|
|
|
|
|
|
by varren
3027 days ago
|
|
|
ABM defenses change things in a context of mutual nuclear _disarmament_ not in ability to annihilate each other. If USA stops playing according to the agreements, why others should? Yes, USA is saying that it has to come up with something like this to counter rogue states and I can believe that. But why should Russia/China or any other country keep their part of the mutual nuclear disarmament bargain in that case? (ABM defenses is part of the deal here) Everyone has a different view on how to enforce peace. There is actually a theory in international relations that the safest earth can get is when everyone have nuclear weapons capable of destroying everyone else.[2] And it is part of a neorealist theory so Russia and China are pretty "realistic" in their approach. To be honest the safest way for any country is to have such a weapon that can crush the earth if used. Is it safe for humanity? No. But it is definitely the safest way to ensure your regime. "The US had to do something like this because of North Korea"
Well, USA never did anything about Israel, Pakistan, India. There are 10+ more countries "being one screwdriver's turn" from the bomb. Why bother now? And here is another POV: Initially ABM defense was advertised to stop Iran ballistic missile development and USA sold lots of Aegis parts to Europe/Turkey/Saudi Arabia. And Russians freaked out about radars in Poland covering most part of western Russia and backed Iran... And I think they had their reasons for concern because Poland wasn't even in range of Iranian missiles at that time. And it goes on and on, but anyway it pretty much started the new race on a global scale. Doesn't matter who was the first: India/Pakistan/NK/Iran, ABM escalated it to a completely new level. Btw i doubt many ppl know that it was Pakistan who started NK nuclear development in 2002.[2] "But would we have a chance at stopping one North Korean nuke? Yes"
And that's the real danger. If someone in Japan or South Korea think the same, that they are truly protected with this shield, they will have strong desire to influence/provoke North Korea/ try a regime change... And that can cause a full scale war with nuclear state. The point here: is it really secure or just an illusion of security? And btw North Korea probably has more that just 1-10 or even 100 nukes at this point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_peace [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93Pakistan_r... |
|
|
Under current circumstances, neither Israel nor India are going to even try to attack the US. Pakistan might be tempted, but I believe they don't have a ballistic missile capable of reaching the US. So there was less reason to do anything about them. (Iran, now, is more worrying.)
> If someone in Japan or South Korea think the same, that they are truly protected with this shield...
But I don't think anybody believes that. Could it stop a North Korean nuke? Hopefully, yes. Is anyone confident enough to want to try it? I doubt it; nobody believes that ABM defenses are anything like 100% reliable.
> And btw North Korea probably has more that just 1-10 or even 100 nukes at this point.
I think it's about 10-20 warheads. Do they have 10-20 ICBMs that are operational? I doubt it, but I don't know for certain.