can't build an ICBM yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A00QWVHem3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A00QWVHem3A Also, Kim Jong-un's actions seem to be rational saber-rattling. He saw what happened to Saddam after his nuclear program was decommissioned.

api 9y ago
The whole Saddam story and Iraq war II pretty much guarantees that all nations will seek nuclear armament and will refuse to truly comply with any deal. Yet another reason Bush II was the worst president of the last 100 years.
- MichaelMoser123 9y ago
  Gaddafi was the dictator of another country that got rid of its nuclear program, and he didn't end to we'll either (but that was on another US presidents watch)
  - api 9y ago
    Yes, but it was mostly Bush II who institutionalized that doctrine. Obama continued to some extent the neoconservative program with awful consequences. My main criticism of him is that he ran as a radical against those policies and then governed as a lukewarm yes man. Trump, as obnoxious as he is, would have to be truly terrible to beat the neocons.
    - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
      I read that Hillary Clinton was pushing for war in the case of Libya, so indeed this kind of policy seems to be institutionalized by now [1]. I wonder how that could happen, as the US didn't get any clear benefit out of the Iraq war, didn't she? By that point in time the consensus seems to have been that the war created a big mess and a big budget deficit, so how could it become institutionalized? [1] https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_inside_hillary_clinton https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_insid...
      - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
        also isn't the state department supposed to be more dovish if compared to the defense establishment? I am confused.
staunch 9y ago
This is a confused video. NK has ICBMs today. Look at their launches. What they don't have is advanced reentry vehicles and the large numbers of ICBMs necessary to really scare the US. A reentry vehicle isn't even necessary for an EMP weapon attack though. NK already launched satellites, which proves they can do everything short of reentry. Putin's KGB nuke team is working hard to help them get ready. Those "leaked" Russian designs for Super EMP weapons and Soviet ICBMs are working well so far.
- astrodust 9y ago
  They don't need a re-entry vehicle to cause enormous damage to a target. An atmospheric detonation would be sufficient to knock out electrical systems over multiple states in an instant. Can you imagine the mess that Puerto Rico is on power-wise, except over all of California, Nevada, Utah and Oregon?

api 9y ago

The whole Saddam story and Iraq war II pretty much guarantees that all nations will seek nuclear armament and will refuse to truly comply with any deal. Yet another reason Bush II was the worst president of the last 100 years.

MichaelMoser123 9y ago
Gaddafi was the dictator of another country that got rid of its nuclear program, and he didn't end to we'll either (but that was on another US presidents watch)
- api 9y ago
  Yes, but it was mostly Bush II who institutionalized that doctrine. Obama continued to some extent the neoconservative program with awful consequences. My main criticism of him is that he ran as a radical against those policies and then governed as a lukewarm yes man. Trump, as obnoxious as he is, would have to be truly terrible to beat the neocons.
  - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
    I read that Hillary Clinton was pushing for war in the case of Libya, so indeed this kind of policy seems to be institutionalized by now [1]. I wonder how that could happen, as the US didn't get any clear benefit out of the Iraq war, didn't she? By that point in time the consensus seems to have been that the war created a big mess and a big budget deficit, so how could it become institutionalized? [1] https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_inside_hillary_clinton https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_insid...
    - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
      also isn't the state department supposed to be more dovish if compared to the defense establishment? I am confused.

staunch 9y ago

This is a confused video. NK has ICBMs today. Look at their launches. What they don't have is advanced reentry vehicles and the large numbers of ICBMs necessary to really scare the US. A reentry vehicle isn't even necessary for an EMP weapon attack though. NK already launched satellites, which proves they can do everything short of reentry. Putin's KGB nuke team is working hard to help them get ready. Those "leaked" Russian designs for Super EMP weapons and Soviet ICBMs are working well so far.

astrodust 9y ago
They don't need a re-entry vehicle to cause enormous damage to a target. An atmospheric detonation would be sufficient to knock out electrical systems over multiple states in an instant. Can you imagine the mess that Puerto Rico is on power-wise, except over all of California, Nevada, Utah and Oregon?