5 ms·

I’m not totally convinced that mutual deference is sensible but this doesn’t make any sense, unless I’m missing something: Pyongyang’s conventional inferiority

I’m not totally convinced that mutual deference is sensible but this doesn’t make any sense, unless I’m missing something: Pyongyang’s conventional inferiority requires it to degrade the United States’ ability to sustain the attack against it. This means it essentially has no option but to use nuclear weapons first against targets such as Andersen Air Force Base in Guam… Pyongyang can’t affect the US’ ability to respond in any meaningful way. Even if Guam sinks into the sea, there’s still South Korea, Japan, ICBs & the US Navy. On top of that, there’s no guarantee that North Korea could even hit Guam without getting intercepted, and trying but failing would certainly means a massive counterattack. I think the big new issues with a Nuclear North Korea is probably proliferation related. North Korea has a tiny economy with exports of just 4-5bn, less than a small US city. Selling an occasional bomb could triple their exports bring in foreign currency, which they are starving for. Even if they got caught, would the US respond to a nuclear armed country?

vtange 9y ago
The article explicitly stated how North Korea might feel free to hit or try to hit places like Guam, S.K. and Japan without fear of retaliation because the author guesses the average American would be OK with losing Tokyo and Seoul but not S.F.
- stuartaxelowen 9y ago
  I... I live in Tokyo.
  - jdale27 9y ago
    You are not an "average American". But really, it doesn't matter what the average American thinks; it's about the strategic calculus of showing that Japan and South Korea are under US protection.
- wil421 9y ago
  If any three of those got hit there is no way a US President from any party would not respond with some counter attack. I'd expect the European countries to do the same.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I don’t really buy that either but the premise (why they would do this attack in the first place) the article suggested was degrading the US’ capacity. What I’m saying is that I don’t think they don’t have this ability. Any such attack would not impact the US' power over North Korea in any meaningful way. The part about the US absorbing an attack on a territory or nuclear umbrella ally is flimsy too. More to the point, it’s flimsier because of their “conventional inferiority.” The US actually can degrade North Korea's abilities (to put it lightly), possibly to the point of complete failure before sustaining an attack. It's dangerous for the US, but nothing like a conflict with a Major Power.
- kyleblarson 9y ago
  The average American doesn't have their finger on the button of the US's nukes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
thehardsphere 9y ago
> Pyongyang can’t affect the US’ ability to respond in any meaningful way. Even if Guam sinks into the sea, there’s still South Korea, Japan, ICBs & the US Navy. On top of that, there’s no guarantee that North Korea could even hit Guam without getting intercepted, and trying but failing would certainly means a massive counterattack. 1. Those deficiencies in North Korea's capabilities will not remain fixed for much longer if the status quo persists. 2. The scenario outlined I believe assumes that the regime's continuity is already under some active threat, so it may not care much about the massive counter attack.
JohnStrange 9y ago
No, the article lays this out quite sensibly. If NK could reasonably assume that their long-range missiles would continue to pose a threat to the US mainland or military bases after a foreign aggression, then they could and would have to use nuclear weapons against any local aggressors first - their military would not stand much of a chance in a conventional joint attack by SK and the US. However, they do not (yet) have the ability to safely make this assumption. Their missile launchers and nuclear weapon facilities would be obliterated immediately by the absolute air superiority of any possible aggressor (SK, USA, China, Russia). I believe that their nuclear weapon program has the simpler goal to prevent limited SK and US aggressions such as aerial bombardments by continually threatening to retaliate against Seoul. This threat is fairly irrational, because it would likely trigger a nuclear response, so they seem to currently follow a "mad dog" strategy. Not that I would know, though; I'm not a military analyst.
rgbrenner 9y ago
I agree. Also, I think using nuclear weapons would affect the willingness of NKs allies (at least China, but probably also Russia) to assist them in the war. China has already said that much. I think it's much more likely NK will try to last the first couple of weeks while China and Russia move hardware into the region.
- lostmsu 9y ago
  You shouldn't trust China or Russia on that.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Not sure why this is downovtef but Russia not China will allow US troops to occupy NK nor would they allow it to turn into a nuclear wasteland regardless if they strike first or not. A NK first strike might actually cause China to invade NK and seek a regime change before allowing the US to do the same.

vtange 9y ago

The article explicitly stated how North Korea might feel free to hit or try to hit places like Guam, S.K. and Japan without fear of retaliation because the author guesses the average American would be OK with losing Tokyo and Seoul but not S.F.

stuartaxelowen 9y ago
I... I live in Tokyo.
- jdale27 9y ago
  You are not an "average American". But really, it doesn't matter what the average American thinks; it's about the strategic calculus of showing that Japan and South Korea are under US protection.
wil421 9y ago
If any three of those got hit there is no way a US President from any party would not respond with some counter attack. I'd expect the European countries to do the same.
dalbasal 9y ago
I don’t really buy that either but the premise (why they would do this attack in the first place) the article suggested was degrading the US’ capacity. What I’m saying is that I don’t think they don’t have this ability. Any such attack would not impact the US' power over North Korea in any meaningful way. The part about the US absorbing an attack on a territory or nuclear umbrella ally is flimsy too. More to the point, it’s flimsier because of their “conventional inferiority.” The US actually can degrade North Korea's abilities (to put it lightly), possibly to the point of complete failure before sustaining an attack. It's dangerous for the US, but nothing like a conflict with a Major Power.
kyleblarson 9y ago
The average American doesn't have their finger on the button of the US's nukes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

thehardsphere 9y ago

> Pyongyang can’t affect the US’ ability to respond in any meaningful way. Even if Guam sinks into the sea, there’s still South Korea, Japan, ICBs & the US Navy. On top of that, there’s no guarantee that North Korea could even hit Guam without getting intercepted, and trying but failing would certainly means a massive counterattack. 1. Those deficiencies in North Korea's capabilities will not remain fixed for much longer if the status quo persists. 2. The scenario outlined I believe assumes that the regime's continuity is already under some active threat, so it may not care much about the massive counter attack.

JohnStrange 9y ago

No, the article lays this out quite sensibly. If NK could reasonably assume that their long-range missiles would continue to pose a threat to the US mainland or military bases after a foreign aggression, then they could and would have to use nuclear weapons against any local aggressors first - their military would not stand much of a chance in a conventional joint attack by SK and the US. However, they do not (yet) have the ability to safely make this assumption. Their missile launchers and nuclear weapon facilities would be obliterated immediately by the absolute air superiority of any possible aggressor (SK, USA, China, Russia). I believe that their nuclear weapon program has the simpler goal to prevent limited SK and US aggressions such as aerial bombardments by continually threatening to retaliate against Seoul. This threat is fairly irrational, because it would likely trigger a nuclear response, so they seem to currently follow a "mad dog" strategy. Not that I would know, though; I'm not a military analyst.

rgbrenner 9y ago

I agree. Also, I think using nuclear weapons would affect the willingness of NKs allies (at least China, but probably also Russia) to assist them in the war. China has already said that much. I think it's much more likely NK will try to last the first couple of weeks while China and Russia move hardware into the region.

lostmsu 9y ago
You shouldn't trust China or Russia on that.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Not sure why this is downovtef but Russia not China will allow US troops to occupy NK nor would they allow it to turn into a nuclear wasteland regardless if they strike first or not. A NK first strike might actually cause China to invade NK and seek a regime change before allowing the US to do the same.