Ship of Fools: Big Boom

Thread: Big Boom Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020284

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

So North Korea has the Hydrogen Bomb.

It is sufficiently miniaturized to fit on a missle.

North Korea has missles that can now reach the West Coast of mainland USA.

What next?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Here's a song composed by the magnificent Tom Lehrer upon the occasion of China conducting a successful nuclear test.

Who's Next?

I firmly believe that the situation in North Korea will stabilize before Christmas. If I am wrong, you can all point this out to me after the fact [Smile]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Here's a song composed by the magnificent Tom Lehrer upon the occasion of China conducting a successful nuclear test.

Who's Next?

I firmly believe that the situation in North Korea will stabilize before Christmas. If I am wrong, you can all point this out to me after the fact

With that very well done link of Monaco and serene.....

The other song from Lehrer of course with the couplet:

When the fission is uraneous
We will all go simultaneous.

(Scans better if pronounced in US fashion).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Not sure whether it is a problem or a comfort, but it's unlikely that the DPRK has enough missiles for the latter song.

My worry is that Trump's calculation will run something along the lines of: "eh, they'll probably miss and even if they don't the west coast voted for Hillary anyway".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It is possibly over-optimistic but I'm hoping successful tests + successful missiles do not necessarily = successful nukes.

If NK has nukes and they're actually thinking about using them on Japan, SK etc then it seems to me that either (a) the regime is so off-kilter that they don't recognise the reality of what would happen in response or (b) they do recognise it but somehow are engaged in national suicide.

I've no idea.

But right at this moment, I think there is a greater threat from Trump, Japan etc over-reacting (albeit, admittedly, with serious provocation) to start bombing NK back to the stone-age as some kind of proactive strike against possible nuke strikes.

It seems like the best we can hope for is that a racheting up of tensions means that both sides walk away muttering without flinging bombs around. Leading to further isolation of NK.

Gah. Not good.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
... I firmly believe that the situation in North Korea will stabilize before Christmas. If I am wrong, you can all point this out to me after the fact

If any of us are still here to do so.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Kim Wrong-Un is simply guaranteeing his personal security under the umbrella of Chinese strategy. (a) or (b) doesn't come in to it. China has supplied missile technology at least and much of the DRNK's energy in return for cheap raw materials. China gets to keep America off its border. It's ALL about China. China will not economically tourniquet North Korea as that would bring contagious social collapse with a true risk of nuclear war and America on the border. Will Trump start down the path of tourniqueting China to force that? Can he do that without Congress?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

War rarely produces any winners, if the NK Cold War goes hot then we can be pretty certain this one won't break that rule.

Should the Kim finger should wander onto the 'bye bye' button then China, by it's very proximity, is going to be in for major problems even if it does not get directly caught in the fray.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
My worry is that Trump's calculation will run something along the lines of: "eh, they'll probably miss and even if they don't the west coast voted for Hillary anyway".

Does he do anything as cerebral as calculating? I haven't seen any evidence of this so far.

If he does, the fact that Hollywood is on the west coast might give him cause for concern...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
War rarely produces any winners, if the NK Cold War goes hot then we can be pretty certain this one won't break that rule.

Should the Kim finger should wander onto the 'bye bye' button then China, by it's very proximity, is going to be in for major problems even if it does not get directly caught in the fray.

There's no point going there. Nobody wants to. Nobody will. The world has to live with the US, Russia, UK, France, China in the geostrategic nuclear club, Israel, India and Pakistan in the non-NPT club and the DRNK joining both. The Trump ADMINISTRATION has to find a way of minimally losing face, sharing the loss with China and Russia, in guaranteeing the security and economic freedom of the DRNK.

[ 04. September 2017, 10:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I have a vague memory that the North Koreans have conducted an underground 'nuclear' test before this one, and it turned out to be a great big bag of TNT. This regime is the master of smoke and mirrors. I reckon Penn and Teller got a few ideas for their act from the Kim family.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This would have needed a 100 (OOM) foot cube of TNT.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Calculated yield of the last explosion - between 100 and 300kT. Do you really think that N. Korea has just manufactured a quarter of a million tons of TNT, then buried it in order to blow it up?

