4 ms·

You are assuming rational actors. Some of them aren't. Also, know, that as soon as war starts with NK, they will start shelling Seoul with traditional artiller

You are assuming rational actors. Some of them aren't. Also, know, that as soon as war starts with NK, they will start shelling Seoul with traditional artillery within a few minutes before we could do anything about it. I think Bannon estimated it at 10M deaths within the first 30 minutes with conventional weapons. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-artillery_us_58f631a4e4b0b9e9848eb990 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-artillery_us... Edit: Bannon casualty estimates and link. “Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.” https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/17/16162332/bannon-american-prospect-north-korea-military https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/17/16162332/bannon-american...

colordrops 9y ago
Some aren't, but I've not seen any leaders of nations that are not mostly rational, considering that crazy looking actions may be their best bet when factoring in game theory against more powerful entities.
- Someone 9y ago
  Indeed. Some people think North Korea _acts_ being irrational because it is the rational thing to do. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivor-not-a-madman/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivo...: "While North Korea’s nuclear program is defensive, it still makes sense to remind the world about its existence and use what President Richard Nixon once described as “madman strategy,” that is, to appear to one’s opponents to be irrational, volatile, and willing to disregard costs. That’s why North Korean propaganda uses such fiercely colorful language. When North Korean TV promises to “make Seoul into a sea of fire,” or threatens to nuke Canberra, or shows Kim Jong Un in front of a map of the United States with cities marked as targets of nuclear strikes, they are delivering the same message: “we are here, we are volatile, and will stop at nothing if our opponents do something threatening.”" Madman strategy has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory, which states Machiavelli wroet sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"
  - worldsayshi 9y ago
    There's a fine line between mad and truly irrational though. If your opponents truly believe that you are irrational and volatile then their most rational response should be to do anything in their power to neutralise you before you can harm them.
    - abraae 9y ago
      The best thing is to appear like you are somewhat holding it together most of the time, but when pushed - when your temper flips on - that's when the big crazy comes out. That was more how Nixon used to play it. That's better than just full crazy all the time, which as you say, might draw a more dangerous response from your opponents.
- alexbeloi 9y ago
  I think relevant game theory is happening within the leader's cabinet, if the leader feels their position is under threat and things are spiraling out of control, one risky option is to create a crisis and use it as an opportunity to cull dissenters and shore up loyalists.
aerovistae 9y ago
I have no knowledge of it, but I want to believe that since everyone, even common folk like you and I, are aware of that possibility, the militaries of South Korea and the US must have something in place to mitigate that, some sort of instant-reaction type airforce ready to take off at a second's notice to neutralize such artillery. edit: I just read the article you linked to. I still want to believe the authors may not quite have all the information. After all, if such a way to neutralize them existed, but North Korea believed their position there untouchable, we wouldn't want to publicize our plan. Far from unprecedented.
- foota 9y ago
  While I appreciate the optimistic thoughts, they do have thousands of seemingly well hidden and dispersed artillery pieces. Seems like the only way to prevent an attack would be with complete destruction of the area of North Korea that's within range of Seoul.
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  As my mother used to say, "Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first." Because of the proximity of the two countries, what you hope for is logistically impossible. Traditional artillery can't be intercepted in the way your describing. Unless sabotaged beforehand(which is unlikely since North Korea is an intelligence services black hole), by the time we scramble a response to take out their artillery, the damage is done. Nukes are largely out of the question as well, unless you plan to blanket South Korea and Japan in radioactive fallout.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Everyone being aware of the dangers of, say, heart disease doesn't miraculously make a cure appear. And within the game of MAD North Korea is playing against the US and South Korea, I'm pretty sure it would be beneficial for the US to publicise the ability to neutralise the threat against Seoul. Because that threat is what gives NK the safety to continue the development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The only reason not to publicise such capabilities would be the possibility to, in turn, neutralise this "instant-reaction type airforce" (or whatever it may be). And I'm having a hard time coming up with any realistic scenario.
exabrial 9y ago
Oddly enough, I first learned about this fact from a movie, Behind Enemy Lines 2 I believe, or one of the Splinter Cell games...
anarazel 9y ago
> Also, know, that as soon as war starts with NK, they will start shelling Seoul with traditional artillery within a few minutes before we could do anything about it. I think Bannon estimated it at 20 million deaths within a few hours. Just to make that clear: This isn't a revelation Bannon had, at least not remotely first. That military solutions to the NK problem would involve tremendous human cost has widely been publicly reported on, often enough with well documented sources. Before the last few weeks the US govt admitted as much.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Oh I understand it wasn't Bannon's original realization. I'm sure the US realized the situation as soon as spy planes saw them putting the artillery in place. He was just the most recent person to describe the situation to the public.
  - anarazel 9y ago
    IOW, the last 40+ years.

colordrops 9y ago

Some aren't, but I've not seen any leaders of nations that are not mostly rational, considering that crazy looking actions may be their best bet when factoring in game theory against more powerful entities.

