I'm not quite sure we have ever had someone as unstable as Jong Kim in control of nukes. What if he wrongly perceives a threat to him from the US and launches nukes? Mutual Assured Destruction relies on somewhat rational actors.

freeman3 wrote:I'm not quite sure we have ever had someone as unstable as Jong Kim in control of nukes. What if he wrongly perceives a threat to him from the US and launches nukes? Mutual Assured Destruction relies on somewhat rational actors.

Precisely. It only takes one delusional person, one who feels God has given him a "special mission," or who believes (for whatever reason) Fate will protect him.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, so let's have every country with them! Woo-hoo!

The problem is that once the genie was out of the bottle, it became inevitable that at some point anyone who wanted one and had the resources could build one.

You can't constrain knowledge like that, as much as we gave it a good try with the NNT.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, so let's have every country with them! Woo-hoo!

The problem is that once the genie was out of the bottle, it became inevitable that at some point anyone who wanted one and had the resources could build one.

You can't constrain knowledge like that, as much as we gave it a good try with the NNT.

The logical step, of course, is to eliminate their effectiveness.

The best way to get China to be serious on NK is to threaten the enabling of Taiwan to obtain nukes. We could even threaten to renege on the one China policy. There would be 2 Chinas for evermore. We don't even have to destroy their economy (and ding our own) to get what we want.

Ray Jay wrote:The best way to get China to be serious on NK is to threaten the enabling of Taiwan to obtain nukes. We could even threaten to renege on the one China policy. There would be 2 Chinas for evermore. We don't even have to destroy their economy (and ding our own) to get what we want.

I wonder if that might not have one of the following unintended consequences: 1) a military response by the PRC to "demonstrate" there is only one China; 2) a backlash on Taiwan.

rayjay

We're supposed to feel better just because you think he's rational?

I think you should look at the evidence. Everything the three Kims have done in NK is to ensure that their regimes survive.
Possessing nuclear weapons is another step in that process. Kim figures that the US and SK won't chance military conflict with his regime if they know he can nuke SK, and now the USA, in retaliation for aggression. He figures they will leave him alone and perhaps begin to engage him as a more equal nation state in the future...

freeman3

I'm not quite sure we have ever had someone as unstable as Jong Kim in control of nukes. What if he wrongly perceives a threat to him from the US and launches nukes? Mutual Assured Destruction relies on somewhat rational actors

And yet the evidence suggests that, despite having the third largest army in the world, Kim hasn't chanced the destruction of his regime by invading SK...has he?
He's acted quite rationally in that regard...
he's also aware that bombing a city in the US would not stop his eradication .... So until and unless he becomes suicidal..... its seems less risky than the certainty of massive destruction that any pre-emptive strike on North Korea would precipitate.

As far as unstable characters go ...Trump.
It is incredibly easy for Trump to launch a nuclear attack. There are no real checks on him....

It was 53 years ago that China successfully tested nuclear weapons. We haven't always been sure about their leaders stability. In 98, Pakistan confirmed it had nuclear bombs.... and their leaders haven't always been seen as entirely trustworthy. Particularly by India who has had nuclear bombs since 74...
We need to be worried that someone will actually think that they and their regime can survive the use of nuclear weapons. The real threat to this may by the development of new delivery systems...

The United States, Russia and China are now aggressively pursuing a new generation of smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons. The buildups threaten to revive a Cold War-era arms race and unsettle the balance of destructive force among nations that has kept the nuclear peace for more than a half-century.
It is, in large measure, an old dynamic playing out in new form as an economically declining Russia, a rising China and an uncertain United States resume their one-upmanship.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/scie ... china.html

rayjay

The best way to get China to be serious on NK is to threaten the enabling of Taiwan to obtain nukes. We could even threaten to renege on the one China policy. There would be 2 Chinas for evermore. We don't even have to destroy their economy (and ding our own) to get what we want.

And who, among western nations, would go along with this action?
Here's a hint. When Trump tore up the TPP one of the US's staunchest allies took this action:

Almost immediately after Trump signed his executive order, the Australian government announced that it would lead an effort to establish the TPP without the U.S. Australia's trade minister, Steven Ciobo, even fueled whispers that China could become a member.
If this happened, it would be one of the most delicious geopolitical ironies. The proposed free-trade zone was originally set up, under American leadership, to exclude China and prevent Beijing from gaining economic dominance in the Asia-Pacific.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/china-tpp-donald-trump/

Your speculation and presumed insights into the Kim Dynasty are truly fascinating, rickyp, but they are not "evidence" of Lil' Kim's sanity. A power-crazed maniac, or someone with a messianic complex bent on world destruction (see Iran) would do the same things.