I know they are bonkers, but this seems even less likely.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I know they are bonkers, but this seems even less likely.

It's amazing the lengths to which the human mind will go in order to avoid the conclusion that there is a very real chance that a lot of people are going to die in the next few months.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

History is useful here. This all sounds a lot like 1948-1955 US-Russian-China interplay.

North Korean has been successful at establishing its dynastic survival. Trump will bluster but the well worn principles of MAD come into play here. The USSR might have liked to have some Western countries as allies, but they knew the price to get them there would be too high. Same thing with NK and SK - NK may want to unify the peninsula under their dynastic rule, but the line has been drawn.

As long as China doesn't implode like the USSR did and as long as the current or any future dynastic ruler of North Korea doesn't want to kill himself (Hitler at the end type stuff), nothing much is going to happen.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I know they are bonkers, but this seems even less likely.
It's amazing the lengths to which the human mind will go in order to avoid the conclusion that there is a very real chance that a lot of people are going to die in the next few months.

There's not much point worrying about it 'tho is there?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

As I've said before, the only way we will ever find out if humans are capable of handling weapons of this magnitude without blowing ourselves back to the Stone Age is if the answer is no.

Kim won't survive if he launches first, so I don't see a lot of motivation for him to fire.

We know millions of people in Soth Korea will die via conventional weapons if we hit first, and I can't see anyone (and I include Trump) setting that up.

So it seems to me that the North Koreans have an effective deterrent. Only thing we can do now is hope South Korea and Japan don't go for their own, and hope that Kim won't sell his tech to people without concerns about their own survival.

[Votive]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I know they are bonkers, but this seems even less likely.
It's amazing the lengths to which the human mind will go in order to avoid the conclusion that there is a very real chance that a lot of people are going to die in the next few months.

And an incalculably small one.

[ 04. September 2017, 13:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
As I've said before, the only way we will ever find out if humans are capable of handling weapons of this magnitude without blowing ourselves back to the Stone Age is if the answer is no.

Kim won't survive if he launches first, so I don't see a lot of motivation for him to fire.

We know millions of people in Soth Korea will die via conventional weapons if we hit first, and I can't see anyone (and I include Trump) setting that up.

So it seems to me that the North Koreans have an effective deterrent. Only thing we can do now is hope South Korea and Japan don't go for their own, and hope that Kim won't sell his tech to people without concerns about their own survival.

Why would we strike first, with what? And how would that lead to millions of South Koreans dying by conventional means?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I don't think we would strike first was the point, but we certainly have our options of how. Bombers directed at suspected missile sites would be my best guess, but I have zero military experience.

The idea that the North could cause major damage to Seoul with regular shells is well established. This is pretty much the mildest take on the situation available. Read any article about the situation, and it is in there.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bomb missile what sites? Launch? Could be anywhere. Production? Unknown. Apart from the obvious ones. Is the US tracking every missile on the ground? And under it? Can it take out every missile? Those are rhetorical. You know that thing Trump said wasn't going to happen? Well it's happened. He had no rational reason to believe it wouldn't. The US has been completely outplayed to stalemate, it was always going to be.

And an artillery barrage starting now, no warning, on Seoul isn't going to kill millions of South Koreans.

[ 04. September 2017, 14:38: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

This is simply another cold war. People are panicking over it just as they did with the last one. (Oh dear, Khrushchev is crazy!) Yes, the world is in greater danger than before. The same options apply.

People worry that North Koreans will behave irrationally. If they were so irrational, they would not have been able to build missiles and bombs in the first place. Mr. Un's family has demonstrated great ability at survival over many years, and there is no reason to expect suicidal behavior now.

People worry that Donald Trump will behave irrationally. That is a real worry, but he is cowardly enough that he is not likely to do anything bold beyond blustering.

Get some perspective and chill out--but keep paying attention. (Now if I could just follow my own advice...)

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

@Martin, I'm on team "no good military option" here. I have no interest in proposing specifics so that you can poke holes in them. I already agree with your point on that.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
This is simply another cold war. People are panicking over it just as they did with the last one. (Oh dear, Khrushchev is crazy!) Yes, the world is in greater danger than before. The same options apply.

