3 ms·
You may also loose your only chance to do damage that way. An incoming ICBM might get a response before it’s exact target is known.
by jacobush 6y ago
You may also loose your only chance to do damage that way. An incoming ICBM might get a response before it’s exact target is known.
- Udik 6y agoBut why would you do damage? Since NK could never possibly win a "damage" war with the US- disabling the US ability to retaliate or defend itself- the purpose of an attack by a country like NK can only be that of preventing further attacks or retaliations. And inflicting serious damage on the first shot is ensuring that such retaliation will happen. What NK needs is to make clear that the cost of attacking it can be unsustainably high, while provoking the least possible response.
- ohazi 6y agoITT: everyone rediscovers mutually assured destruction NK doesn't need to fire anywhere close to the US in order to do this. We're already watching them, and for the most part, they've already made it clear that attacking them might cost us a city or two. Putting on a nuclear waterworks in front of Los Angeles would be psychotically risky, because the US would need to decide whether or not to return fire before the US target is known. "Vaguely near Los Angeles" might as well be Los Angeles because of measurement uncertainties, late-stage course corrections, and MIRVs. As usual, the winning move is not to fire anything that might be construed as a nuke towards any of your enemies, unless you are prepared to die.
- Steve44 6y agoIt doesn't need to be an ICBM, it could be in a shipping container or a fishing boat. They just sail right into position.