4 ms·

I believe there are two mistakes in your thinking: 1. Is wrong because the decisions aren't made by the average North Korean, but by the leadership, which is l

I believe there are two mistakes in your thinking: 1. Is wrong because the decisions aren't made by the average North Korean, but by the leadership, which is living quite a comfortable life. At least more comfortable than death, or a war crimes tribunal. 3. The international community would absolutely tolerate proportional retaliation. For a nuclear attack (the only option North Korea would have against anything but Seoul), it is widely assumed that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Even if some US president were to stop short of nuclear retaliation, there is no possibility of NK leadership surviving an attack. The game theory mechanics aren't really that complicated. It's mostly the same as the cold war's Mutually Assured Destruction. Except the cold war scenarios always had the wrinkle of "if our enemy has already destroyed our country, and killed almost everybody–what is the purpose of retaliating against their population (which, by and large, would be just as innocent as ours)". NK doesn't have the ability to create destruction on such a level. Therefore, there would still be a United States (and many other countries) to protect. And such protection would be achieved by denying NK the ability to strike again, and by setting a precedent to discourage such actions by others.

KGIII 9y ago
I'd like to add that most (all?) of those conditions have been met for years. My presumption is Mr. Kim has run out of money for Scotch. Someone will send him some aid. He will settle down.
- colanderman 9y ago
  Yep. It hasn't gotten to the point that they've had to resort to actually destroying a city yet, or even demonstrating that they can. Just hinting that they might be able to has thus far been enough to keep the aid flowing.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    If it wasn't against the law, I'd send him a few cases of Scotch. By which I mean, I'd chip in to calm him down. I'll buy him a gently used Toyota, tomorrow, if it means he will settle down. I'm not even kidding. I'd even take him at his word. Hell, set up a PayPal account, and make it legal, and I'll send him money every month that he doesn't harass his neighbors. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Hmm... We should crowdsource Un's Scotch fund. I'm only partially kidding.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Once you pay the danegeld...
      - KGIII 9y ago
        We've already paid.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    They can't. They saber rattle because it means that they are powerful enough to bring people to the negotiating table but they're not actually destructive to other countries (outside tit-for-tat stuff). The minute they destroy a real city they are game ends and the rest of the world is going to actually do something. They LOSE negotiating power and are inviting in attack against them that will destroy the regeime.
  - themaninthedark 9y ago
    Only they have, abet in a limited way and the SK and US response was also limited to avoid escalation. I don't think they are harmless but I also don't think they are suicidal, this just happens to be the only leverage they are willing to use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong
colanderman 9y ago
I think the question is, can we retaliate against only the regime (i.e. without massive civilian population loss) before they take out Seoul? I'm mostly basing my analysis on the ability for NK to cause more damage in the time it takes for SK/Japan/US to mount a "humane" response. Of course, if there is a way, in response to an attack from NK, to take out their ability to do further damage, that is the best option. If Seoul is their first attack, it's game over for NK. But if it's Japan or the US, they still have that ace up their sleeve unless we're prepared to destroy a LOT of NK VERY quickly.
- MBCook 9y ago
  Even if we can't take out the regime how in the world do we handle that situation? Not only are the people INCREDIBLY needy and the infrastructure a disaster but if they've have the evilness of America drilled into them since they were little children. Even if only a quarter of the population TRULY believes that… how do you handle that? Where does the staggering amount of money needed to fix the country come from? Or would we (the world) do something like set up a new government keeps living conditions the same and just slowly improve them overtime to prevent some kind of… shock? Just to keep costs under control? I know people have some plans but if you could just beam all the administration off the planet tomorrow would anyone be prepared for the consequences of that?
  - matt4077 9y ago
    It's a population of 24 million, which is comparable to East Germany's population of 16 million at the fall of the wall and reunification. While the situation in North Korea is certainly more dire, East Germany's economy was also largely incapable of competing and summarily shut down over the next few years, being replaced by new businesses to varying degrees of success. NK is currently capable to feed itself under normal conditions, and to provide some basic necessities of life. Without a doubt, South Korea would have the means to provide what is missing to get to a basic, yet dignified, quality of life–especially with the certain help of the rest of the world. I wouldn't worry too much about indoctrination. Look at Germany after WW2 and East Germany after reunification, or Russia after Glasnost, and you'll see that such top-down ideologies have limited staying power once they're no longer enforced. With the sudden availability of sandpaper and toilet paper distinct from each other, it'll be incredibly hard to continue believing in the old myths. North Koreans probably lack the education to compete in the South's job market, but with an influx of cash, and an economy unshackled, the first years would see a boom in agriculture and construction–industries where North Koreans should be able to participate since they already exist. Some new techniques or materials appearing should increase productivity, but won't be impossible to learn for someone who has experience in those fields. The structure of North Korea as a police state should actually work to its advantage in the first period, as well as the connections Koreans still feel for their relatives on the other side of the border. I'd be extremely surprised if there were any opposition to new leadership, or any violent or destructive trends. The real problems will happen after a decade or two, when North Koreans have gotten used to a new standard of living, yet still lack the economic structures the make the South successful. Resentment might grow, in both directions. There'll be "stupid/lazy/obedient North Korean" jokes in the South, and impatience with the continued flow of money required to prop up the flagging economy. Meanwhile, the North will resent the arrogance of the South, start being envious of the success across the former border, and possibly start a long process of making sense of the rapid changes, their identity, and the historical injustice that randomly plunged them into darkness, while others, completely indistinguishable from them, got to enjoy their lives. Those problems won't be insurmountable, as long as there's some leadership that doesn't budge from the necessity of the process.

