The article says that the KMPR (or whatever) is the best option they have because they don’t have nuclear capabilities.....or am I reading that wrong?
Re: SK nukes - We may have some translation errors.
A non technical observation and question
Nuclear weapons are a 70+ year old technology. Imagine saying to a nation - Don’t build a 1944 Chevrolet or the equivalent of a Sherman tank. If you trust you physics would you need to test a device to know it would work?
A uranium bomb is actually rather easy to make provided you have enough enriched uranium.
Question #1:
Could S. Korea have purchased enough uranium or even plutonium to build a bomb on the sly?
If they did they might not have to test their bomb if they trust their physics
Question #2:
Would the Israeli’s sell them a bomb or two on the sly as payback for North Korea giving the technology to Syria?
The article is confusing. I thought the SK “ballistic missiles” were armed with nukes. Ok, on second reading, looks like you are correct.
I gotta quit speed reading. :-)