Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul Selva echoed Defense Secretary James Mattis’ attempts to downplay North Korea’s ability to strike US sites with their ICBMs, saying that North Korea hasn’t directly demonstrated every single component of a functional ICBM, and thus the US can’t conclude that they necessarily have one.
This is true, of course, as North Korea hasn’t physically targeted anyplace with a nuclear warhead, which means we don’t know for sure they could reliably hit such a target, nor that the warhead would necessarily survive reentry.
Gen. Selva warned, however, that the North Koreans might well have such capability, and their mobile launchers mean the US might have no more than a few minutes notice if a launch was carried out.
Selva expressed confidence that the US can destroy “most” of North Korea’s infrastructure in a preemptive attack, though that clearly is distinct from “all,” and North Korea’s ability to retaliate against a US attack remains very much a substantial risk. Efforts by officials to downplay North Korea’s capabilities have been raising concerns the US is continuing to plot such an attack.
Lately there’s been a lot of pooh-poohing of the EMP bomb threat as well, although it doesn’t require terribly great accuracy in an ICBM.
Probably has more to do with keeping down criticisms of tough talk, which is the only real policy option.
Wow Pascals paradox, small chance of huge downside. What should we do?
If he is using this conclusion to suggest we strike now, then there is a chance we will find out if his conclusions are true. So 10% chance he hits Guam with 20,000 killed? I suppose then we conclude that the “bloody nose” operation we will lose 2000. Oh and the respect of the World
The US idea is always that if someone has a possibility to react (“the North Koreans might well have such capability”), that means that they will (as the USA no doubt would and does).
No suggestion is ever advanced that war/conflict/devastation, even of the wicked nasty enemies in North Korea/China/Russia/Venezuela… should be avoided, that negotiations and even efforts to understand a different point of view could be “on the table” with all the violent alternatives preferred by the “land of the free”.