Someone 9y ago
Indeed. Some people think North Korea _acts_ being irrational because it is the rational thing to do. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivor-not-a-madman/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivo...: "While North Korea’s nuclear program is defensive, it still makes sense to remind the world about its existence and use what President Richard Nixon once described as “madman strategy,” that is, to appear to one’s opponents to be irrational, volatile, and willing to disregard costs. That’s why North Korean propaganda uses such fiercely colorful language. When North Korean TV promises to “make Seoul into a sea of fire,” or threatens to nuke Canberra, or shows Kim Jong Un in front of a map of the United States with cities marked as targets of nuclear strikes, they are delivering the same message: “we are here, we are volatile, and will stop at nothing if our opponents do something threatening.”" Madman strategy has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory, which states Machiavelli wroet sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness"
- worldsayshi 9y ago
  There's a fine line between mad and truly irrational though. If your opponents truly believe that you are irrational and volatile then their most rational response should be to do anything in their power to neutralise you before you can harm them.
  - abraae 9y ago
    The best thing is to appear like you are somewhat holding it together most of the time, but when pushed - when your temper flips on - that's when the big crazy comes out. That was more how Nixon used to play it. That's better than just full crazy all the time, which as you say, might draw a more dangerous response from your opponents.
alexbeloi 9y ago
I think relevant game theory is happening within the leader's cabinet, if the leader feels their position is under threat and things are spiraling out of control, one risky option is to create a crisis and use it as an opportunity to cull dissenters and shore up loyalists.

aerovistae 9y ago

I have no knowledge of it, but I want to believe that since everyone, even common folk like you and I, are aware of that possibility, the militaries of South Korea and the US must have something in place to mitigate that, some sort of instant-reaction type airforce ready to take off at a second's notice to neutralize such artillery. edit: I just read the article you linked to. I still want to believe the authors may not quite have all the information. After all, if such a way to neutralize them existed, but North Korea believed their position there untouchable, we wouldn't want to publicize our plan. Far from unprecedented.

foota 9y ago
While I appreciate the optimistic thoughts, they do have thousands of seemingly well hidden and dispersed artillery pieces. Seems like the only way to prevent an attack would be with complete destruction of the area of North Korea that's within range of Seoul.
alphonsegaston 9y ago
As my mother used to say, "Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first." Because of the proximity of the two countries, what you hope for is logistically impossible. Traditional artillery can't be intercepted in the way your describing. Unless sabotaged beforehand(which is unlikely since North Korea is an intelligence services black hole), by the time we scramble a response to take out their artillery, the damage is done. Nukes are largely out of the question as well, unless you plan to blanket South Korea and Japan in radioactive fallout.
matt4077 9y ago
Everyone being aware of the dangers of, say, heart disease doesn't miraculously make a cure appear. And within the game of MAD North Korea is playing against the US and South Korea, I'm pretty sure it would be beneficial for the US to publicise the ability to neutralise the threat against Seoul. Because that threat is what gives NK the safety to continue the development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The only reason not to publicise such capabilities would be the possibility to, in turn, neutralise this "instant-reaction type airforce" (or whatever it may be). And I'm having a hard time coming up with any realistic scenario.

exabrial 9y ago

Oddly enough, I first learned about this fact from a movie, Behind Enemy Lines 2 I believe, or one of the Splinter Cell games...

anarazel 9y ago

> Also, know, that as soon as war starts with NK, they will start shelling Seoul with traditional artillery within a few minutes before we could do anything about it. I think Bannon estimated it at 20 million deaths within a few hours. Just to make that clear: This isn't a revelation Bannon had, at least not remotely first. That military solutions to the NK problem would involve tremendous human cost has widely been publicly reported on, often enough with well documented sources. Before the last few weeks the US govt admitted as much.

Clubber 9y ago
Oh I understand it wasn't Bannon's original realization. I'm sure the US realized the situation as soon as spy planes saw them putting the artillery in place. He was just the most recent person to describe the situation to the public.
- anarazel 9y ago
  IOW, the last 40+ years.