People worry that North Koreans will behave irrationally. If they were so irrational, they would not have been able to build missiles and bombs in the first place. Mr. Un's family has demonstrated great ability at survival over many years, and there is no reason to expect suicidal behavior now.

People worry that Donald Trump will behave irrationally. That is a real worry, but he is cowardly enough that he is not likely to do anything bold beyond blustering.

Get some perspective and chill out--but keep paying attention. (Now if I could just follow my own advice...)

I think I agree with this (including the last sentence).

I know Trump's unpredictable at best, but I honestly can't help thinking he realises that there's not a lot he can do. He's been sending out threats on Twitter etc. since he became president and has done the square root of nothing about them: if he'd truly meant to follow through on them, North Korea would be toast by now. Pushing the nuke button would be disastrous and a conventional war would surely cause more problems than it would solve.

On the other side, I think Kim knows this. The regime is all about survival (isn't he one of the most-protected and body-guarded people in the world?); that's his whole rationale (rightly or wrongly) for chasing after nukes, and surely if thought there was any possibility that USA would attack at anywhere near - which would pretty much wipe him and the nation out - he wouldn't be pursuing this path, especially not at the pace he is. He clearly doesn't care about Trump's threats, so presumably he doesn't believe them to be real (or, more scarily, he's playing a game of nuclear chicken with them). That said, he also doesn't care about any pressure China seeks to put on him, which is less optimistic; though maybe driving a wedge between N Korea and China (who seem to be losing patience with Kim) is one possible way for a solution to this. This, though, relies on Trump not pissing off the Chinese, which seems a distant hope.

FWIW, I think (or hope) some kind of cold war-ish stand-off is likely. That's still pretty scary and relies on nobody over-stepping the mark, which considering the people involved is far from beyond the realms of possibility. That said, things seem to have picked up a pace since Sunday's test: I see from the BBC that the USA is pushing for the "strongest possible" sanctions against N Korea by the Security Council, which presumably means China cutting off energy supplies. Would the Chinese do that? If not, where do things go from there? That doesn't change the military realities on the ground, ie that a war of any sort would be catastrophic for all concerned.

It's still pretty grim, and it still leaves the question of how to deal with a nuclear-armed North Korea; but perhaps it's the least-worst outcome possible.

[Votive]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I agree with the idea of a stand-off. Strangely enough, most people are being rational. N. Korea knows that it has a powerful ace up its sleeve, not nuclear bombs, but its weaponry stationed along the border. And the US military know that if they were to bomb N.K. the first casualty would be S. Korea.

China does not want a Korean war, where S. Korea might win, as they don't want a US ally on their border. S. Korea don't want a war, period.

So if nobody acts crazily, everything will stay the same. Strangely enough, N. Korea has no need of the nuclear bomb, as its artillery could pulverize the top bit of S. Korea, and maybe Seoul also. I guess it's fun to wind up Trump.

[ 04. September 2017, 15:37: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Strangely enough, N. Korea has no need of the nuclear bomb, as its artillery could pulverize the top bit of S. Korea, and maybe Seoul also. I guess it's fun to wind up Trump.

Nukes are also a handy insurance against the US deciding that Seoul is acceptable collateral damage. Never rely on a deterrent that's aimed at your enemy's ally when you can aim one directly at your enemy instead.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, if Trump decides that Seoul is going down the blender, China would have a heart attack, then what?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
As long as China doesn't implode like the USSR did and as long as the current or any future dynastic ruler of North Korea doesn't want to kill himself (Hitler at the end type stuff), nothing much is going to happen.

Why would anyone think China would implode? Of the 3 (America, North Korea, China), is China currently the most sensible and stable? It might like to spectate while two idiocrats have a go.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why would anyone think China would implode? Of the 3 (America, North Korea, China), is China currently the most sensible and stable? It might like to spectate while two idiocrats have a go.

