Originally Posted by
KenV
Having Soviet era submarines and having Soviet era nuclear torpedoes are two very very different things. USN A-4s had a nuclear delivery capability. That does not mean that that delivery capability was included in A-4s sold to other nations, much much less the nukes themselves. This seems highly unlikely. Especially considering that DPRK has spent billions on developing nuclear weapons. They would not have needed to go to all that effort and expense if the Soviets had sold them nukes.
Last bit first as this is a valid point - how/where from did/do they get the basic raw material for their nuclear weapons? - they obviously have some - I did not mean to imply that the
Soviets had supplied the finished product nor the basic material.
Regarding delivery systems: if you can put such a warhead on a missile, then it should be easy to fit one in a torpedo (such Soviet era torpedoes had a yield of about 10kilotons, I think a worry for aircraft carriers, I suggest, and enough to consider in the defence of ports);
some of the old subs sold/given to NK in the past had launch tubes that could have been cannibalised or copied into some of their current subs so a short range missile could be used effectively - OK surfacing to launch would be suicidal for the crew but would that deter them and what is the difference between that and what was expected of our bomber crews back in the day (surely one way trips)?;
I just made the point that we should not just focus on the threat from ballistic missiles when they may have an easier, more reliable way of sending us a message - the numbers that they have could tie up the surveillance capabilities while one slips through.
I do not mean to be alarmist but I hope that this scenario is being considered by our military.