6 ms·

Why would North Korea attack when it has no incentive to? They gain nothing and would be demolished swiftly and of course they know that. Why would the US/West

Why would North Korea attack when it has no incentive to? They gain nothing and would be demolished swiftly and of course they know that. Why would the US/West attack when they know there will be hundreds of thousands of casualties almost immediately and nothing much to gain there after as well? If there is no incentive to attack on either side, why is it time to start preparing for the worst?

arwhatever 9y ago
Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent?
- pm90 9y ago
  ICBM's are a way of threatening civilian population centers, which usually gets the attention of a country much more than military troops, even if they might be sizeable. I mean, there are ~37,500 US soldiers on the Korean peninsula right now, not to mention equally large detachment in Japan, which are already well within range of DPRK's nuclear armaments. But its only when you read the news that a missile could hit NYC that Americans pay more attention/panic etc.
- adventured 9y ago
  Because with ICBMs, if the US attacks, the US faces a scenario of trading cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, DC, etc. for Pyongyang. The real problem North Korea has presented the US, is it's forced into a stalemate with a drastically inferior nation in all regards (much smaller population, few major cities, hyper small economy, weak overall military capabilities). Picture tiny, hyper impoverished Cuba holding the US hostage with hundreds of nukes so close to US territory, it's a similar concept once ICBMs get into the mix. Standing off with Russia and China, two great powers in most regards historically, the US could respect that context begrudging. If any entity goes nuclear, the exchanged loss is immense in all regards on both sides; China has a billion people, Russia has 144 million (the USSR had near 300 million); both have lots of major cities; both have vast military capabilities; and so on. It's a horribly bad exchange problem when you start adding up the trade. The US could lose a dozen or more major cities, millions of people, while North Korea loses hundreds of thousands of people living in a couple cities that are barely developed to begin with. Simply put, the US has dramatically more to lose in every regard, the scale is so far tipped to one side it's almost unthinkable to make such a trade with North Korea.
- arwhatever 9y ago
  The respondents here seem knowledgeable enough that I should take the opportunity to be more precise with my question: Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent, which itself should be adequate to secure their country against invasion? I guess the obvious answer would be that they want to be even more secure. But that is just a deduction on my part and as such, it feels like a bit of an unconfirmed piece in my understanding of the situation.
AlexCoventry 9y ago
> Why would the US/West attack when they know there will be hundreds of thousands of casualties almost immediately Once, [President Johnson's penis] Jumbo was called upon to serve the country in a time of great need, when words – even words from the POTUS – would simply not do. In a mercifully off-the-record moment at the height of America’s entanglement in Vietnam, reporters asked Johnson to explain, simply, “Why?” Unable to conjure a suitable answer, LBJ instead produced his veiny avatar. “This is why!” Johnson declared, presenting Jumbo to the press pool like a flaccid, useless Excalibur. Thankfully, he didn't put his sword in their stones. https://m.ranker.com/list/lyndon-johnson-penis-obsession-stories/mel-judson https://m.ranker.com/list/lyndon-johnson-penis-obsession-sto...
- nerdponx 9y ago
  I had never heard of this before. Wow. And we all thought Trump was a boorish narcissist...
jeffdavis 9y ago
That's not the right way to phrase the question. The question is: If Kim Jong Un feels in any way trapped, helpless, or doomed; why would he not attack? So the risk is broadened to anything that can cause these feelings in a single person: internal politics, externally-perceived (real or imaginary) threats or actions, mental illness, disease, civil unrest in the DPRK, deterioration of the relationship with China, sanctions, internal military failures or public test failures, internal sabotage to the military program, or anything else that I haven't thought of.
- mercer 9y ago
  Let's also not forget that anyone in power after Kim Jong Un is entirely a wildcard to us.
KGIII 9y ago
I think it is dangerous to assume rationality. Un may not act rationally, so his actions may not make sense from your perspective. History is full of people who didn't act rationally from the perspective of others.
- Iv 9y ago
  Trump may not act rationally either. If he can protect his family and close friends, he seems unable to empathize with any other people and would consider millions of death like a personal record. He is more dangerous than most people acknowledge. He wants to make history and does not care if it is as a villain.
- jameslk 9y ago
  What makes you think the leadership in North Korea is any less rational than the leadership in the other 8 countries that are known to have nuclear weapons? Has the leadership in North Korea shown a history of irrationality with their nuclear weapons (e.g. using it against others)?
sien 9y ago
The powers around North Korea might attack because of the risk of proliferation. North Korea could sell weapons to, say, an oil rich non state actor in the Middle East that might use a missile launched from a ship to attack Israel. Proliferation has already been a huge issue. Pakistan may well have already helped North Korea in their missile or nuclear weapons programs. North Korea might attack if they suspect that a strike or invasion is coming. Their warning systems are not of high quality. That's probably why they worry so much when the US and South Korea do exercises. This is not to say any of this will happen, just that there are plausible reasons why either side might try something.
