North Korea's New Nuclear Test

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

After much posturing, they did it.

 

The tail is trying to wag the dog again.  China needs to swat this insect on its border.

[astronelson 339]

I'll be surprised if North Korea still exists come the centenary of its split with the South, especially if it keeps this up, certainly if it actually tries to deliver on its promises.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, as long as they have nuclear missiles no one is going to do a thing. Its far to dangerous. That aside, North Korea has the right to conduct such tests within its borders. The US might not like it, but the US does not have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, nor does it have the authority to tell North Korea what to do and what not to do. 

 

Better to simply give South Korea nuclear missiles. That should act as a nice deterrent. MAD has so far proven to be one of the most effective ways to ensure peace between two arch enemies. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

<snip>

 

Better to simply give South Korea nuclear missiles. That should act as a nice deterrent. MAD has so far proven to be one of the most effective ways to ensure peace between two arch enemies. 

You forget that there is a madman in charge of the North.  These people are so bound up in their rhetoric that they might just try to dump a nuke on the U.S.  If that happens, hope for cool heads in Washington.  If they retaliate in kind it could indeed start a nuclear holocaust.

[Alejandro24 575]

Meh, as long as they have nuclear missiles no one is going to do a thing. Its far to dangerous. That aside, North Korea has the right to conduct such tests within its borders. The US might not like it, but the US does not have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, nor does it have the authority to tell North Korea what to do and what not to do. 

 

Better to simply give South Korea nuclear missiles. That should act as a nice deterrent. MAD has so far proven to be one of the most effective ways to ensure peace between two arch enemies. 

Actually that's the only one problem. US has not the monopoly on nuclear weapons, actually at the step of his internal issues that country won't be the world power in short-term (if it is not from now). So, the US should keep to repair its internal issues and errors instead looking how to put order in the world and be the universal saviors.

Now, with North Korea and South Korea, the only thing that divides a people is only an idea, capitalism and communism. Ideas that not even are of they property and are only sponsorships of foreign contries outside of their reality.

And the nuclear weapons, I only one thing to say: I admit to be a fan of the nuclear physics in all its expressions, peaceful or warlike, but nuclear weapons are irresponsability of the governments.

[husher 18]

M.a.d never worked that well any way neither does appeasement , North Korea is in a total shambles; communisum has all but destroyed any semblance of civalised life now they are a threat to any democracy within range.

Its just like Iran if a religious nut job has a bomb; THEY WILL USE IT, because they have no moral consionce not to like the more enlightened nations.

All this will eventually come to a head; either North Korea will collapse under its own failings or they'll go out in a so called 'blaze of glory'

As for the Chinese; they have a choice; invade and occupy north Korea  which will draw the self important Americans in to it or sit back and do nothing to stop the far east burning.

There are other opinions; here's a good book to read on this subject: Dale Browns 'Battle Born' he had a different take on this but its just as relavent.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If the Chinese cut their aid to North Korea the starving rat might just try to go out in a "blaze of glory".  Of course, after the chips have all settled the UNHCR will wind up begging for more money to waste.

 

If there was ever a demonstrated need for some teeth at the UN or a world overgovernment, this is it.  From all reports the overlords in NK keep prison camps that would make Dachau look like a Sunday school.

[LexusInfernus 908]

You forget that there is a madman in charge of the North.  These people are so bound up in their rhetoric that they might just try to dump a nuke on the U.S.  If that happens, hope for cool heads in Washington.  If they retaliate in kind it could indeed start a nuclear holocaust.

Oh nonsense. North Korea is not run by madman, North Korea is run by people who know exactly how far they can go before they have to back off. You'll see, in a few months NK will make a few lofty promises, talks a bit with SK, and as a sign of good will the UN will ease restrictions again. This not the first time they detonated a nuke within their own borders and it won't be the last either. 

 

In any case, they know full well that nuking the East Coast of the United States will result in instant and total retaliation, and I'm pretty sure that their leaders do not have a death wish. In any case, arm South Korea with nukes and this game they are playing suddenly becomes a lot riskier, the chances of escalation increases, and you'll see that North Korea will be a lot more careful with nuclear tests. 

 

M.a.d never worked that well any way neither does appeasement , North Korea is in a total shambles; communisum has all but destroyed any semblance of civalised life now they are a threat to any democracy within range.

Its just like Iran if a religious nut job has a bomb; THEY WILL USE IT, because they have no moral consionce not to like the more enlightened nations.

All this will eventually come to a head; either North Korea will collapse under its own failings or they'll go out in a so called 'blaze of glory'

As for the Chinese; they have a choice; invade and occupy north Korea  which will draw the self important Americans in to it or sit back and do nothing to stop the far east burning.

