No they won't. I you are talking about nuclear arms, they don't even have a working warhead yet.
Actually, that's a good point. Maybe they don't have warheads. But that's a point for me I think.
They've tested nuclear weapons - no one disputes that. If they haven't been able to make warheads out of them, then that only means that it's a few years out before they do have them. That doesn't affect my point; in fact it supports it since if they don't have warheads they still don't have the capability to throw nukes at Japan. They can still be stopped before that's possible.
If you are talking about missiles, they're breaking their economy to support their currently ridiculous level of militarization.
Ridiculous as it is, they've been doing that for more than a half-century so I don't why they'll be stalled now.
Nine out of nine shot down in Operation Iraqi LiberationFreedom. Their track record for 1:1 kills against tests on more modern systems is poorer, yes, but
1) Expecting a 1:1 kill ratio is ludicrously stupid. Not just in terms of practicality, but when dealing with a nuclear or chemical warhead, it is economical to have 10:1 ratios.
2) North Korea does not have access to the latest, or best, missile technology. Its tech is a lot more like Iraq's in this regard.
3) ABM technology is demonstrably progressive faster than BM tech.
4) A single ballistic missile costs multiple orders of magnitude more than an ABM, after R&D is out of the way. It's easy to dismiss the amount of R&D we put into ballistic missiles in the first place when looking at this.
Every missile Iraq fired in OIF was shot down. The ratio was around 2:1.
Shooting down a tactical ballistic missile is completely different from shooting down an ICBM which flies at a far higher altitude and a far higher speed. Compare the Taepodong-2 to what Iraq threw at us.
We don't have the ground forces in place to counter any offensive. Even if we did we don't have the MOPP gear to protect our forces (much less South Korea and Japan.
We invaded Iraq with 300,000 men; we only have 90,000 there now. I think that the notion that our resources are overstretched is...overstretched. But I'm also not saying that this is something we can do with just a flick of the wrist.
Additionally, the South Koreans - who are extremely well equipped - have some 3.6 million men including reservists against 5 or 6 million North Korean soldiers who are very poorly equipped. Our air force certainly isn't tied up so we can certainly provide massive air support. The whole reason that the North Koreans have built up artillery around Seoul is because they know the South could beat them alone.
And so long as he THREATENS but doesn't do.. he's walking that thing line that says he can be bought. Toss a missile over the Japan main islands.. he's hinting that he can be bought.. drop one in downtown Tokyo.. you've just pulled a 9/11 and the US/Japan won't come to the table till he's out of power.
He's a bandit king with modern weapons. He wants to get something from us, concessions, trade options and some form of empowerment. You show you CAN do something..the bigger power will negotiate. You DO IT.. they won't stop till you personally are dead, locked up but most assuredly out of power.
Right, well let's consider things ten years out. Say that he has a few dozen deliverable nuclear weapons and he is, like you say, a bandit king out for ransom.
In 2020, he throws a nuke at Nagoya to demonstrate he's capable of it, and announces that he has a second one to throw at Tokyo if anyone bothers to do anything about it. That is consistent with the "bandit king" logic, right?
Now it seems extremely important to avoid such a situation.