3 ms·

>The only significant thing to change was American policy. The North Korean government has a small but credible nuclear deterrent in the form of a warhead stoc

>The only significant thing to change was American policy. The North Korean government has a small but credible nuclear deterrent in the form of a warhead stockpile + ICBMs. That's only happened in the last year or two.

mc32 8y ago
But they’ve had warheads and “scuds” (with conv explosives) for decades. Their man bargaining chips were SK and JP populations. My take is Am pressure on China turned China against supporting NK antics, in combination with the new Am admin to willingness to engage (diplomatically and otherwise) resulted in NK feeling alone and unprotected and thus willing to cut a deal for peace. Time will tell.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  North Korea's first nuclear test was only a little over ten years ago, and it's likely to only be in the last couple of years they've neared any sort of miniaturization sufficient to fit one onto a missile.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Fair enough. Yet they’ve had Katyusha style launchers pointing at Seoul for decades capable of destroying it (also assuring they get destroyed in retaliation by Am troops). So, the threat of millions of lives has existed since the detente. The main thing changing is the willingness of Am to apply true pressure and pass that pressure on to “friends” of NK as well as engage diplomatically. NK has not suffered from not having a credible MAD option. But it’s not a done deal. It’ll take time. It seems in these comments people are resistant to credit Ams because that would admit the current admin’s strategy is better than the prev admin’s failed strategy and people are loath to do that for political reasons.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      I don't think the NK desire for nuclear deterrence has ever been about deterring SK - as you note, they've already got plenty of conventional deterrence there - but SK's US allies. "If you hit our leadership with a bunker buster we'll wipe out LA" is something new for them to be able to credibly claim, and likely makes them feel quite a bit more comfortable. > It seems in these comments people are resistant to credit Ams because that would admit the current admin’s strategy is better than the prev admin’s failed strategy and people are loath to do that for political reasons. It may be a better strategy, but I think we'll only know that years from now. Lots of potential potholes lie ahead.
Clubber 8y ago
Hey have a hell of a lot of artillery pointing south too.

mc32 8y ago

But they’ve had warheads and “scuds” (with conv explosives) for decades. Their man bargaining chips were SK and JP populations. My take is Am pressure on China turned China against supporting NK antics, in combination with the new Am admin to willingness to engage (diplomatically and otherwise) resulted in NK feeling alone and unprotected and thus willing to cut a deal for peace. Time will tell.

ceejayoz 8y ago
North Korea's first nuclear test was only a little over ten years ago, and it's likely to only be in the last couple of years they've neared any sort of miniaturization sufficient to fit one onto a missile.
- mc32 8y ago
  Fair enough. Yet they’ve had Katyusha style launchers pointing at Seoul for decades capable of destroying it (also assuring they get destroyed in retaliation by Am troops). So, the threat of millions of lives has existed since the detente. The main thing changing is the willingness of Am to apply true pressure and pass that pressure on to “friends” of NK as well as engage diplomatically. NK has not suffered from not having a credible MAD option. But it’s not a done deal. It’ll take time. It seems in these comments people are resistant to credit Ams because that would admit the current admin’s strategy is better than the prev admin’s failed strategy and people are loath to do that for political reasons.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    I don't think the NK desire for nuclear deterrence has ever been about deterring SK - as you note, they've already got plenty of conventional deterrence there - but SK's US allies. "If you hit our leadership with a bunker buster we'll wipe out LA" is something new for them to be able to credibly claim, and likely makes them feel quite a bit more comfortable. > It seems in these comments people are resistant to credit Ams because that would admit the current admin’s strategy is better than the prev admin’s failed strategy and people are loath to do that for political reasons. It may be a better strategy, but I think we'll only know that years from now. Lots of potential potholes lie ahead.

Clubber 8y ago

Hey have a hell of a lot of artillery pointing south too.