3 ms·
That might not be an option. The North Korean people are portrayed in the media as victims of the regime rather than a horde of blood-thirsty, war-mongerers so
by smackay 16y ago
That might not be an option. The North Korean people are portrayed in the media as victims of the regime rather than a horde of blood-thirsty, war-mongerers so laying waste to swathes of the country with nuclear weapons is not going to go down well domestically or in the court of world opinion. The options for retaliation might well be very limited and the regime knows this well.
- bluedanieru 16y agoThis applies to a pre-emptive nuclear strike of course, but few would object to a nuclear response after Seoul is a smoking crater. If we didn't do it the Chinese would probably do it for us.
- tomjen3 16y agoBelieve me once the pictures from Seoul comes in, nobody is going to care much for the NK civilians.
- ugh 16y agoI don’t think those with the power to launch nuclear weapons care all that much about TV pictures. At least I hope they don’t. I would think the goal would be to save as many humans as possible (while, admittedly, probably not willing to trade South Korean lives for North Korean lives) and toppling the regime in North Korea as quickly as possible. I don’t know whether that includes nuclear weapons. I would hope that nobody would be willing to launch a nuclear weapon just to kill as many North Koreans as possible.
- philwelch 16y agoWe're still talking about the scenario when NK nukes SK, right? The "nuclear umbrella" doctrine, where nuclear deterrence is used to protect one's allies from nuclear attack, is well-established policy. The question smackay raised was whether public opinion would allow such a retaliation. The TV pictures take care of public opinion; the nuclear umbrella doctrine (and the need to demonstrate the West's will to enforce it) take care of the leadership.
- smackay 16y agoI am not sure the West has the will to enforce it - certainly judging by recent events in Afghanistan where there seems to be a limited amount of support for the USA. The deciding factor might be China's position on the matter. It provides quite a bit of support for North Korea and whether the USA would want to get dragged into a conflict that might escalate beyond the Korean peninsula remains to be seen. Having said that I don't think there is a significant risk of serious conflict since it is in China's long term interest to keep some form of low-level conflict with the USA or its allies going in the area, if only to further its territorial ambitions with the Spratly Islands, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands and other parts of the South China Sea which apparently has significant old reserves.
- ugh 16y agoI would assume that should North Korea use nuclear weapons, masses of conventional military will roll in. Could China or anyone else sufficiently powerful really object to South Korea and the US (maybe others?) invading in that case? I guess China would want in on the action, themselves invading North Korea.
- eru 16y agoWhy would the Chinese want to invade North Korea?