• destroyamerica
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    And those can be intercepted, especially if the distance is long as it is to the US mainland and the enemy has a large military presence in between, which the US does with its navy and its many bases in the Pacific

    I think an important aspect to consider here is that south korea might be close enough to intercept their missiles during the phase they are by far the most vulnerable (launch phase)

    • ComradeSalad
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      That is not true at all. Missiles are intercepted at their terminal peak or in high altitude transit but anti-ballistic missiles. It just isn’t possible to intercept during launch unless the interceptor is somehow launched before the nuke.

      Further, is Korea fires the nukes over the pole to hit the US, or East towards Japan, there is nothing Korea can do to help.

      • destroyamerica
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        That is not true at all.

        I used the wrong word, first phase is called “boost phase”. but it’s by far the most viable time to intercept if you can actually get the interceptor off targeting a ICBM because of their relatively slow speed compared to the mid-course (phase 2) and especially terminal (phase 3), as well as being much easier to blow up. The biggest issue is how close you need your defense systems, and SK korea might be close enough for a few of their launch sites, is my point.

        • cfgaussian
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Indeed, and this is exactly what i was hinting at. There is a reason why the US insists on building bases so close to their adversaries, and why in turn this poses such a large threat to those same adversaries.

          If you get your missile interceptors or even just your radars stationed close enough to the enemy borders you may be able to negate their nuclear deterrent, which is an existential threat for a nation that relies on nuclear deterrence because then mutual destruction is no longer assured.

          Moreover this massively increases the risk of nuclear conflict because then the country that has managed to negate its principal opponent’s nuclear arsenal is incentivized to launch a nuclear first strike asap as they may not have this same window of opportunity later. Luckily the US can’t do this to Russia no matter what because Russia still has nuclear submarines.