3 ms·
>I don't understand why the media downplays them so heavily. Because in the same way as morale can be a force multiplier, an extreme lack of it can be a force
by verandaguy 3y ago
>I don't understand why the media downplays them so heavily.
Because in the same way as morale can be a force multiplier, an extreme lack of it can be a force divider. Combine that with their (very likely) inability to sustain even a regional war for more than a few weeks, their antiquated equipment, and their largely unsuccessful domestic military developments, and it's not hard to write them off as largely a non-threat, whether or not this is truly the case.
The major downside is that even if they only manage to sustain for a few weeks, that's plenty of time to level Seoul and inflict damage on cities further south should they decide to make a push against the ROK, and this is what shouldn't be downplayed.
- bennyg 3y agoI’d bet they’re prepared to do a ton of damage to South Korea via cyberarms more than traditional weaponry too. Eg cut power to the country for days on end. They’ve clearly got 0days and aren’t afraid to use them.
- hollerith 3y agoIf 'cyberarms' are as potent as you think they are, then how come Russian cyberarms haven't done much damage to Ukraine?
- NegativeK 3y agoSince 2014, nations with a strong vested interest in Ukraine not falling threw a lot of resources at strengthening the country's infosec. Also, during a kinetic conflict where you're invading, it's often more strategically valuable to lie dormant in their networks than it is to scorch them, a la America sitting inside of Iraq's phone networks and just listening. There's a lot of work being done now to change it [1], but I've heard from multiple cybersecurity grunts in critical infrastructure that they just assume foreign APTs are in their networks. Strategically, why in the world wouldn't they be? There's basically no downside other than burning TTPs. We should damn well expect the NSA to have their fingers in every foreign pot they can reach. [1] To be fair, there was a lot of work before too. But now people are more scared.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hollerith 3y agoSo, you believe their nuclear weapons don't work?
- jncfhnb 3y agoProbably not, with insufficient confidence to assume that is the case
- waffleiron 3y agoThat's a strange assumption when many countries were able to independently verify nuclear tests between 2009 and 2017. The largest of which had a bast yield 4 to 12 times the nuke dropped on Nagasaki.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThese tests happened. Most experts suspect that their success rates were far below claimed outcomes. But the important question is can you put the bomb on a weapon, launch it, and detonate it at the target. I think probably not very successfully. I also suspect they’re not stockpiling these things as claimed. I also don’t think it matters because they would be pretty dumb to use them. I’m of the mindset that they will most likely simply collapse at some point and the nukes will become unmaintained and useless.