4 ms·

Perhaps because they understand the reality of the situation better? Look, almost everyone gets the situation with North Korea wrong. NK has exactly one deterr

Perhaps because they understand the reality of the situation better? Look, almost everyone gets the situation with North Korea wrong. NK has exactly one deterrent from being invaded, and that is a ton of very boring, very conventional artillery that is within firing distance of Seoul. In the case of NK being invaded, they would immediately start shelling Seoul and trying to reduce it to rubble. If you start evacuating Seoul, NK will assume they're going to be invaded, and start shelling it. In the improbable case that NK would start something, they would start by shelling Seoul. All of these scenarios end with NK being reduced to rubble by the overwhelmingly superior force of South Korea + Japan + USA. That's the deterrent we have against them. The nuclear missiles that NK is barking about is not a real threat. Everyone is watching NK 24/7,they cannot launch anything undetected. If something is detected, then South Korea, Japan, and the US will compete with each other about who can shoot the shit down first. And they will shoot the shit down. And after they've shot the shit down, they will invade NK to reduce it to rubble so as not to have to go through that again, at which point NK will start shelling Seoul, which sucks, but at that point it's an acceptable loss. Every single scenario ends with NK reduced to rubble. They know this. They have zero reason to move the status quo. Instead, the real reason for them barking about their nuclear capabilities is to get more leverage in sanction discussions. And everyone goes through with this dog-and-pony show, because we can't openly state the exact capabilities of the anti-missile defense systems that are in place around NK.

ScottBurson 9y ago
I think this is mostly right, but there is still some room for concern. First off, those anti-missile defenses have never been tested in anger and we can't be 100% sure they will work. (I'd love to think we have an effective boost-phase defense in place, but I gather that's not going to be a reality for a few years yet, at best.) Second, what I think Kim really wants to use those nukes for, besides leverage in the sanctions discussions, is to pry apart our alliance with South Korea, by making it too dangerous for us to come to their aid once NK attacks Seoul. Even with Pyongyang flattened, there could still be launchers hidden in the mountains and one of those rockets might get past our defenses. Would you really want to risk Seattle or San Francisco or even Honolulu? On the other hand, I think everyone except possibly Kim and his minions wants peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. The Chinese certainly do, and I think even the Russians, though they have less at stake, would not want to see war break out — certainly not nuclear war, which would endanger Vladivostok. What I don't know is how badly Kim wants to conquer South Korea. He likes to argue that his nukes are for defensive purposes, and that's not unreasonable under the circumstances, but the problem is that they can be used offensively as well. What I would like to see is a peace treaty that obliges not just us and Japan but also China and Russia to participate in obliterating North Korea should they attack South Korea or anyone else. That sounds like a pipe dream, but consider this. We could provide South Korea with nukes. Yes, it would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (I wouldn't suggest abrogating the treaty altogether, but it has clearly failed its purpose in this instance. A case can be made for restoring the regional balance of power.) We shouldn't bluff, but a credible threat to nuclear-arm South Korea might bring China and even Russia to the table.
- icebraining 9y ago
  What would be the point of arming SK over having a nuclear sub in the area? Would anyone really believe SK could launch them of their own volition? Surely they would be nothing more than US bombs in SK soil.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Seems to me that if Kim thought there was even a possibility that South Korea could retaliate on its own, with nukes, it would make him less likely to launch an offensive attack. But you're right. We don't really want to put nukes under the control of the South Korean government. Convincing the Chinese and Russians that yes, we really will do that if we see no alternative, wouldn't be easy.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    It controls the political risk of a rift in the alliance or cold feet on behalf of the United States. The situation you see playing out in Europe, where Trump’s affinity for Russia puts NATO’s integrity in question is an example of why a smaller party like South Korea would want an independent deterrent.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      No, I get why SK would want them; my question is about the US giving them nukes - more specifically, why would anyone believe that those nukes, even if the US did put them in SK, could actually be fired by the Koreans independently. I don't think the US can convince anyone that they would really unconditionally give nukes to SK to do whatever they wanted with them.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        I misunderstood. My assumption is that they would obtain them in a manner similar to Israel, and not acknowledge their existence officially.
- throwaway1X2 9y ago

ScottBurson 9y ago

I think this is mostly right, but there is still some room for concern. First off, those anti-missile defenses have never been tested in anger and we can't be 100% sure they will work. (I'd love to think we have an effective boost-phase defense in place, but I gather that's not going to be a reality for a few years yet, at best.) Second, what I think Kim really wants to use those nukes for, besides leverage in the sanctions discussions, is to pry apart our alliance with South Korea, by making it too dangerous for us to come to their aid once NK attacks Seoul. Even with Pyongyang flattened, there could still be launchers hidden in the mountains and one of those rockets might get past our defenses. Would you really want to risk Seattle or San Francisco or even Honolulu? On the other hand, I think everyone except possibly Kim and his minions wants peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. The Chinese certainly do, and I think even the Russians, though they have less at stake, would not want to see war break out — certainly not nuclear war, which would endanger Vladivostok. What I don't know is how badly Kim wants to conquer South Korea. He likes to argue that his nukes are for defensive purposes, and that's not unreasonable under the circumstances, but the problem is that they can be used offensively as well. What I would like to see is a peace treaty that obliges not just us and Japan but also China and Russia to participate in obliterating North Korea should they attack South Korea or anyone else. That sounds like a pipe dream, but consider this. We could provide South Korea with nukes. Yes, it would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (I wouldn't suggest abrogating the treaty altogether, but it has clearly failed its purpose in this instance. A case can be made for restoring the regional balance of power.) We shouldn't bluff, but a credible threat to nuclear-arm South Korea might bring China and even Russia to the table.

icebraining 9y ago
What would be the point of arming SK over having a nuclear sub in the area? Would anyone really believe SK could launch them of their own volition? Surely they would be nothing more than US bombs in SK soil.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Seems to me that if Kim thought there was even a possibility that South Korea could retaliate on its own, with nukes, it would make him less likely to launch an offensive attack. But you're right. We don't really want to put nukes under the control of the South Korean government. Convincing the Chinese and Russians that yes, we really will do that if we see no alternative, wouldn't be easy.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It controls the political risk of a rift in the alliance or cold feet on behalf of the United States. The situation you see playing out in Europe, where Trump’s affinity for Russia puts NATO’s integrity in question is an example of why a smaller party like South Korea would want an independent deterrent.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    No, I get why SK would want them; my question is about the US giving them nukes - more specifically, why would anyone believe that those nukes, even if the US did put them in SK, could actually be fired by the Koreans independently. I don't think the US can convince anyone that they would really unconditionally give nukes to SK to do whatever they wanted with them.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      I misunderstood. My assumption is that they would obtain them in a manner similar to Israel, and not acknowledge their existence officially.
throwaway1X2 9y ago