Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
It only needs to catch the one with the nuke on it. While you've have probably read about mobile nuclear detectors at ports in the US to detect the emissions of neutron or gamma rays from the nuclear material in a warhead it is feasible that an interceptor missile could be equipped with a radiation detecting seeker to differentiate between a nuclear warhead, additional conventional warheads and decoys.
Also the North has to figure that with ground and sea based interceptors there would be a high attrition rate for the IRBMs meaning that if they chose to fire a nuclear missile as part of a strike there is a possibility that is would be shot down, not 100% but enough that the DPRK's few warheads might not reach their targets.
Its a psychological move much like in Desert Storm when the US publicized the [fictional] success of the Patriot.
|
The North is becoming unstable within and the leaders are desperate to get something going for them.
They probably want a peace agreement that gives them compensations and promises of trade and investment.
The other option could be a surprise attack, to invade some important enough locations in the South, to get more bargaining chips.
Now they really could believe these as viable options, not understanding how unrealistic they are.
I understand the South and US want to avoid war and hope for the peaceful collapse, but that seems to be the most unlikely scenario.
If there is a conflict the North will loose off course, but the WMDs are a big question.
If North can deliver a nuke, chemical or biological warheads in the South or Japan killing thousands of civilians, what is the US response going to be?
If the US doesnt retaliate, South, Japan (that would be their third time hit and i wouldnt blame them) and every other country nuclear capable will see the bluff and get their own.
This scenario is what the South and US dont want but the actions they are not taking drive the events down exactly that path.