China is heavily reliant on rapid economic growth. If that slows then the whole lot could come crashing down very fast. A large disruption in the region like, say, the fallout from a nuclear blast, could easily cause that.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I agree with the idea of a stand-off. Strangely enough, most people are being rational. N. Korea knows that it has a powerful ace up its sleeve, not nuclear bombs, but its weaponry stationed along the border. And the US military know that if they were to bomb N.K. the first casualty would be S. Korea.

China does not want a Korean war, where S. Korea might win, as they don't want a US ally on their border. S. Korea don't want a war, period.

So if nobody acts crazily, everything will stay the same. Strangely enough, N. Korea has no need of the nuclear bomb, as its artillery could pulverize the top bit of S. Korea, and maybe Seoul also. I guess it's fun to wind up Trump.

Very much like the animal world. Stags, lobsters, you name it - they evolve enormous weapons made mainly for posturing. They rarely do each other any damage.

Let's hope humans can be as sensible.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why would anyone think China would implode? Of the 3 (America, North Korea, China), is China currently the most sensible and stable? It might like to spectate while two idiocrats have a go.
China is heavily reliant on rapid economic growth. If that slows then the whole lot could come crashing down very fast. A large disruption in the region like, say, the fallout from a nuclear blast, could easily cause that.

Hmmm. I'd understood the same economic growth problem thing was responsible for the current president of America being elected, the America first slogan, the we-won't-build-your-fucking-wall, the facism, and all that other stuff. Isn't it all signifying of impending something bad, imploding, etc. Current environmental disasters being Gaia Jungian poetry.

Or must trumpy bomb something and start a great patriotic war as a prelude to it? A pile of bodies both ways. (and all along we thought he wanted to grab Iranian pussy)

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Just pick the rational, sensible bones out of all that, Boogie having the most, and you have it. Just put your rational, sensible self in Kim's position. You'd all do exactly the same. There but for the grace etc.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Apparently S.K want to be next. Which does lead to one interesting counterintuitive solution.

N.K. can't risk losing the threat of M.A.D but I don't think lose by being in a more M.A.D situation, and do want to be significant and to have money and have what S.K want.

The only downsides are:
1) S.K. turns out to be even more desperately crazy (unlikely)
2) It reveals their weapon's aren't so good.
3) It allows development of a counter
4) If the US decides that that makes S.K. expendable and their new missiles don't yet reach the U.S.

[ 04. September 2017, 20:55: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is possibly over-optimistic but I'm hoping successful tests + successful missiles do not necessarily = successful nukes.

If it's true that NK have just successfully tested a H-bomb small enough to fit in a missile, all that shows is that they have made one such device. It says nothing about whether they can replicate such a device.

On top of which their recent missile tests haven't been successful. The one last week that went over Japan broke up. They can't nuclear arm a missile until it's known that it will stay together until it reaches it's target.

Of course, they can still (potentially) use one of their proven shorter range missiles, or free fall bombs from aircraft. The risk of global conflict has risen, but NK hasn't reached the stage of having an intercontinental nuclear capability. The difficulty is how the international community slows the progress of NK to that end, let alone stops it. Especially when many of the most vocal voices are hypocritically armed with the same sort of weapons.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Why is Nikki Halley knowingly talking such utter bollocks at the UN?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry, Hal[l]ey. BBC: US ambassador Nikki Haley: "Kim Jong-un is begging for war". Presumably this is just rhetoric for him wanting everything except war, calculatingly coming as close to war, to inviting war, as he can without it actually happening. She doesn't literally believe otherwise or expect anyone else to believe that the Trump administration does.

There. So why did I have to ask, eh?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If I were China I would try to arrange a military coup d'tat. In the hope long term of moving away from dynastic inheritance of absolute power (which I think has a tendency to lead to Caligua-like situations.)

Also hoping, on general principles to get away from folk being encouraged to worship their leader as a god. Hoping in the long run for a country that would fall within the Chinese sphere of influence and be run along similar lines.

I think China has a better chance of securing something like that than the USA, and of doing so without fundamentally destabilizing the global power balance.

Whilst I am pro democratic government, I also think that a Chinese style communist government would probably deliver a better quality of life for N Korean citizens than the current regime. So it would still be a step along the way for a better future for the people living there. Just no being half starved would be a start.

