Posted on Sep 28, 2018
Small question, big consequences: Is North Korea a nuclear power?
811
7
10
3
3
0
The technical state of North Korea's closely guarded nuclear program is unclear, but experts believe that Pyongyang can probably arm its short and midrange missiles with nuclear warheads. However, its ability to accurately fire longer range nuclear missiles at targets on the U.S. mainland — the benchmark for any viable nuclear arsenal — is probably not perfected.
Despite the uncertainties, some argue, North Korea is a nuclear power that will never relinquish its bombs.
Despite the uncertainties, some argue, North Korea is a nuclear power that will never relinquish its bombs.
Small question, big consequences: Is North Korea a nuclear power?
Posted from militarytimes.com
Intelligence
Conflict
North Korea
Korea
Nuclear
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
No nation has ever relinquished its nuclear arsenal which is why it's important to prevent them from getting one in the first place. However, North Korea could present an opportunity to seek a method of reversing that trend.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
South Africa did. There was also the issue of Soviet nukes in the former republics (though those weren't exactly their nukes).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1.) "Managing the treat" over a long (indefinite) period of time is not acceptable. All it takes for this guy to have one bad day - and who knows what will happen. Either he (and the rest of his government) goes or the nukes go.
2.) They wouldn't have to deliver the weapons by missile. They could do it other ways. Wasn't every howitzer and gun in the Soviet Army of 152mm or greater able to fire nuclear projectiles? And couldn't one conceive very quickly of various adaptive ways of moving such a relatively small nuclear weapon to its target (truck, civil aircraft, ship, boat, etc)?
But the US needs a way to destroy a nuclear-armed enemy "without getting any on us." As nuclear weapons proliferate, it's only a matter of time. It's not going to be indefinitely "managed." That's hope. To use a cliche, hope ain't a plan.
2.) They wouldn't have to deliver the weapons by missile. They could do it other ways. Wasn't every howitzer and gun in the Soviet Army of 152mm or greater able to fire nuclear projectiles? And couldn't one conceive very quickly of various adaptive ways of moving such a relatively small nuclear weapon to its target (truck, civil aircraft, ship, boat, etc)?
But the US needs a way to destroy a nuclear-armed enemy "without getting any on us." As nuclear weapons proliferate, it's only a matter of time. It's not going to be indefinitely "managed." That's hope. To use a cliche, hope ain't a plan.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe Kim will agree to stop nuclear weapons advancement. I do not believe he will agree to relinquish what he and his father before him worked so hard to obtain.
(1)
(0)
SSG Jessica Bautista
That's not likely. He needs that advancement to cement his position as a world power, especially in the eyes of Koreans.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google