4 ms·

That seems to be canonically false, however, due to the fact that they had the metaphorical "gun to S. Korea's Head" long before they had nukes, and despite bra

That seems to be canonically false, however, due to the fact that they had the metaphorical "gun to S. Korea's Head" long before they had nukes, and despite bragging for years about their intentions the international community was still very limited in their actions. Nukes seem peripheral to the core capability of just being able to do enough damage before you can be stopped that anyone is afraid to engage you. (to provide an example; if you watch the news running up to the iraq invasion, many outlets were _very convinced_ we'd see WMD used against us, but that didn't seem to be the primary or even tangential cause for hesitation at the time.)

kbenson 9y ago
It's not just about how much damage you can cause, it's about who you can cause it to. At some point, if the only damage N.K. can do is to S.K., a third party might choose to take action against N.K. before they have the capability to hurt that third party. Put in real terms, if the U.S. strongly believed that N.K. would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the pacific northwest accurately in the next year, a preemptive strike by the U.S. that causes massive casualties in S.K. in retaliation might go from unthinkable to "a hard decision that needs careful thought." to those in power in the U.S.
- MBCook 9y ago
  No, they could nuke China. Even if they don't they could send hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees poring over the border. There is a reason China plays ball with them.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    I'm confused what this has to do with what I wrote? I'm not sure I'm interpreting it correctly, as I can't seem to see how it applies to my own point. I was addressing "That seems to be canonically false, however, due to the fact that they had the metaphorical "gun to S. Korea's Head" long before they had nukes". I'm just noting that "ability to cause a lot of damage to ally" and "ability to cause a lot of damage to you" can have different weights in the decision process.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      I see your point. I read your comment as 'worst case they can only attack S. Korea' but re-reading it I clearly missed the point. > I'm just noting that "ability to cause a lot of damage to ally" and "ability to cause a lot of damage to you" can have different weights in the decision process. Definitely true. But at this point with so much made in China, Korea, and Japan I'd expect that any big political disruption in East Asia would end up being extremely disruptive to the US even though we wouldn't (in this example) be under attack ourselves.
yongjik 9y ago
North Korean nukes are not meant to dissuade South Korea from going to war. It's meant to dissuade America. At least that's the commonly accepted view.
MBCook 9y ago
No, he's right. I remember reading an excellent piece (or listening to a podcast?) about this. If NK only had basic missles people wouldn't like them, but they're not a huge threat. The fact they have them and keep making threats is what gives them 'power'. Everyone is so afraid of the results of an attack that we (the rest of the world) is willing to deal with them and help keep their people out of starvation (to the degree they let us), etc. If provoked with an attack they retaliate, possibly months later, but don't actually make first strikes. If they did that they would be too dangerous, but if they make it clear they may start nuking people if you go mess with them they suddenly get treated better. It's their only bargaining chip and they've become EXPERTS at using it to get what they want. So the question would be what event are they retaliating against here? Who attacked them or so they think isn't taking them seriously enough? I don't follow things close enough to know. The US president is facing tons of trouble. The 4th biggest city in thebUS is under water and may get hit again in a few days. NK will likely lead the news tonight. They know what they're doing. It's not the normal game, but they're not crazy. There is a strategy.

kbenson 9y ago

It's not just about how much damage you can cause, it's about who you can cause it to. At some point, if the only damage N.K. can do is to S.K., a third party might choose to take action against N.K. before they have the capability to hurt that third party. Put in real terms, if the U.S. strongly believed that N.K. would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the pacific northwest accurately in the next year, a preemptive strike by the U.S. that causes massive casualties in S.K. in retaliation might go from unthinkable to "a hard decision that needs careful thought." to those in power in the U.S.

MBCook 9y ago
No, they could nuke China. Even if they don't they could send hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees poring over the border. There is a reason China plays ball with them.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I'm confused what this has to do with what I wrote? I'm not sure I'm interpreting it correctly, as I can't seem to see how it applies to my own point. I was addressing "That seems to be canonically false, however, due to the fact that they had the metaphorical "gun to S. Korea's Head" long before they had nukes". I'm just noting that "ability to cause a lot of damage to ally" and "ability to cause a lot of damage to you" can have different weights in the decision process.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    I see your point. I read your comment as 'worst case they can only attack S. Korea' but re-reading it I clearly missed the point. > I'm just noting that "ability to cause a lot of damage to ally" and "ability to cause a lot of damage to you" can have different weights in the decision process. Definitely true. But at this point with so much made in China, Korea, and Japan I'd expect that any big political disruption in East Asia would end up being extremely disruptive to the US even though we wouldn't (in this example) be under attack ourselves.

yongjik 9y ago

North Korean nukes are not meant to dissuade South Korea from going to war. It's meant to dissuade America. At least that's the commonly accepted view.

MBCook 9y ago

No, he's right. I remember reading an excellent piece (or listening to a podcast?) about this. If NK only had basic missles people wouldn't like them, but they're not a huge threat. The fact they have them and keep making threats is what gives them 'power'. Everyone is so afraid of the results of an attack that we (the rest of the world) is willing to deal with them and help keep their people out of starvation (to the degree they let us), etc. If provoked with an attack they retaliate, possibly months later, but don't actually make first strikes. If they did that they would be too dangerous, but if they make it clear they may start nuking people if you go mess with them they suddenly get treated better. It's their only bargaining chip and they've become EXPERTS at using it to get what they want. So the question would be what event are they retaliating against here? Who attacked them or so they think isn't taking them seriously enough? I don't follow things close enough to know. The US president is facing tons of trouble. The 4th biggest city in thebUS is under water and may get hit again in a few days. NK will likely lead the news tonight. They know what they're doing. It's not the normal game, but they're not crazy. There is a strategy.