- tajen 9y ago
  Just out of mental curiosity, since you mention it... How does Israel (and other countries) prevent from the risk of receiving a Panamax ship where a nuclear bomb is hidden in the middle of similar-looking containers?
  - bastawhiz 9y ago
    Men with Geiger counters. https://www.wired.com/2011/10/ff_radioactivecargo/ https://www.wired.com/2011/10/ff_radioactivecargo/
credit_guy 9y ago
North Korea will not "attack". They will do an extra-atmostpheric nuclear test, like many such tests done in the past by the US and USSR. At a high altitude, like about 400km. There will be no fall-out, no loss of life, no damages. But they will score huge point, despite the fact that their nuclear capability is far from being end-to-end. What they are missing right now is mainly the reentry vehicle, but aside from that solid-fuel rockets and submarines capable of launching SLBM's. At the pace they are advancing, the re-entry vehicle is probably within their reach in two years or so. But if they are suffocated by the sanctions, they won't be able to carry out their rocketry R&D. So it's vital for her to do the extra-atmospheric nuclear test, that is their only existential hope. On the other hand, it's also very important for China for this not to happen. Once this happen, the US can justifiably start investing in earnest in the ABM defense, and there are several options that can be pursued: beefing up the current options, like the ground-based midcourse defense, the Aegis and the THAAD systems, but also more experimental ones, like laser based defense, or rail-gun based. China has a nuclear doctrine that is strictly deterrence based (i.e. no firs strike, including no pre-emptive strike). In the face of a much more effective US ABM defense, their deterrence can disappear and that means they either change their doctrine, or engage in an arms race which they see no good reason to do. So it's almost as important for China not to let NK to do their extra-atmospheric test. However, my money is that NK will do that test in the next 6 months.
anvandare 9y ago
The problem is that, even if the players were fully rational, the game itself is foggy and obscured. Miscommunication, incorrect information, false positives, echo chambers, bellicose advisors ... These increase the chances of a catastrophic cascade of events. We know of (at least) three cases[1][2][3] during the cold war where a single person prevented such a (possible) cascade from happening (and there's undoubtedly more that were kept under the rug). Yes, rationally speaking North Korea and the USA are not going to attack each other since the potential losses by far outweigh any potential gains. They know it, they also know that the other side knows it, and they know that the other side knows that they know that ... etc. But at the same time, at least from the POV of North Korea, they think they're pretty close to a win-by-stalemate situation (multiple mobile ICBMs that can retaliate against the continental USA, ensuring they will never be attacked.) so it stands to 'reason' that the USA would attack right now, because it's their last chance to stop North Korea from winning. Humans are not rational, we can only build control systems and hope they catch and filter out any irrationality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-...
- jameslk 9y ago
  > But at the same time, at least from the POV of North Korea, they think they're pretty close to a win-by-stalemate situation (multiple mobile ICBMs that can retaliate against the continental USA, ensuring they will never be attacked.) so it stands to 'reason' that the USA would attack right now, because it's their last chance to stop North Korea from winning. It's likely the US cannot accomplish a preemptive attack without a loss of thousands if not millions of lives with their ally, South Korea[0][1]. This would be a major defeat for the US before any greater war effort even began, which may eventually draw other nations like China. Given that North Korea wouldn't be the first US enemy to have ICBMs that can carry nuclear payloads to the US, it seems very implausible for the US to do anything about it vis a vis the immense consequences and even larger unknowns. 0. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm 1. http://thebulletin.org/sea-sarin-north-korea%E2%80%99s-chemical-deterrent10856 http://thebulletin.org/sea-sarin-north-korea%E2%80%99s-chemi...
erentz 9y ago
I don't want to see war. But I am surprised it hasn't already started. NK will soon have nukes that can reliably reach the USA on mobile launchers. If NK was like the Soviet Union or China, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem as those countries do not want to start WW3. But NK does not act rationally and NK is literally threatening to use these missiles against the USA. So the USA faces a choice: Either act now, take out NKs nuclear threat before they have the potential for launching multiple strikes. Or wait, and and hope they are bluffing about attacking the USA and that the political situation doesn't worsen there. The USA has a good chance, provided it plans well, of taking out NKs nuclear threat before it can launch using coordinated strikes with a lot of redundancy. The cost would be the artillery bombardment of Seoul, which could take anywhere up to 100k lives depending on how long it takes to knock out NK artillery, so the USA and SK would need to quickly dispense with that. After which NK would pose no threat to SK, and USA/SK can decapitate the leadership while keeping the power structures and NK military in place, then hopefully have a plan for rebuilding NK as an independent nation.
- tomp 9y ago
  > But NK does not act rationally In what ways does NK not act rationally?

