Nuclear Deterrence

>>8479345
When was the last time someone invaded a nuclear weapon state?

Oh right

>>8479349
correlation =/= causation

>>8479345
Yes and no. It depends.
It depends on the likely hood of a counter value or counter force attack and the chances of preventing launch or preforming a shootdown. It also depends on the collateral. Nuclear weapons are the boogymen of modern warfare, the fact of the matter is nuclear warheads are more efficient than ever and produce hardly any radiation. It's why (other than the fact that using nuclear weapons removes the arms escalation glass ceiling) they can legitimately be considered as useful tactical assets in a modern war now. If it's worth attacking a country with little to no throw weight behind it, so per se North Korea or Pakistan then the hit from the nuclear weapons might be a beneficial trade off to attacking and winning whatever you wanted in the first place.

It certainly creates a balancing factor to make ANY nation think twice but if it came down to it, there are only a few countries that would avoid attacking their nuclear armed neighbors. Pakistan and India are one, and S/N Korea are the other pair.

Pakistan and India are reluctant to fire nuclear weapons at each other because it would mean a prompt strike from the other so both are content with local small fighting on the border for the next hundred years since Pakistan can't do much and India controls the kashmir.

South Korea could demolish the North in a fight but the North has the potential to glass Seoul/Incheon before they are taken out, this is a huge counter balancing factor for the South. If North Korea were magically transported to be beside the States, then the States probably would have invaded many times already nukes or not.

>>8479360
>correlation =/= causation

Yeah, tell that to Saddam.

>>8479345
>Do Nuclear Weapons prevent invasion from foreign forces?

Absolutely.

Can the US crash NK in a war?
Absolutely.
Will they consider it as anything other than an absolutely last resort?
Certainly not.


Having nuclear weapons, even with generally inadequate delivery capabilities and small numbers makes you 100 times less likely to be invaded by the US or Russia like any other banana republic.

>>8479345

Yes.

Why? Because of the aforementioned countervalue and counterforce flexibility nuclear weapons possesses.

It rendered all major land warefare tactics last seen during the Korean War and the Second World War obsolete.

The major governments during the Cold War knew this, which eventually gave way to NATO and Warsaw Pact forces (with its various exercises such as REFORGER), then eventually proxy wars.

The threat of nuclear combat is still present, and will remain a major deterrent for decades to come.