if hillary was president instead of trump i genuinely believe there would've been a war with iran, especially since she's been on record talking about obliterating iran
How many? How far can they fly? What percentage would survive a US pre-emptive strike and subsequent anti ballistic missile shield? How did the situation look 4 years ago?
Maybe before making cocky defiant statements one should look at the reality on the ground and not automatically assume "nuclear warhead = immediate invincibility"...
"seriously considering" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. There was also no direct attack in 1991, 1992, 1993... all the way up to 2010 when their first nuclear capable missiles were deployed. So as anyone can see the DPRK getting directly attacked or not has nothing to do with having or not having nuclear tipped missiles of dubious reliability. Moreover seeing how they first tested (notice tested, not deployed) their first missiles that are able to hit the US beyond bumfuck nowhere Alaska only late 2017 looks like you're just a cheap liar and there is quite a bit of a difference between 2016 and now.
Fact of the matter is actually existing hardware and capabilities take precedence over your magical thinking. But I guess I should cut you some slack since it's understandable how being only familiar with the latter you might confuse the two.
if hillary was president instead of trump i genuinely believe there would've been a war with iran, especially since she's been on record talking about obliterating iran
There would have very likely been wars with the DPRK and Syria and at the very least a resurgence of terrorist activity in Russia.
DPRK has nukes. Hillary is a semi-competent Imperialist, not a Possadist.
How many? How far can they fly? What percentage would survive a US pre-emptive strike and subsequent anti ballistic missile shield? How did the situation look 4 years ago?
Maybe before making cocky defiant statements one should look at the reality on the ground and not automatically assume "nuclear warhead = immediate invincibility"...
Dozens, by most estimates.
To Tokyo, at least. Also Alaska, but not to anything there worth hitting.
More than 0%.
Exactly the same.
You're just pulling shit out of your ass. No one's been seriously considering a direct attack on North Korea since they obtained nuclear weapons.
"seriously considering" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. There was also no direct attack in 1991, 1992, 1993... all the way up to 2010 when their first nuclear capable missiles were deployed. So as anyone can see the DPRK getting directly attacked or not has nothing to do with having or not having nuclear tipped missiles of dubious reliability. Moreover seeing how they first tested (notice tested, not deployed) their first missiles that are able to hit the US beyond bumfuck nowhere Alaska only late 2017 looks like you're just a cheap liar and there is quite a bit of a difference between 2016 and now.
Fact of the matter is actually existing hardware and capabilities take precedence over your magical thinking. But I guess I should cut you some slack since it's understandable how being only familiar with the latter you might confuse the two.