![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Ocean Warrior
![]() |
![]()
ROK has a favourable military balance against DPRK even if we account for DPRK non strategic nuclear options as force multipliers. So in a sense ROK does not need nuclear weapons for warfighting or deterring an invasion.
__________________
Grumpy as always. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Soundman
![]() Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: The land of the free with a glorious military history (France)
Posts: 141
Downloads: 15
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
It does not *need* them per se, but having a balance of terror makes relations much more polite and courteous altogether. I doubt many neighbours would protest much if SK acquired nuclear-tipped SRBM in a relatively transparent program (AKA if they allowed Chinese and Japanese inspections of the program to reassure both of them about the missiles' capabilities).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Ocean Warrior
![]() |
![]() Quote:
There is a balance of terror. Nuclear weapons are, well, weapons - you can achieve similar effects through other means.
__________________
Grumpy as always. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
GLOBAL MODDING TERRORIST
|
![]()
I'd think they'd be better served to do cheap drones that projected a bigger threat.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Soundman
![]() Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: The land of the free with a glorious military history (France)
Posts: 141
Downloads: 15
Uploads: 0
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Ocean Warrior
![]() |
![]() Yet ROK is significantly stronger conventionally for such a balance to exist. And this is not the first time - think of 1940s (and to lesser extend in 1960s) when USSR either didn't have nuclear weapons or was at a significant disadvantage. Yet through the conventional advantage in Europe the balance has been maintained.
__________________
Grumpy as always. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
north korea |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|