There are other opinions; here's a good book to read on this subject: Dale Browns 'Battle Born' he had a different take on this but its just as relavent.

MAD doesn't work? Oh, and when exactly did your world end in a nuclear firestorm? And when did the Russians and Americans or the Pakistani's and the Indians engage in full scale total war after both sides became nuclear powers? Yeah, that's right, that never happened. And why? Because non of those states are stupid or barbaric, and non of those states like to risk nuclear destruction by engaging in a conflict that could escalate into nuclear war. 

 

And all these experts have been predicting that North Korea can collapse at any moment now, with their economy in shambles and the average citizen dying from starvation. They have been predicting that for decades now and it still hasn't happened, and I seriously doubt it will happen. So far the North Korean leadership has demonstrated an excellent ability to walk the very thin line between open warfare with South Korea and its allies and being left alone, and they have been doing exactly that for the past 60 years now. They will open up their country bit by bit just enough so they retain control, slowly building up an economy that is self sustaining, avoiding being overrun by the Chinese, Japanese or the South Koreans in the process. 

 

And really, you think the Chinese will invade NK? These nuclear tests are not just for the US to see, they are as much a message for the Chinese. 'Thank you for the help, but don't do anything funny or it might be Beijing that goes up in a mushroom cloud' it says. Add to that the fact that it would make the US and Japan incredibly nervous if the Chinese try anything in that area, and you can bet that China fully realizes that there is nothing to gain from making the first move.

 

And what would it gain from going out in a blaze of glory? Did the Russians go out in a blaze of glory when communism collapsed there? Have you ever heard of any kind of country that on the verge of collapse began invading another country with the aim of simply killing and destroying as much as possible? Don't be ridiculous, such things do not happen on a country wide scale.  

[Alejandro24 575]

...

Its just like Iran if a religious nut job has a bomb; THEY WILL USE IT, because they have no moral consionce not to like the more enlightened nations.

...

Oh well, I will not disuss that Iran and North Korea maybe have no conscience of about the power of a nuclear weapon. But lets being honests, US and Russia (even India, Pakistan, France and all the nations with nuclear weapons) have no morality to claim to stop the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea because they own nuclear weapons. So, is totally hypocrite to hear Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin claiming to North Korea (and Iran) to stop their nuclear program.

 

But the truth of all this is easy: this is a game of provocation and reaction, so North Korea and US can react in a really bad way so they can even to act in a good way.

[hym 358]

Oh nonsense. North Korea is not run by madman...

 

Kim Jong Il was widely regarded as being insane.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Kim Jong Il was widely regarded as being insane.

His actions clearly show that his insanity did not affect his foreign policy or his local policies. He knew exactly what he was doing, how far he could, how much he could take and when to back down or give in a little. And he is contending with China and the US, and to a lesser extend, the rest of the world, and so far they haven't done a thing against him yet. The man clearly had skill. 

[hym 358]

Kim Jong Il was widely regarded as being insane.

His actions clearly show that his insanity did not affect his foreign policy or his local policies. He knew exactly what he was doing, how far he could, how much he could take and when to back down or give in a little. And he is contending with China and the US, and to a lesser extend, the rest of the world, and so far they haven't done a thing against him yet. The man clearly had skill. 

 

North Korea was accepted as probably having a handful of nuclear weapons, and as a US commander said back in 1993 (concerning attacking North Korea as a means to prevent nuclear armament): "You can take them out before they have nukes, but not after."  Despite multiple nations wanting Kim Jong Il removed from power, no one was willing to risk the possibility that a war with North Korea would trigger its insane leader to use any nuclear weapons at his disposal.

[macvirt 361]

Meh, as long as they have nuclear missiles no one is going to do a thing. Its far to dangerous. That aside, North Korea has the right to conduct such tests within its borders. The US might not like it, but the US does not have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, nor does it have the authority to tell North Korea what to do and what not to do. 

 

Better to simply give South Korea nuclear missiles. That should act as a nice deterrent. MAD has so far proven to be one of the most effective ways to ensure peace between two arch enemies. 

Actually that's the only one problem. US has not the monopoly on nuclear weapons, actually at the step of his internal issues that country won't be the world power in short-term (if it is not from now). So, the US should keep to repair its internal issues and errors instead looking how to put order in the world and be the universal saviors.

Now, with North Korea and South Korea, the only thing that divides a people is only an idea, capitalism and communism. Ideas that not even are of they property and are only sponsorships of foreign contries outside of their reality.

