While North Korea certainly has a long way to go before they are able to reliably deliver a missile accurately, I'd like to draw your attention to my weasel words. "Reliably" and "Accurately".apollonights wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:11 pmTL;DR - For planning purposes it would be wise to assume that North Korea has up to 500 KT warheads that they can use regionally. They are still a ways out from being able to even hit Alaska though, at least with what they've shown us so far. Not only that but we haven't even gotten into issues of reliability or missile defense.
They can hit Alaska. They can probably hit the United States, at least the West Coast. They can strike with an EMP. Now, those missile may fail or go off course or miss the mark or not even detonate. In fact, it is very likely they will do one of those things if not all of them.
The concern is that people are so wrapped up in what North Korea can do reliably that they lose sight of what they can just plain old do. If only one out of 20 attempts makes it, does that matter?
While North Korea isn't likely to start throwing around missiles until their programme is ready, it is unwise to discount the threat they pose. If the US were to attack (or if North Korea decides to attack), they will use what they have, ready or not.