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
-
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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
Seems risks outweigh rewards for DPRK deploying this strategy. Perhaps instead ICBM launch in response to Trump's UN comments?
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.