arwhatever 9y ago

Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent?

pm90 9y ago
ICBM's are a way of threatening civilian population centers, which usually gets the attention of a country much more than military troops, even if they might be sizeable. I mean, there are ~37,500 US soldiers on the Korean peninsula right now, not to mention equally large detachment in Japan, which are already well within range of DPRK's nuclear armaments. But its only when you read the news that a missile could hit NYC that Americans pay more attention/panic etc.
adventured 9y ago
Because with ICBMs, if the US attacks, the US faces a scenario of trading cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, DC, etc. for Pyongyang. The real problem North Korea has presented the US, is it's forced into a stalemate with a drastically inferior nation in all regards (much smaller population, few major cities, hyper small economy, weak overall military capabilities). Picture tiny, hyper impoverished Cuba holding the US hostage with hundreds of nukes so close to US territory, it's a similar concept once ICBMs get into the mix. Standing off with Russia and China, two great powers in most regards historically, the US could respect that context begrudging. If any entity goes nuclear, the exchanged loss is immense in all regards on both sides; China has a billion people, Russia has 144 million (the USSR had near 300 million); both have lots of major cities; both have vast military capabilities; and so on. It's a horribly bad exchange problem when you start adding up the trade. The US could lose a dozen or more major cities, millions of people, while North Korea loses hundreds of thousands of people living in a couple cities that are barely developed to begin with. Simply put, the US has dramatically more to lose in every regard, the scale is so far tipped to one side it's almost unthinkable to make such a trade with North Korea.
arwhatever 9y ago
The respondents here seem knowledgeable enough that I should take the opportunity to be more precise with my question: Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a regional nuclear deterrent, which itself should be adequate to secure their country against invasion? I guess the obvious answer would be that they want to be even more secure. But that is just a deduction on my part and as such, it feels like a bit of an unconfirmed piece in my understanding of the situation.

AlexCoventry 9y ago

> Why would the US/West attack when they know there will be hundreds of thousands of casualties almost immediately Once, [President Johnson's penis] Jumbo was called upon to serve the country in a time of great need, when words – even words from the POTUS – would simply not do. In a mercifully off-the-record moment at the height of America’s entanglement in Vietnam, reporters asked Johnson to explain, simply, “Why?” Unable to conjure a suitable answer, LBJ instead produced his veiny avatar. “This is why!” Johnson declared, presenting Jumbo to the press pool like a flaccid, useless Excalibur. Thankfully, he didn't put his sword in their stones. https://m.ranker.com/list/lyndon-johnson-penis-obsession-stories/mel-judson https://m.ranker.com/list/lyndon-johnson-penis-obsession-sto...

nerdponx 9y ago
I had never heard of this before. Wow. And we all thought Trump was a boorish narcissist...

jeffdavis 9y ago

That's not the right way to phrase the question. The question is: If Kim Jong Un feels in any way trapped, helpless, or doomed; why would he not attack? So the risk is broadened to anything that can cause these feelings in a single person: internal politics, externally-perceived (real or imaginary) threats or actions, mental illness, disease, civil unrest in the DPRK, deterioration of the relationship with China, sanctions, internal military failures or public test failures, internal sabotage to the military program, or anything else that I haven't thought of.

mercer 9y ago
Let's also not forget that anyone in power after Kim Jong Un is entirely a wildcard to us.

KGIII 9y ago

I think it is dangerous to assume rationality. Un may not act rationally, so his actions may not make sense from your perspective. History is full of people who didn't act rationally from the perspective of others.

Iv 9y ago
Trump may not act rationally either. If he can protect his family and close friends, he seems unable to empathize with any other people and would consider millions of death like a personal record. He is more dangerous than most people acknowledge. He wants to make history and does not care if it is as a villain.
jameslk 9y ago
What makes you think the leadership in North Korea is any less rational than the leadership in the other 8 countries that are known to have nuclear weapons? Has the leadership in North Korea shown a history of irrationality with their nuclear weapons (e.g. using it against others)?

sien 9y ago

The powers around North Korea might attack because of the risk of proliferation. North Korea could sell weapons to, say, an oil rich non state actor in the Middle East that might use a missile launched from a ship to attack Israel. Proliferation has already been a huge issue. Pakistan may well have already helped North Korea in their missile or nuclear weapons programs. North Korea might attack if they suspect that a strike or invasion is coming. Their warning systems are not of high quality. That's probably why they worry so much when the US and South Korea do exercises. This is not to say any of this will happen, just that there are plausible reasons why either side might try something.

