3 ms·

Do we think that their ballistic missiles are as capable as they portray in their state run media? As far as I know, most military strategists doubt the missil

Do we think that their ballistic missiles are as capable as they portray in their state run media? As far as I know, most military strategists doubt the missiles can actually reach US mainland. As for South Korea, they have always been close enough to suffer catastrophic damages by traditional non-nuclear action, so why are they willing to come to the table now? Unless they are preemptively trying to avoid retaliation on their own soil because of a US - led strike on North Korea.

barkingcat 9y ago
In the grand scheme of things, whether they are "as capable" doesn't really matter. If a nuke goes into Hawaii, does that matter psychologically if it doesn't reach US Mainland? All they need is a credible threat of force. That's why nukes are a separate category from conventional explosive tipped ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. A dirty nuclear strike can render a place uninhabitable for the next 100 years. Imagine wiping Hawaii off the US vacation list for a century.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  Yeah, and the current status quo isn't permanent. It's only a matter of time before their missiles improve enough. Whether it's one year or ten years, it's going to happen. It can't not happen.
- Fjolsvith 9y ago
  > Imagine wiping Hawaii off the US vacation list for a century. Yeah, and the last time we suffered an attack at Hawaii, we beat their door down. I'm 49 years old but I would re-enlist to help with that kind of revenge.
Brockenstein 9y ago
It's only a matter of time before their missiles do get good enough. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it. And its not going to do much good to wait until that day comes. >As for South Korea, they have always been close enough to suffer catastrophic damages by traditional non-nuclear action, so why are they willing to come to the table now? Just because that's been a risk they've lived with for 65 years doesn't mean they're happy or willing to suffer it. There's been multiple efforts over decades to try and resolve the relationship with the North and South, this isn't the first time or first attempt or anything. It's been a big issue in Korea for a long time. >Unless they are preemptively trying to avoid retaliation on their own soil because of a US - led strike on North Korea. Ideally. War is bad. It's bad for people. It's bad for economies. And look at it this way. If there was a problem in the U.S., does the U.S. want to solve their own problems or would they prefer China to step in and take care of it for them? Most countries want to solve their own problems and manage their own affairs if they can. National pride and such. Yeah, if fighting broke out between North and South Korea, they'll take our help because winning is what matters. But if they can negotiate their own peace and own reconciliation that leave the U.S. on the bench, they'll be perfectly happy to do that.
maxerickson 9y ago
I'm no international relations expert. Still, I think even a modest chance of a catastrophic attack against US civilians becomes a big factor.

barkingcat 9y ago

In the grand scheme of things, whether they are "as capable" doesn't really matter. If a nuke goes into Hawaii, does that matter psychologically if it doesn't reach US Mainland? All they need is a credible threat of force. That's why nukes are a separate category from conventional explosive tipped ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. A dirty nuclear strike can render a place uninhabitable for the next 100 years. Imagine wiping Hawaii off the US vacation list for a century.

Brockenstein 9y ago
Yeah, and the current status quo isn't permanent. It's only a matter of time before their missiles improve enough. Whether it's one year or ten years, it's going to happen. It can't not happen.
Fjolsvith 9y ago
> Imagine wiping Hawaii off the US vacation list for a century. Yeah, and the last time we suffered an attack at Hawaii, we beat their door down. I'm 49 years old but I would re-enlist to help with that kind of revenge.

Brockenstein 9y ago

It's only a matter of time before their missiles do get good enough. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it. And its not going to do much good to wait until that day comes. >As for South Korea, they have always been close enough to suffer catastrophic damages by traditional non-nuclear action, so why are they willing to come to the table now? Just because that's been a risk they've lived with for 65 years doesn't mean they're happy or willing to suffer it. There's been multiple efforts over decades to try and resolve the relationship with the North and South, this isn't the first time or first attempt or anything. It's been a big issue in Korea for a long time. >Unless they are preemptively trying to avoid retaliation on their own soil because of a US - led strike on North Korea. Ideally. War is bad. It's bad for people. It's bad for economies. And look at it this way. If there was a problem in the U.S., does the U.S. want to solve their own problems or would they prefer China to step in and take care of it for them? Most countries want to solve their own problems and manage their own affairs if they can. National pride and such. Yeah, if fighting broke out between North and South Korea, they'll take our help because winning is what matters. But if they can negotiate their own peace and own reconciliation that leave the U.S. on the bench, they'll be perfectly happy to do that.

maxerickson 9y ago

I'm no international relations expert. Still, I think even a modest chance of a catastrophic attack against US civilians becomes a big factor.