6 ms·

NK hasn't signed a treaty preventing them from testing. If the test ban treaty had teeth, it still wouldn't apply to NK. Of course NK is acting perfectly ratio

NK hasn't signed a treaty preventing them from testing. If the test ban treaty had teeth, it still wouldn't apply to NK. Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. But it's not clear to me why the US needs to control NK. It's the desire for control that drove NK to get nukes. I'm not apologizing for NK, I think the regime should be toppled tomorrow from a moral perspective; but I don't think an invasion even in the absence of nukes would lead to a good outcome, as we've seen elsewhere good outcomes from moral invasions are scarce on the ground these days.

jacquesm 9y ago
> NK hasn't signed a treaty preventing them from testing. Obviously, and the countries that plan on developing nuclear weapons the old fashioned way (not through computer simulations) are the ones that the treaty would affect the most. > Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. This is definitely part of the problem. Another part is simply prestige. > But it's not clear to me why the US needs to control NK. The US doesn't. But the world does and the world needs to exercise such control equally across all countries that do not wish to play nice. Unfortunately that is exactly where the problem lies, we simply do not have a power structure in place that exceeds the largest sovereign nations in power because they provide that power. And so we're stuck in a pretty hard place. > It's the desire for control that drove NK to get nukes. Yes, the fear of every tin pot dictator (I certainly consider Kim Jong-Un to be one of those) is to be deposed by an external power. > I think the regime should be toppled tomorrow from a moral perspective; And that is what got us here in the first place. > but I don't think an invasion even in the absence of nukes would lead to a good outcome, as we've seen elsewhere good outcomes from moral invasions are scarce on the ground these days. Even if the outcome would be a good one, I find it hard to make the case. Personally I feel NATO should be used as a ratchet only: enforce the status quo unless a country wishes to make a move in a 'good' (subjective, I know) direction. Any kind of border excursions to be ruthlessly dealt with. In the longer term that might work even if in the shorter term it would lead to some uncomfortable decisions.
EliRivers 9y ago
Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. Or perhaps having seen what happens to countries that do what the US tells them to. Iraq decommissioned its WMDs; got invaded. The lesson learned by many countries is that doing what the US tells you to vis-a-vis weapons makes you vulnerable; not safe.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Iraq was invaded because it is sitting on top of a bunch of oil, not because of WMDs or lack thereof.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    I must have not clearly explained my point. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons and were ready to use them upon being invaded, bringing nuclear devastation upon the US and various others in a world-ending catastrophe of mutual destruction, do you think that invasion would have still happened? I suggest no. I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > do you think that invasion would have still happened? Most likely not. But the WMD's that Iraq supposedly did have were used as a fig-leaf to invade anyway. My reasoning at the time was that the fact that they were invaded more or less proved that they didn't have any and dr. David Kelly's assessment for UNSCOM pretty much proved that. > I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else. Definitely, it's a poison pill.
  - guildwriter 9y ago
    Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-i... It was a bad argument then and still a bad argument now.
bcoughlan 9y ago
The US needs to control everyone to maintain the empire's dominance, but in this case it's probably less about NK and more about the China Containment Policy. China support NK to avoid an enemy on their border

jacquesm 9y ago

> NK hasn't signed a treaty preventing them from testing. Obviously, and the countries that plan on developing nuclear weapons the old fashioned way (not through computer simulations) are the ones that the treaty would affect the most. > Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. This is definitely part of the problem. Another part is simply prestige. > But it's not clear to me why the US needs to control NK. The US doesn't. But the world does and the world needs to exercise such control equally across all countries that do not wish to play nice. Unfortunately that is exactly where the problem lies, we simply do not have a power structure in place that exceeds the largest sovereign nations in power because they provide that power. And so we're stuck in a pretty hard place. > It's the desire for control that drove NK to get nukes. Yes, the fear of every tin pot dictator (I certainly consider Kim Jong-Un to be one of those) is to be deposed by an external power. > I think the regime should be toppled tomorrow from a moral perspective; And that is what got us here in the first place. > but I don't think an invasion even in the absence of nukes would lead to a good outcome, as we've seen elsewhere good outcomes from moral invasions are scarce on the ground these days. Even if the outcome would be a good one, I find it hard to make the case. Personally I feel NATO should be used as a ratchet only: enforce the status quo unless a country wishes to make a move in a 'good' (subjective, I know) direction. Any kind of border excursions to be ruthlessly dealt with. In the longer term that might work even if in the shorter term it would lead to some uncomfortable decisions.

EliRivers 9y ago

Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. Or perhaps having seen what happens to countries that do what the US tells them to. Iraq decommissioned its WMDs; got invaded. The lesson learned by many countries is that doing what the US tells you to vis-a-vis weapons makes you vulnerable; not safe.

jacquesm 9y ago
Iraq was invaded because it is sitting on top of a bunch of oil, not because of WMDs or lack thereof.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  I must have not clearly explained my point. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons and were ready to use them upon being invaded, bringing nuclear devastation upon the US and various others in a world-ending catastrophe of mutual destruction, do you think that invasion would have still happened? I suggest no. I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > do you think that invasion would have still happened? Most likely not. But the WMD's that Iraq supposedly did have were used as a fig-leaf to invade anyway. My reasoning at the time was that the fact that they were invaded more or less proved that they didn't have any and dr. David Kelly's assessment for UNSCOM pretty much proved that. > I suggest that having nuclear weapons, and ideally global reach with those weapons, is a way to massively reduce the chances of being invaded by the US or anyone else. Definitely, it's a poison pill.
- guildwriter 9y ago
  Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again. http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-i... It was a bad argument then and still a bad argument now.

bcoughlan 9y ago

The US needs to control everyone to maintain the empire's dominance, but in this case it's probably less about NK and more about the China Containment Policy. China support NK to avoid an enemy on their border