tajen 9y ago
Just out of mental curiosity, since you mention it... How does Israel (and other countries) prevent from the risk of receiving a Panamax ship where a nuclear bomb is hidden in the middle of similar-looking containers?
- bastawhiz 9y ago
  Men with Geiger counters. https://www.wired.com/2011/10/ff_radioactivecargo/ https://www.wired.com/2011/10/ff_radioactivecargo/

credit_guy 9y ago

North Korea will not "attack". They will do an extra-atmostpheric nuclear test, like many such tests done in the past by the US and USSR. At a high altitude, like about 400km. There will be no fall-out, no loss of life, no damages. But they will score huge point, despite the fact that their nuclear capability is far from being end-to-end. What they are missing right now is mainly the reentry vehicle, but aside from that solid-fuel rockets and submarines capable of launching SLBM's. At the pace they are advancing, the re-entry vehicle is probably within their reach in two years or so. But if they are suffocated by the sanctions, they won't be able to carry out their rocketry R&D. So it's vital for her to do the extra-atmospheric nuclear test, that is their only existential hope. On the other hand, it's also very important for China for this not to happen. Once this happen, the US can justifiably start investing in earnest in the ABM defense, and there are several options that can be pursued: beefing up the current options, like the ground-based midcourse defense, the Aegis and the THAAD systems, but also more experimental ones, like laser based defense, or rail-gun based. China has a nuclear doctrine that is strictly deterrence based (i.e. no firs strike, including no pre-emptive strike). In the face of a much more effective US ABM defense, their deterrence can disappear and that means they either change their doctrine, or engage in an arms race which they see no good reason to do. So it's almost as important for China not to let NK to do their extra-atmospheric test. However, my money is that NK will do that test in the next 6 months.

anvandare 9y ago

The problem is that, even if the players were fully rational, the game itself is foggy and obscured. Miscommunication, incorrect information, false positives, echo chambers, bellicose advisors ... These increase the chances of a catastrophic cascade of events. We know of (at least) three cases[1][2][3] during the cold war where a single person prevented such a (possible) cascade from happening (and there's undoubtedly more that were kept under the rug). Yes, rationally speaking North Korea and the USA are not going to attack each other since the potential losses by far outweigh any potential gains. They know it, they also know that the other side knows it, and they know that the other side knows that they know that ... etc. But at the same time, at least from the POV of North Korea, they think they're pretty close to a win-by-stalemate situation (multiple mobile ICBMs that can retaliate against the continental USA, ensuring they will never be attacked.) so it stands to 'reason' that the USA would attack right now, because it's their last chance to stop North Korea from winning. Humans are not rational, we can only build control systems and hope they catch and filter out any irrationality. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-...

jameslk 9y ago
> But at the same time, at least from the POV of North Korea, they think they're pretty close to a win-by-stalemate situation (multiple mobile ICBMs that can retaliate against the continental USA, ensuring they will never be attacked.) so it stands to 'reason' that the USA would attack right now, because it's their last chance to stop North Korea from winning. It's likely the US cannot accomplish a preemptive attack without a loss of thousands if not millions of lives with their ally, South Korea[0][1]. This would be a major defeat for the US before any greater war effort even began, which may eventually draw other nations like China. Given that North Korea wouldn't be the first US enemy to have ICBMs that can carry nuclear payloads to the US, it seems very implausible for the US to do anything about it vis a vis the immense consequences and even larger unknowns. 0. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm 1. http://thebulletin.org/sea-sarin-north-korea%E2%80%99s-chemical-deterrent10856 http://thebulletin.org/sea-sarin-north-korea%E2%80%99s-chemi...

erentz 9y ago

I don't want to see war. But I am surprised it hasn't already started. NK will soon have nukes that can reliably reach the USA on mobile launchers. If NK was like the Soviet Union or China, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem as those countries do not want to start WW3. But NK does not act rationally and NK is literally threatening to use these missiles against the USA. So the USA faces a choice: Either act now, take out NKs nuclear threat before they have the potential for launching multiple strikes. Or wait, and and hope they are bluffing about attacking the USA and that the political situation doesn't worsen there. The USA has a good chance, provided it plans well, of taking out NKs nuclear threat before it can launch using coordinated strikes with a lot of redundancy. The cost would be the artillery bombardment of Seoul, which could take anywhere up to 100k lives depending on how long it takes to knock out NK artillery, so the USA and SK would need to quickly dispense with that. After which NK would pose no threat to SK, and USA/SK can decapitate the leadership while keeping the power structures and NK military in place, then hopefully have a plan for rebuilding NK as an independent nation.

tomp 9y ago
> But NK does not act rationally In what ways does NK not act rationally?