Testing a live nuclear warhead on an actual ballistic missile is risky from many perspectives, which is why US only did it once in Cold War.
Show this thread
Risks include: 1. Missile goes off course, detonates somewhere undesirable (e.g. inhabited). Bad. 2. Test mistaken for attack. Double bad.
-
-
3. Missile and test work as planned, but area is improperly evacuated. Bad. (Cf., Bravo test.)
Show this thread -
4a. Missile gets shot down by people playing with ballistic missile defense. Bad for DPRK.
Show this thread -
4b. Ballistic missile defense attempts to shoot it down, but fails to hit it. Good for DPRK, bad for BMD (e.g. US).
Show this thread -
5. Missile fails, warhead destroyed, plutonium dispersed. Bad for DPRK, maybe for others (depends where it fails).
Show this thread -
6. Missile succeeds, but warhead fails/fizzles. Bad for DPRK.
Show this thread -
These accumulated risks are enough that I would think that DPRK would *not* choose to try this.
Show this thread -
There are only a few "good" outcomes here for DPRK, and they'd be hard to judge the probability of occurring versus the others.
Show this thread -
Presumably their military and scientific people are aware of this. If DPRK wants to rattle US, or demonstrate capability, many other ways.
Show this thread -
But ultimately, it's up to them—so who knows? Nations have been known to take bad risks in the past. Including "sane" nations like USA.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
3. Missile explodes before launch. Triple... good? Depending upon how close said madman is to blast zone?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.