And the nuclear weapons, I only one thing to say: I admit to be a fan of the nuclear physics in all its expressions, peaceful or warlike, but nuclear weapons are irresponsability of the governments.

 

In terms of balance of power as well as realpolitik (as schools of political thought) for the US, North Korea with nuclear striking capability is the proverbial wet dream of foreign and home policy instrumentation.

 

North Korea is a polity within the zone of influence of China, ideal for China to put to use as an instrument in the upcoming dealings for the prolonged conflict for dominance in the north and central pacific. North Korea however is far less dependant on China than most of the State Department in the US seems to think. It is a rogue element to China as well, but even in a worst case scenario of conflict it remains a useful rogue element. 

 

Picture an actual conflict theatre. Regardless of whatever happens to North Korea, the US cannot afford a land based conflict in Asia, the conflict will by the very definition of arms technology be a rather short if brutal one. In a worst case the US suffers badly, in a best case the US suffers majorly. Particularly in terms of economics, as usual. Not to mention how it will weaken regional allies of the US further. 

 

Yet all that is actually useful to the US. The Republic is facing a time where its major economic forces have no engines, so to speak, at home to base growth on. That is actual growth, not the virtual growth which is created through the finance industry, we've already seen how that is not sustainable and only of use to concentrate wealth - not create wealth. We often think it creates wealth, unfortunately we always forget that less than 4% of wealth accumulated yearly comes from declaring debt (median average of the past 4 decades this).

 

Let's be honest, the Republic essentially requires a foundation of conflict and centrality of mentality / opinion. We'd have to be utter fools if this were still unclear. It's an economy based on conflict mechanics for accumulation of wealth (through declaring debt) and high finance for concentration of wealth. There's a few percents floating around of what some decades ago was the middle class engine of societal economics, but that is irrelevant as this is a part which for the most part simply has no stake in ownership, only in debt.

 

In simple terms, the next decade will require further conflicts but the current focus of smaller conflict theaters does not suffice in terms of volume. Larger conflicts are required, but those are risky. The case of North Korea, the growing resource reservoir issues in the Pacific, these are of high interest. It serves to have a rogue state there. A conflict will cost, but imagine the potential of upping the ante through the reigning mentalities of the post 9/11 politics. If a city were to burn, it would - as terrible as this sounds - be an ideal catalyst. 

 

Even without an actual conflict, it still serves the US. It solidifies dependancies of allies on the US in the theatre. Militarily, but even more so economically. Especially if China can be goaded in to a more active stewardship of the rogue state of North Korea. 

 

Truth be told, I doubt China will be that dumb. Best they could do is remove its leadership, and integrate the country in to China itself. Picture the consequences of that for the regional economic tigers, and how they would orient themselves in the balance of power. Hint: the US would find itself without an increasing number of economically contributing and militarily dependant allies. 

 

North Korea's leadership is many things, but it is far from insane. The nuclear capability is one of the most powerful tools of the political trade. Strike capability is even more important. And North Korea stands to gain both at roughly the same time, in a time where the US is in no position to actually do anything other than create the very conflict that can only properly serve it if the US were to suffer first. Meanwhile China knows this, and North Korea knows its place in the pecking order of that sphere of influence. Very well so even. Look at the back and forth of the food aid deals part of the negotiations of the past decades. Every time these matters go through Beijing before North Korea moves back to the table. 

 

Best case scenario is that the new and upcoming capabilities will be used as a coin in the political plays between the US and China. Sure, that is not good for the US, then again, it's not like that is going to be an oddity for the next few decades. Honestly, the risk in these matters historically and traditionally lies with the US. Still, the US has wasted its ability and coin of trust to create or instigate a new allied circle. Look on the bright side, fair chance North Korea does have corrupt military leaders who are not averse to being used for instigating a limited conflict like Chavez, Noriega or just about every dictatorship of the past 5 to 6 decades It's not like the US have no experience with that road

 

 

By the way, MAD as a theory has always been a nice theory. It has however always depended on the notion that there was or is an equality in nuclear capability. The irony is that this has never existed in our case. We've always had nuclear dominance. Even the former Soviet Union never was an equal in this, and for a very long time it was not even a rival. MAD, like several other theories and doctrines, is an instrument of both ideology and politics. Keep this in mind. The truth is that today there is only one case of MAD as an application present in our world, and that is the dynamic of Pakistan and India. The sad part of that however is that it is economics that keeps that situation in check, and not the idea of mutually assured destruction. After all, both have a strategic and tactical capability, but one of the two actually can afford a nuclear conflict in terms of demographics and geographics. Pakistan really has zero chance in any such conflict. This by the way, was one of the main arguments in the '70's and '80's for the growing US - Pakistation relationship as an instrument of geopolitical balance, very similar to the US/UK - India relationship today.