KGIII 9y ago

I'd like to add that most (all?) of those conditions have been met for years. My presumption is Mr. Kim has run out of money for Scotch. Someone will send him some aid. He will settle down.

colanderman 9y ago
Yep. It hasn't gotten to the point that they've had to resort to actually destroying a city yet, or even demonstrating that they can. Just hinting that they might be able to has thus far been enough to keep the aid flowing.
- KGIII 9y ago
  If it wasn't against the law, I'd send him a few cases of Scotch. By which I mean, I'd chip in to calm him down. I'll buy him a gently used Toyota, tomorrow, if it means he will settle down. I'm not even kidding. I'd even take him at his word. Hell, set up a PayPal account, and make it legal, and I'll send him money every month that he doesn't harass his neighbors. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Hmm... We should crowdsource Un's Scotch fund. I'm only partially kidding.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Once you pay the danegeld...
    - KGIII 9y ago
      We've already paid.
- MBCook 9y ago
  They can't. They saber rattle because it means that they are powerful enough to bring people to the negotiating table but they're not actually destructive to other countries (outside tit-for-tat stuff). The minute they destroy a real city they are game ends and the rest of the world is going to actually do something. They LOSE negotiating power and are inviting in attack against them that will destroy the regeime.
- themaninthedark 9y ago
  Only they have, abet in a limited way and the SK and US response was also limited to avoid escalation. I don't think they are harmless but I also don't think they are suicidal, this just happens to be the only leverage they are willing to use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

colanderman 9y ago

I think the question is, can we retaliate against only the regime (i.e. without massive civilian population loss) before they take out Seoul? I'm mostly basing my analysis on the ability for NK to cause more damage in the time it takes for SK/Japan/US to mount a "humane" response. Of course, if there is a way, in response to an attack from NK, to take out their ability to do further damage, that is the best option. If Seoul is their first attack, it's game over for NK. But if it's Japan or the US, they still have that ace up their sleeve unless we're prepared to destroy a LOT of NK VERY quickly.

MBCook 9y ago
Even if we can't take out the regime how in the world do we handle that situation? Not only are the people INCREDIBLY needy and the infrastructure a disaster but if they've have the evilness of America drilled into them since they were little children. Even if only a quarter of the population TRULY believes that… how do you handle that? Where does the staggering amount of money needed to fix the country come from? Or would we (the world) do something like set up a new government keeps living conditions the same and just slowly improve them overtime to prevent some kind of… shock? Just to keep costs under control? I know people have some plans but if you could just beam all the administration off the planet tomorrow would anyone be prepared for the consequences of that?
- matt4077 9y ago
  It's a population of 24 million, which is comparable to East Germany's population of 16 million at the fall of the wall and reunification. While the situation in North Korea is certainly more dire, East Germany's economy was also largely incapable of competing and summarily shut down over the next few years, being replaced by new businesses to varying degrees of success. NK is currently capable to feed itself under normal conditions, and to provide some basic necessities of life. Without a doubt, South Korea would have the means to provide what is missing to get to a basic, yet dignified, quality of life–especially with the certain help of the rest of the world. I wouldn't worry too much about indoctrination. Look at Germany after WW2 and East Germany after reunification, or Russia after Glasnost, and you'll see that such top-down ideologies have limited staying power once they're no longer enforced. With the sudden availability of sandpaper and toilet paper distinct from each other, it'll be incredibly hard to continue believing in the old myths. North Koreans probably lack the education to compete in the South's job market, but with an influx of cash, and an economy unshackled, the first years would see a boom in agriculture and construction–industries where North Koreans should be able to participate since they already exist. Some new techniques or materials appearing should increase productivity, but won't be impossible to learn for someone who has experience in those fields. The structure of North Korea as a police state should actually work to its advantage in the first period, as well as the connections Koreans still feel for their relatives on the other side of the border. I'd be extremely surprised if there were any opposition to new leadership, or any violent or destructive trends. The real problems will happen after a decade or two, when North Koreans have gotten used to a new standard of living, yet still lack the economic structures the make the South successful. Resentment might grow, in both directions. There'll be "stupid/lazy/obedient North Korean" jokes in the South, and impatience with the continued flow of money required to prop up the flagging economy. Meanwhile, the North will resent the arrogance of the South, start being envious of the success across the former border, and possibly start a long process of making sense of the rapid changes, their identity, and the historical injustice that randomly plunged them into darkness, while others, completely indistinguishable from them, got to enjoy their lives. Those problems won't be insurmountable, as long as there's some leadership that doesn't budge from the necessity of the process.