SEOUL — South Korea’s defense minister on Monday said it was worth reviewing the redeployment of American tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula to guard against the North, a step that analysts warn would sharply increase the risk of an accidental conflict.I am skeptical it would increase risk. Short Fat only responds to serious threats. Thinking that an attack on South Korea could end with capital reduced to scrap might encourage a little more thought before making threats.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Please Bring Back Your Nukes
9/4/17 Washington Post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We have nothing to bring back. All the nuclear artillery rounds have been dismantled, and the Lance missile system was withdrawn from service in the early 1990s. Pershing was replaced by Pershing 2 and then it was withdrawn for the Theater Nuclear Weapons Treaty. In short the only weapon we can possibly bring back is the Sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile, who's warheads were placed in reserve stockpile a decade ago. But that means the weapons will be ship based: either on surface destroyers or on attack submarines off the Korean coast. Some of those destroyers are presently armed with SM-3 missiles intended to shoot down North Korean ballistic missiles. We either reduce the number of SM-3s we carry per destroyer, or we only rearm the submarines (which is probably just as well).
ReplyDeleteYes, we still have the B-61 tactical bomb, but we might as well leave them where they are: Guam. From there, if needed, we can redeploy them to a carrier in the East China Sea or drop using B-52s and B-2s from Guam. But the point is, asking for us to return our weapons is one thing; having weapons to actually return is another.