[LexusInfernus 908]

North Korea was accepted as probably having a handful of nuclear weapons, and as a US commander said back in 1993 (concerning attacking North Korea as a means to prevent nuclear armament): "You can take them out before they have nukes, but not after."  Despite multiple nations wanting Kim Jong Il removed from power, no one was willing to risk the possibility that a war with North Korea would trigger its insane leader to use any nuclear weapons at his disposal.

And don't you think the North Korean leadership realized that? Nuclear weapons are just a tool to prevent the US (or China for that matter) to do anything funny. 

 

Nuclear weapons are not traditional weapons that are most effective if you actually use them, the real effect of nuclear weapons is simply having them. They are a bargaining chip a country can use, a way to keep other countries in check, to prevent opposition from doing anything funny and as something you can use in political trade. 

 

North Korea knows this and so far they have been using it to maximum effect. 

 

By the way, MAD as a theory has always been a nice theory. It has however always depended on the notion that there was or is an equality in nuclear capability. The irony is that this has never existed in our case. We've always had nuclear dominance. Even the former Soviet Union never was an equal in this, and for a very long time it was not even a rival. MAD, like several other theories and doctrines, is an instrument of both ideology and politics. Keep this in mind. The truth is that today there is only one case of MAD as an application present in our world, and that is the dynamic of Pakistan and India. The sad part of that however is that it is economics that keeps that situation in check, and not the idea of mutually assured destruction. After all, both have a strategic and tactical capability, but one of the two actually can afford a nuclear conflict in terms of demographics and geographics. Pakistan really has zero chance in any such conflict. This by the way, was one of the main arguments in the '70's and '80's for the growing US - Pakistation relationship as an instrument of geopolitical balance, very similar to the US/UK - India relationship today.

 

There is no need for a balance in nuclear capability at some point once both parties gain enough nuclear weapons and both parties have delivery mechanisms that cannot be destroyed in the event of a first strike. Yes, in all likelihood the US would have been capable of surviving the nuclear war with Russia while at the same time depopulating Russia completely by essentially carpet bombing Russia with nukes. But it would come at an enormous cost, Russia would be capable of landing at least a number of bombs on the US as well, Europe would get hit badly as well, and in the end, the survivor would become the enemy of the world itself, being seen by all the survivors as the reason for a genocide of unbelievable scale. There would also be collateral damage in the form of a nuclear winter, climate change and subsequent failing harvests.

 

In Pakistan's case, you can see how nuclear logic works. You can't win with nukes, only lose. The question is always how much you will lose and who is going to lose the least. India can take more population wise than Pakistan, but Pakistan only needs to drop a few well placed nukes to still kill millions of people. Pakistan has effectively upped the cost of a nuclear attack with such a degree that India is no longer willing to pay for such a cost. Better to keep the conflict a low intensity one, its less expensive for both sides. 

 

In any case, most political leaders, including the North Koreans, tend to think somewhat rational when it comes to dealing with nukes, and so far all political leaders come to the conclusion that the actual use of nuclear weapons comes at a price they are not willing to pay.   

[hym 358]

 

And don't you think the North Korean leadership realized that?

 

As Kim Jong Il's health deteriorated, one of the questions that came up was whether he might adopt a "use it or lose it" strategy with whatever nuclear weapons he potentially possessed.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

And don't you think the North Korean leadership realized that?

 

As Kim Jong Il's health deteriorated, one of the questions that came up was whether he might adopt a "use it or lose it" strategy with whatever nuclear weapons he potentially possessed.

That question came up in Western circles. That doesn't mean it also came up in North Korea. 

[macvirt 361]

 

 

And don't you think the North Korean leadership realized that?

 

As Kim Jong Il's health deteriorated, one of the questions that came up was whether he might adopt a "use it or lose it" strategy with whatever nuclear weapons he potentially possessed.

That question came up in Western circles. That doesn't mean it also came up in North Korea. 

 

Differences between culturally determined patterns of behavioural thinking. It's something we in the west tend to reflexively think about, but which elsewhere is pretty rare. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Everyone is thinking about the war gases and WW II.  It doesn't really apply to the nuclear club and besides if any nation had the will to deploy CBW it would be delivered anywhere they wanted.  We are all bound to hop around on the edge of the razor of self-destruction as long as there are sovereign nations who have an agenda to get something from their neighbours.  Even if it is to be left totally alone.

 

The chance of ever achieving a world state with the present human psychology is zero.