None of this would necessarily result in N Korea not having nuclear weapons, but might well result in folk being a lot less worried about them having them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

We all just have to wait another 50 years for his successor(s) who will eventually lighten up enough, like Russia, China, Burma. That's what the Chinese will do. The US can either join in the pragmatism, to the point of massive investment in the DRNK, or let China and Russia do it. However I more than suspect Kim's canny enough to keep his people on the edge of starvation, but he too will pass.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If I were China I would try to arrange a military coup d'tat.

I think we need to start by taking a step back and asking what the North Korean government is afraid of, because the power posturing of the nuclear and missile tests looks a lot like a response to fear - a "don't mess with us" reaction. I would suggest that quite high on that list is the fear of enforced regime change - they look to Iraq and Libya and see that a) it was personally a disaster for Saddam and Gaddafi and b) a disaster for the nation. For their own personal safety and the good of the nation they could quite reasonably say that enforced regime change would be something to fear.

In which case, China (or anyone else) making moves to suggest that is what they would consider to be the best solution is just going to make the current regime hunker down and stoke their fear - leading to all the abuses of their people that we know from leaders who start getting paranoid that someone's out to get them, and more of the response we've seen - further tests of missiles and nuclear weapons.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Absolutely. China is vastly wiser than that, Russia too. Can Kim let his people get rich the Chinese way without losing control?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yes, it is exactly what they are afraid of - but it is still what I would do if I were China. *Before* they have long range nukes.

For three reasons:

Firstly their dynastic system is inherently unstable.
Secondly they are not competent at running their country (famine etc)
Thirdly because otherwise what others learn from watching this is: if you race to develop nukes then there will not be enforced regime change.

And every unbalanced despot will pile on to that strategy. They don't now because it has been largely assumed if you rush to nukes - then you will get flattened by superpowers before you succeed.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
As long as China doesn't implode like the USSR did and as long as the current or any future dynastic ruler of North Korea doesn't want to kill himself (Hitler at the end type stuff), nothing much is going to happen.
Why would anyone think China would implode? Of the 3 (America, North Korea, China), is China currently the most sensible and stable? It might like to spectate while two idiocrats have a go.

We didn't think the USSR would implode either.

History is long. North Korea will have nukes for decades. The Cold war lasted 40 years. You get used to it after awhile.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If I were China, I think I would keep the bombast going, warn the USA off behind the scenes, keep exporting to the USA, and keep developing business in Africa, leaving them behind.

There's benefit to keeping Korea in focus while building military bases in the South China Sea quite far away. China must be enjoying the Philippines' instability, watching a former USA client state go nutbar and consider that this plays well into its South China Sea strategy.

Is North Korea just a fun distraction?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Doublethink

Nobody flattened Pakistan or Iran. China doesn't do regime change. She and the DRNK are in a pact.

1 After three generations may be. Like Genghis Khan ...
2 Famine keeps people manageable.
3 See Pakistan and Iran above.

@Og - how could China implode? Otherwise yes, ignore the nukes like we have since the 80s.

@no - exactly. This is Pax Sinensis.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Absolutely. China is vastly wiser than that, Russia too. Can Kim let his people get rich the Chinese way without losing control?

He might feed them, first.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Just pick the rational, sensible bones out of all that, Boogie having the most, and you have it. Just put your rational, sensible self in Kim's position. You'd all do exactly the same. There but for the grace etc.

If I was in Kim's position I would do two things:

1. Shave my head and start again;

2. Crack under the pressure and be the victim of an internal coup-d'etat. Honestly, I would wilt like a banana peel left on the dashboard of a car on a summer's day. I'd be devoid of all fluid inside an hour.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Doublethink

Nobody flattened Pakistan or Iran.

Or Israel...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Whilst I am pro democratic government, I also think that a Chinese style communist government would probably deliver a better quality of life for N Korean citizens than the current regime.

I'm struggling to think of any alternative type of government that wouldn't be better for the normal NK citizens. Even anarchy would at least give them a fighting chance.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Doublethink

Nobody flattened Pakistan or Iran.
Or Israel...

