5 ms·

> So, now we have crazy people with hydrogen bombs. It is a new chapter and one that could have a pretty bad ending. I agree with the rest of your statement, b

by mikejb 9y ago

> So, now we have crazy people with hydrogen bombs. It is a new chapter and one that could have a pretty bad ending. I agree with the rest of your statement, but I don't agree with this part in the way it is written - the statement is as true as it was 5 years ago. I think NK is trying to get into the nuke club as insurance. I wouldn't base my foreign policy on this, but I fail to see how a nuclear war would be [an advantage for NK's leadership (1)]. I'd assume quite the opposite. (1) Small edit, see comment below

jacquesm 9y ago
> I wouldn't base my foreign policy on this, but I fail to see how a nuclear war would play to NK's advantage. It's a matter of numbers. With every party entering the nuclear club the chances of accidents and other use outside of the chain of command goes up. A non-zero chance multiplied by a larger number implies a larger risk. Given enough time that risk will materialize, whether it is North Korea, Pakistan or Israel doesn't matter.
- mikejb 9y ago
  I don't understand how that addresses the NK's advantage point. Also, if risk is an actual issue, how do 10 nukes in NK justify this extend of worry, in contrast to the weapons Russia and the US have? (For some reason I'm reminded of John Oliver's piece on Nuclear Weapons safety in the US [1]). If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? [1] https://youtu.be/1Y1ya-yF35g https://youtu.be/1Y1ya-yF35g
  - IanCal 9y ago
    Minute physics also have a nice video about this [0] > If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? I'd say that we should also be worried, but there are different risks. Adding a new country to the mix with 10 nukes is different to adding 10 nukes to existing countries. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0
    - mikejb 9y ago
      The Minute Physics video made me worry more about Russia's & US' ability to cause a nuclear winter rather than worry about NK. Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. Arguing NK shouldn't have nukes because it increases a risk is equally applicable to the US. Actually, the US pose a much greater risk because they have bombers, silos and subs with way more nuclear weapons, multiplying the risk for accidents. Following the risk argument I feel the US are a larger problem than NK.
      - IanCal 9y ago
        > Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. I don't think that's quite true. The stability of a country, and the current alliances & conflicts all influence the chance of a deliberate attack. The funding and security of a country influence the safety and chance of an accidental one.
- robocat 9y ago
  > whether it is North Korea, Pakistan or Israel Better add the USA into that list, as somebody looking in from the outside...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    If the USA would launch a pre-emptive strike anywhere in the world it would instantly become a pariah in international relations. DJT has done a lot of damage to the image of the United States already that will likely take decades to repair but such a thing would put this on an entirely different level.
adrianN 9y ago
Usually one assumes that in a nuclear war nobody wins. The US might have the capability to glass NK, but millions of innocent people live there. If a Korean H-Bomb reaches Tokyo or the US the results won't be pretty either.
- mikejb 9y ago
  I should have been more specific (will edit in a sec), the question was aimed at the benefit for the decision makers. NK leadership is going down if they launch a nuclear strike, independent of how the counterstrike is done (so their show of strength etc. is of limited importance). But SK/US leadership has to consider nuclear retaliation if they attack NK, in which case it becomes a bad decision in the eyes of their voters, even if they ultimately remove NK leadership. [edit] tl;dr: Having the weapons is an advantage for NK's leaders. Using them is their end.

by mikejb 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

> I wouldn't base my foreign policy on this, but I fail to see how a nuclear war would play to NK's advantage. It's a matter of numbers. With every party entering the nuclear club the chances of accidents and other use outside of the chain of command goes up. A non-zero chance multiplied by a larger number implies a larger risk. Given enough time that risk will materialize, whether it is North Korea, Pakistan or Israel doesn't matter.

mikejb 9y ago
I don't understand how that addresses the NK's advantage point. Also, if risk is an actual issue, how do 10 nukes in NK justify this extend of worry, in contrast to the weapons Russia and the US have? (For some reason I'm reminded of John Oliver's piece on Nuclear Weapons safety in the US [1]). If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? [1] https://youtu.be/1Y1ya-yF35g https://youtu.be/1Y1ya-yF35g
- IanCal 9y ago
  Minute physics also have a nice video about this [0] > If humanity is to be worried about NK having them, why shouldn't we be equally worried about Russia, China, France, the US, etc.? I'd say that we should also be worried, but there are different risks. Adding a new country to the mix with 10 nukes is different to adding 10 nukes to existing countries. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRnU0bqsyq0
  - mikejb 9y ago
    The Minute Physics video made me worry more about Russia's & US' ability to cause a nuclear winter rather than worry about NK. Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. Arguing NK shouldn't have nukes because it increases a risk is equally applicable to the US. Actually, the US pose a much greater risk because they have bombers, silos and subs with way more nuclear weapons, multiplying the risk for accidents. Following the risk argument I feel the US are a larger problem than NK.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      > Yes, there's additional risk if another country has them, but that argument is independent from country. I don't think that's quite true. The stability of a country, and the current alliances & conflicts all influence the chance of a deliberate attack. The funding and security of a country influence the safety and chance of an accidental one.
robocat 9y ago
> whether it is North Korea, Pakistan or Israel Better add the USA into that list, as somebody looking in from the outside...
- jacquesm 9y ago
  If the USA would launch a pre-emptive strike anywhere in the world it would instantly become a pariah in international relations. DJT has done a lot of damage to the image of the United States already that will likely take decades to repair but such a thing would put this on an entirely different level.

adrianN 9y ago

Usually one assumes that in a nuclear war nobody wins. The US might have the capability to glass NK, but millions of innocent people live there. If a Korean H-Bomb reaches Tokyo or the US the results won't be pretty either.

mikejb 9y ago
I should have been more specific (will edit in a sec), the question was aimed at the benefit for the decision makers. NK leadership is going down if they launch a nuclear strike, independent of how the counterstrike is done (so their show of strength etc. is of limited importance). But SK/US leadership has to consider nuclear retaliation if they attack NK, in which case it becomes a bad decision in the eyes of their voters, even if they ultimately remove NK leadership. [edit] tl;dr: Having the weapons is an advantage for NK's leaders. Using them is their end.