4 ms·

No issue with your main point, but "pursuing nuclear weapons" is such a strange and revealing phrase. North Korea has nuclear weapons. They've had nuclear weapo

by zopa 4y ago

No issue with your main point, but "pursuing nuclear weapons" is such a strange and revealing phrase. North Korea has nuclear weapons. They've had nuclear weapons for at least 16 years (probably over 20). The last best chance to roll back their nuclear program was in the mid-aughts, and it didn't work. Lots of good and useful steps we could pursue to reduce tensions and make an accidental nuclear war on the Korean peninsula less likely, even with a regime as awful as the one in Pyongyang. But being a superpower means never needing to admit we've lost at something, I guess.

heyoni 4y ago
So are they just missing ICBM’s then?
JustLurking2022 4y ago
That's not accurate, a nuclear capability is not as binary as you make it out to be. In no particular order, there's: - Having a bomb - having one that works consistently (NK has conducted tests that likely failed to produce the expected yield) - having a device miniaturized to go on a missile - having a missile capable of hitting targets at significant range (reliably) - solid fuel rocketry (fueling can be a giveaway of an imminent strike on liquid fueled, allowing preemptive action) - Evading missile defense systems - MIRV
- zopa 4y ago
  You can argue that it's oversimplified, but it's definitely not inaccurate. I'm not even sure it's oversimplified, though. Your list is a good set of things to worry about if you're going to fight a nuclear war. But from a strategic perspective, what matters is whether the capability is enough to deter, and I'd argue that even the lower end of likely North Korean capabilities is plenty, for most scenarios besides an outright North Korean invasion of South Korea. Yeah, the missiles might miss and maybe the bombs won't explode, but are you really willing to gamble with Seoul, Tokyo and Los Angeles? Anyway --- sure, let's negotiate about missile technology. That'd be great. But those negotiations aren't going to go anywhere unless we recognize that full nuclear disarmament in the near-term is a big ask, and extremely unlikely.

by zopa 4y ago

heyoni 4y ago

So are they just missing ICBM’s then?

JustLurking2022 4y ago

That's not accurate, a nuclear capability is not as binary as you make it out to be. In no particular order, there's: - Having a bomb - having one that works consistently (NK has conducted tests that likely failed to produce the expected yield) - having a device miniaturized to go on a missile - having a missile capable of hitting targets at significant range (reliably) - solid fuel rocketry (fueling can be a giveaway of an imminent strike on liquid fueled, allowing preemptive action) - Evading missile defense systems - MIRV

zopa 4y ago
You can argue that it's oversimplified, but it's definitely not inaccurate. I'm not even sure it's oversimplified, though. Your list is a good set of things to worry about if you're going to fight a nuclear war. But from a strategic perspective, what matters is whether the capability is enough to deter, and I'd argue that even the lower end of likely North Korean capabilities is plenty, for most scenarios besides an outright North Korean invasion of South Korea. Yeah, the missiles might miss and maybe the bombs won't explode, but are you really willing to gamble with Seoul, Tokyo and Los Angeles? Anyway --- sure, let's negotiate about missile technology. That'd be great. But those negotiations aren't going to go anywhere unless we recognize that full nuclear disarmament in the near-term is a big ask, and extremely unlikely.