42 ms·
Indeed. The DPRK was right from the start. They always were. For the longest time I thought they'd gone too far, but now we're the clowns putting on a show.
by erxam 9mo ago
Indeed. The DPRK was right from the start. They always were.
For the longest time I thought they'd gone too far, but now we're the clowns putting on a show.
- conception 9mo agoI think have thousands of artillery shells aimed at Seoul is the larger deterrent.
- wood_spirit 9mo agoThe nukes are to deter the US. They have been steadily increasing their missile range to first reach regional bases like Guam and now the all the way to the continental USA, and are now even launching a nuclear powered and nuclear armed ballistic missile submarine https://www.hisutton.com/DPRK-SSN-Update.html https://www.hisutton.com/DPRK-SSN-Update.html
- roncesvalles 9mo agoThe nukes are a bargaining chip (disarmament). Basically, if your country has the human and tech capital to develop a nuke, you probably should because it's free money. I don't believe that NK's nukes deter the US from doing anything. Would NK nuke Guam and risk getting carpet-bombed with nukes for endless days and nights until even the ants are dead? Artillery on Seoul doesn't matter. The US would just ask SK to evacuate it. The US doesn't do anything about the DPRK because it's not economically relevant (i.e. it doesn't have the world's largest oil reserves etc). In an ironic way, their economy being closed-off and mostly unintegrated with the Western world maintains the peace.
- wood_spirit 9mo agoThe nukes have many roles perhaps but I think the fully developed weapons are for retaliatory strike. They are the North Korean leadership saying that if the US (or China or anyone really) tries to surgically decapitate them (like the US just did in Venezuela) then the nukes are used to take the attackers with them
- stackghost 9mo agoYes that's the orthodox doctrine of nuclear deterrent. To be truly effective you need a triad of land-based ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarines, and aircraft-based delivery systems so that your second-strike capability remains intact through any decapitation attempts. If you don't have the triad then you need to brandish your capability more ostentatiously, like France does with its deliberate refusal to commit to a no-first-strike policy. This is (one of the many reasons) why North Korea does so much sabre-rattling: they don't have a (publicly known) nuclear triad for deterrence.
- aebtebeten 9mo agoP5 by triad capability: CN 3 FR 2 RU 3 UK 1/2 US 3 Looks like IN ought to get Airstrip One's seat?
- mandevil 9mo agoJust a note that the importance of the triad is a very American perspective on deterrence and most other countries don't seem to approach this the same way the US does. The Russians really have a quad (they also have mobile, truck mounted ICBM's that form a significant part of their deterrent, offering some of the guaranteed second-strike advantages that the US gets from SSBN's- and which their SSBN program does not provide nearly as well as the USN does). The Chinese only recently added a manned aircraft leg of their triad with the JL-1. The Indians technically have a triad- just no silo based systems, all of their land based missiles are from TELs, and they only have two SSBN's and do not do alternate crews so more than 1/3 of the time they don't have any deterrent at sea. The Israeli's are not believed to have any sea-based ballistic missiles, their sea-based deterrent would be Popeye cruise missiles and so vulnerable to interception. The Pakistanis are still building their first sea-based deterrent. The French and the UK have no land-based missiles, they are only sea-based and airplanes. The South Africans invested in the Jericho missile more for its space launched capabilities than its warhead delivery abilities, and never really looked at anything sea-based, so far as is publicly known.
- stackghost 9mo ago
- LargoLasskhyfv 9mo ago> Artillery on Seoul doesn't matter. The US would just ask SK to evacuate it. How do you evacuate 10 to 15 million(counting Incheon in) of people, fast? Where to?
- coryrc 9mo agoProportionally that's about evacuating all of California. Completely ridiculous, which is exactly why DPRK has installed all that artillery.
- JasonADrury 9mo agoThe importance of this is often exaggerated. It's significant, but it's not that significant. RAND Corporation modeled this, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html It assumes ~130,000 casualties from a worst-case surprise attack on population centers by the North. If a conflict started ramping up, evacuations would rapidly shrink this. A significant deterrent, sure. But it rapidly becomes less and less meaningful as the DPRK builds its nuclear arsenal.
