Your friendly reminder of potential consequences of starting a preemptive war with North Korea. (Now updated with some East Coast targets.)pic.twitter.com/wJ08sP4Te3
-
In a few years. When they’ve miniaturized and miniaturized and hardened nukes for launch and re-entry. The time to prevent that is now. And many presidents prior.
That's an optimistic and probably incorrect view of things. There is much to suggest they have these capabilities now. It's a risk not worth taking. You need a *REALLY GOOD REASON* to think deterrence won't work with them before you decide to risk hundreds of thousands of lives.
-
-
What suggests they have those capabilities? (To marry a miniaturized nuclear warhead into a viable RV on an ICBM capable of accurately hitting the US). Outside of mountain nukes and the recent HS-15 test.... how do we get from that to there?
-
Let's flip the question: what would make you think they *don't* have the ability? Every other nuclear state at a comparable level of testing has had the ability. It is also +50-year-old technology. So what's the rationale for thinking they can't do it, besides unbridled optimism?
-
DPRK isn’t China, Russia, et al. Not even close. So let’s not flip the question. Why the unbridled pessimism? Let’s talk reality. They haven’t proven it, yet. If there was ever a state which needed to prove it, based on infrastructure and resource limitations alone, it’s DPRK.
-
The conservative assumption is: if it looks like a miniaturized nuke, sounds like a miniaturized nuke, and looks like a pretty decent mobile ICBM — you should assume it is.
-
They've managed to do a pretty impressive and robust nuke and missile testing program. I don't know why anyone would look at their track record and think, "nah, they're just playing around, they've got no idea what they're doing."
-
As for "proving it" — ask yourself what would constitute sufficient proof. What do you want them to actually do? Do you really want them to do it? Etc. This is a losing game.
-
Separately: you don't have to take *my* word for their capabilities. Mattis, Dunford, plenty of others "in the know" have said that it is foolish to assume the DPRK do not already have a credible ICBM capability.
-
(It is mind-boggling to me that people who claim to be defense-minded think it is wise to underestimate an enemy that has shown themselves to be quite capable. It goes beyond foolish — it is actually dangerous.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Has it worked since Clinton?
-
Well, no city has been nuked yet
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You’re making a mistake pushing this. Nuclear proliferation is insane and you know it. It’s even more insane with a country like North Korea.
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.