3 ms·
You don't need 100% reliance on ICBMs if your only aim just to hit enemy's mainland for the sake of it. Cheaper means are on the table. Much more relevant thea
by baybal2 6y ago
You don't need 100% reliance on ICBMs if your only aim just to hit enemy's mainland for the sake of it. Cheaper means are on the table.
Much more relevant theatre range weapons are things even NK can manufacture. I was very surprised to learn that North Korea not only designed a working cruise missile with their economy, but had a working terrain hugging flight on it.
- Waterluvian 6y agoThis got me thinking about the common misperception of how empty the Earth is: If you dropped a bomb of a certain type and strength on a random coordinate in <country> how many people do you kill on average?
- DuskStar 6y agoOn average, or by percentile? Because I think one is more likely to be revealing than the other. A 1Mt device might only have a 50% chance of killing 1+ people if detonated at the proper altitude at a random location within the US, (47% of the US is uninhabited) but average 1000 deaths (~6mi lethal radius, US overall population density of 90p/sqmi).
- Waterluvian 6y agoGood point on that. Yes, you've described my thought in much better detail.