- 7952 9mo agoSure, but there must always be a fear that the military and public would not want to die in a nuclear inferno to defend national sovereignty. And may tolerate a coupe instead. Which then reduces the madness and the deterrent effect. The extra step the Dprk have taken is to try and build bunkers so that the regime could survive the destruction of the country. A step further into madness that goes beyond what western countries have been willing to accept.
- andy_ppp 9mo ago“And may tolerate a coupe instead.” I could tolerate a coupe but I’d prefer a sports car :-/
- westmeal 9mo agoAren't there bunkers near dc for that reason though?
- defrost 9mo agoAccording to some deep dives into the budget figures for the East Wing Ballroom .. there are new bunkers going in as we type .. and likely being networked underground.
- culi 9mo agoFeels like our politicians and MIC higher ups are preparing themselves for nuclear war but not building the rest of us any bunkers
- jojobas 9mo ago[flagged]
- fenwick67 9mo agoWell, really any leader who dissatisfies the president of the US, really
- binbag 9mo agoNK is protected by China, a very credible force.
- jojobas 9mo agoMaduro was protected by both China and Russia.
- anonymous908213 9mo agoMaduro may have been aligned with them, but that is a completely different thing than being protected by them. The DPRK is actually protected by the PRC, in the sense that the PRC is willing to and historically did deploy millions of soldiers to push back Americans from North Korean territory.
- jojobas 9mo agoChina, Cuba and Russia sent him air defences and some personal guards. What would China's millions do if Kim was kidnapped? Invade Seoul that had no say in it?
- the_af 9mo agoFrom where would an hypothetical operation to kidnap Kim be launched? Likely from SK or Japan, right? So yes, China could retaliate. The operation against Maduro was launched from countries in the region aligned with the US.
- knallfrosch 9mo agoThey're safe, but at what cost? They drive old cars, have slow internet and can't visit the coliseum. They're not invited to the cool parties.
- fooker 9mo agoYeah I imagine we’ll see a cottage industry of small countries with nukes in ten-fifteen years. Plenty of places have uranium and unless they are being watched like Iran they can just set up clandestine enrichment operations.
- nostrademons 9mo agoNote that MAD only works when there are a small number of players. Once it gets up past around 12, a.) it becomes too easy to detonate a nuclear weapon and then blame somebody else to take the fall and b.) the chance of somebody doing something crazy and irrational becomes high. Same reason that oligopolies can have steady profit but once you have ~10-12 market players you enter perfect competition and inevitably get a price war. There are 9 nuclear-armed states today. Likely this has set us on a path where nuclear war is inevitable.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago>There are 9 nuclear-armed states today. Likely this has set us on a path where nuclear war is inevitable. It's really hard to guess how retaliation would happen in practice, a large-scale nuclear war certainly isn't inevitable. The most likely targets for nuclear strikes right now are also non-nuclear states.
- nonethewiser 9mo agoPeople massively simplify the dynamics of launching a nuke. If Russia launched a nuke on a Ukrainian military target away from civilians there is virtually 0 chance of nuclear retaliation. Ukraine doesn't have them. Does anyone think the US, France, etc. would nuke Russia? Of course not. It's scary, but in some scenarios one nation can absolutely nuke another nation without threat of getting nuked themselves. In reality, the cat coming out of the bag looks more like that than nuclear armageddon.
- potsandpans 9mo agoYeah yeah yeah, this is the new narrative that I keep seeing. "A small nuke, as a treat." It's scary, but it's fine!
- defrost 9mo agoIt's happened before, although with no loss of civilian life. In 1998 neither India nor Pakistan were considered members of the nuclear warhead club. Then India detonated 5 warhead sized kiloton and sub kiloton class thermonuclear (fusion / hydrogen) weapons .. and within 20 days Pakistan responded with six atomic tests (non fusion, larger than warhead size). The interesting thing about that exchange is that India suprised the world intelligence community pants down with capability and execution, and Pakistan's speed of response was equally suprising. Despite the spectacle of rapid cross fire of eleven nuclear weapons and tense international responses the small nuke treats didn't escalate into anything larger .. and likely served to keep heads a little cooler wrt both India and Pakistan. All up there has been > 2,000 nuclear detonations across the globe, some definitely intended to intimidate or otherwise push the envelope of possibility. In that light another small nuke that avoided civilians and had a military target is unlikely to escalate although it would certainly cause a collective intake of breath and give pause.