dvfmfidc wrote:
That's when I worry about little fat rocket boy.Apparently, this latest ICBM is capable of striking anywhere on the US mainland. That increases the pucker factor greatly.
Then, you have to look at what in military strategy is called "intentions and capabilities." When assessing whether an enemy (or even a friend) presents a credible threat you look for indications of possible intention to do so, along with the capability to fulfill or carry out their intentions.
This is why a NorK ICBM presents such a high threat. Kim and the North talk far too much about making war on the United States, for one. That's a possible good indicator of a credible intention. Then you have their capabilities. We don't know at present whether they've been able to scale down a nuclear weapon such that it can be placed atop one of their new ICBMs (or even made into a MIRV, or "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle" (though there's no doubt they're trying hard to acquire the ability)), but it seems only a matter of time until they do so.
That gives them the capability, so we either move towards a MAD (mutual assured destruction) scenario with them, hoping they're not as crazy as they make themselves out to be, or we strike at them after allowing them to strike us first, taking a serious hit in the process, or we preemptively strike first them using conventional forces and weapons and hope we can keep the conflict from escalating into a war or, God forbid, a nuclear exchange with China or we remain at the current status, which cannot last for much longer, unfortunately.
None of the options above is palatable in the least, but it's where we're at.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."