Quite, although I left her out as she had FRIENDS.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I never worked out why Israel wanted the existence of its nukes kept secret. I suppose it had something to do with the Americans getting shitty. I thought you were supposed to tell everyone you had nukes so that they would think twice about attacking you. That's what the North Koreans are doing.

Does anybody remember those heady days in the 1950's when every man and his dog wanted a nuke? Even Australia was trying to get one. And the Americans went around the place saying "No no no, you don't need the bomb. We'll protect you."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Israel doesn't talk much. She acts. Dimona's been running since '58. Seven years later they may well have availed themselves of hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium from the States: The Apollo Affair. Two years before the Six Day War. I recall in the summer of '79 Menachem Begin saying, before the Camp David Accords, that if Israel had to pull down the temple of humanity, she would. There was only one way she could have done that.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

@Og - how could China implode? Otherwise yes, ignore the nukes like we have since the 80s.

...

Who knows how China could implode but things happen - history is long.

BTW, never said ignore the Nukes. Just get used to the threat potential. Its the only way to live and not go nuts.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye, I don't do unquantifiable threats, so I'll be ignoring the nukes and any scenario involving the collapse of China: big bangs and big sucks. It's going to be amusing how Trump makes a win out of being completely outwitted by Kim.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This is instructive as to why NK absolutely needs nukes, to keep the USA and it's friend UK at bay.

Cooperate with negotiated disarming of weapons of mass destruction and they will invade you and kill you.

As quoted, the NK foreign ministry stated when the USA/UK arranged Libya's regime change;
[quote]Libya’s nuclear disarmament much touted by the U.S. in the past turned out to be a mode of aggression whereby the latter coaxed the former with such sweet words as ‘guarantee of security’ and ‘improvement of relations’ to disarm itself and then swallowed it up by force.[/url]

NK is better to keep the weapons and if negotiations occur to do them from a position of force, not weakness given history. NK also observed: “The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programmes of their own accord,”

Sounds completely rational doesn't it?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I never worked out why Israel wanted the existence of its nukes kept secret. I suppose it had something to do with the Americans getting shitty. I thought you were supposed to tell everyone you had nukes so that they would think twice about attacking you. That's what the North Koreans are doing.

Does anybody remember those heady days in the 1950's when every man and his dog wanted a nuke? Even Australia was trying to get one. And the Americans went around the place saying "No no no, you don't need the bomb. We'll protect you."

I think the idea may have been that denying it meant the threat was still tangible but wouldn't necessarily compel Israel's neighbours to seek nuclear weapons to maintain parity. Also allowed Israel to practice US-style no-one-else-can-have-wmd policies with the pretence of not being hypocritical. Ultimately it's a huge exercise in attempting to have your cake and eat it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Are... it's a lot simpler than that and they've never denied it.

@No... I initially felt in full agreement, but I suspect that there are no comparisons. Iran isn't going to implode with our without outside pressure due to the lack of nukes. Its security WILL be maintained, by Russia and America. How would Saddam and Gaddafi having nukes have kept them in power? How would Kim not having nukes had cost him power? Those are open questions. Having a massive nuclear arsenal didn't keep the Soviet Communist Party in power. I'm sure it helped for forty years. I'm sure it helps cohere internal control through a military class. It does that everywhere, even in bumbling little Britain. Where nukes played no direct part at all in the Falklands. Makes for an interestingly different chess game every time.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Martin: USSR was not directly threatened with aggression from without. Nukes deter aggression. If a despot is threatened with invasion, out comes nuke threat as deterent. Invasion doesn't even get planned then.

Make no mistake, we rhyme with mid19th century history but our bombs and egos are bigger, and its all on Twitter, Youtube and recycled by professional propagandists. And it does good distraction from Bigly politicians and local incompetence.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No... yeaahhss. Not sure why that's germane. We all know that. Having a nuke deters invasion. It didn't deter Argentina. It doesn't guarantee your regime's survival. Not having a nuke doesn't mean your regime - no matter how nasty - won't survive. Kim was doing fine without nukes.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0