2 ms·

With many they can't. They didn't do it to North Korea because that would involve China and cause WWIII and besides, they would level Seoul with conventional ar

With many they can't. They didn't do it to North Korea because that would involve China and cause WWIII and besides, they would level Seoul with conventional artillery. But really, North Korea seems to be more quiet since they have them. I think the world would have been less safe if they'd been attacked.

DoctorOetker 8mo ago
I have seen no convincing evidence that NK has miniaturized nuclear weapons sufficiently to put in on an ICBM, nor have I seen convincing evidence that they can handle the complexities of re-entry. If they want to be taken seriously they should give actual demonstrations instead of posturing. You know, like how US / Russia used to allow each other to inspect each others submarines, count warheads, etc. NK can feign concern like revealing trajectory choices, radar signatures etc. but those can all be addressed: stick a big retroreflector on it that drowns out any actual radar signature, use a ridiculous trajectory, that still puts a representative heat and temperature burden on the re-entry vehicle, and so on and so on. It seems NK doesn't want to be taken seriously (and the same for Israel when it comes to nuclear weapons to be honest).
- wolvoleo 8mo ago
  Oh I'd take them seriously alright. All they have to do is put one inside a ship and sail it inside a harbour. Or in the back of a semi. That's a risk not worth taking. They have exploded several, they're a credible threat now. But they only seem to be interested in using it as a deterrent, which is the sane choice given mutually assured destruction. They won't use them offensively as they'll just get wiped out. If they had been attacked before building them I'm sure many people in Seoul would have died from artillery attacks and perhaps China would have got into a hot war with the US. I think we're better off that it didn't. I'm pretty sure Iran would have done the same thing.. They're pretty sane too. Evil and terrible murderers to their citizens but they're not going to play nuclear chicken with a thousand times more powerful enemy.

DoctorOetker 8mo ago

I have seen no convincing evidence that NK has miniaturized nuclear weapons sufficiently to put in on an ICBM, nor have I seen convincing evidence that they can handle the complexities of re-entry. If they want to be taken seriously they should give actual demonstrations instead of posturing. You know, like how US / Russia used to allow each other to inspect each others submarines, count warheads, etc. NK can feign concern like revealing trajectory choices, radar signatures etc. but those can all be addressed: stick a big retroreflector on it that drowns out any actual radar signature, use a ridiculous trajectory, that still puts a representative heat and temperature burden on the re-entry vehicle, and so on and so on. It seems NK doesn't want to be taken seriously (and the same for Israel when it comes to nuclear weapons to be honest).

wolvoleo 8mo ago
Oh I'd take them seriously alright. All they have to do is put one inside a ship and sail it inside a harbour. Or in the back of a semi. That's a risk not worth taking. They have exploded several, they're a credible threat now. But they only seem to be interested in using it as a deterrent, which is the sane choice given mutually assured destruction. They won't use them offensively as they'll just get wiped out. If they had been attacked before building them I'm sure many people in Seoul would have died from artillery attacks and perhaps China would have got into a hot war with the US. I think we're better off that it didn't. I'm pretty sure Iran would have done the same thing.. They're pretty sane too. Evil and terrible murderers to their citizens but they're not going to play nuclear chicken with a thousand times more powerful enemy.