And, as lame as I think Trump is, putting him on the same plane as Lil' Kim is not rational.

Delete.

Mr. Lucid. Mr. Rational. Mr. Calm, Cool, and Collected. That's Kim, Jong Un.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/asia/kim- ... index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/29/world ... few-years/

freeman3

Mr. Lucid. Mr. Rational. Mr. Calm, Cool, and Collected. That's Kim, Jong Un.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/asia/kim- ... index.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/29/world ... few-years/

If his primary goal is regime survival, then these events are somewhat rationale aren't they?
He's eliminating threats to his regime.
Executing potential internal threats to his regime is brutal and evil. But not irrational. Not if his goal is survival.
Do you think Kim is suicidal? What indicates he's suicidal?
What indicates that he thinks his military is invincible and that he can use them with impunity? THAT would be the act of an irrational actor.

Right...if we do anything to stop his getting an ICBM he'll go nuts and kill millions of South Koreans. That would be a rational move part on his part, apparently. Even though it would be suicidal We can't risky doing anything...because, you know, he's crazy. But of course if we do nothing and he gets an ICBM...then we can rely on him not acting crazy. Or paranoid. And we can rely on him not launching an ICBM even though he's crazy...and paranoid. He's crazy...and paranoid...but not suicidal. But if we do ANYTHING then he becomes suicidal and just cares about retaliation. Apparently, he can become suicidal...but only if we do something. Otherwise...he is just crazy and paranoid. But not suicidal.

Your logic is impeccable, Ricky.

freeman3 wrote:Right...if we do anything to stop his getting an ICBM he'll go nuts and kill millions of South Koreans. That would be a rational move part on his part, apparently. Even though it would be suicidal We can't risky doing anything...because, you know, he's crazy. But of course if we do nothing and he gets an ICBM...then we can rely on him not acting crazy. Or paranoid. And we can rely on him not launching an ICBM even though he's crazy...and paranoid. He's crazy...and paranoid...but not suicidal. But if we do ANYTHING then he becomes suicidal and just cares about retaliation. Apparently, he can become suicidal...but only if we do something. Otherwise...he is just crazy and paranoid. But not suicidal.

Your logic is impeccable, Ricky.

We really need a mic drop emoticon.

freeman3 wrote:Right...if we do anything to stop his getting an ICBM he'll go nuts and kill millions of South Koreans. That would be a rational move part on his part, apparently. Even though it would be suicidal We can't risky doing anything...because, you know, he's crazy. But of course if we do nothing and he gets an ICBM...then we can rely on him not acting crazy. Or paranoid. And we can rely on him not launching an ICBM even though he's crazy...and paranoid. He's crazy...and paranoid...but not suicidal. But if we do ANYTHING then he becomes suicidal and just cares about retaliation. Apparently, he can become suicidal...but only if we do something. Otherwise...he is just crazy and paranoid. But not suicidal.

Your logic is impeccable, Ricky.

We have a winner ... glad I'm still reading this stuff.

freeman

Right...if we do anything to stop his getting an ICBM he'll go nuts and kill millions of South Koreans.

I don't know what you mean by "anything". But if there is a military strike on NK he could unleash the artillery on Seoul could he not? (And his military could strike elsewhere as well.)

freeman3

That would be a rational move part on his part, apparently

.
If we are almost certain that he would blast Seoul to smithereens, and that there is little chance we could eliminate his ability to do so (which apparently we can't) is it rationale to risk the certain destruction of a city of almost 10 million?

freeman3

Even though it would be suicidal We can't risky doing anything...because, you know, he's crazy.

Again, risk doing anything? What is anything?I'm only arguing against preemptive military action.

freeman3

But of course if we do nothing and he gets an ICBM...then we can rely on him not acting crazy

.
These are the options, not including diplomacy and sanctions....
1) Try and take his nuclear options out militarily, and try to take out the military threatening Seoul and the rest of SK before it can cause millions of deaths in SK. Chance of total success - pretty much zero. Probable out come .... tens of millions dead. World economy in ruins. China massively pissed off. Russia also pissed off. Other allies? Probably not many sympathetic.
US on the hook for trillions in aid to help SK and NK (whats left of it) to recover. US casualties in the tens of thousands.
2) NK has nukes and ICBM. Either Kim doesn't use ICBMs and nukes (like every other nuclear actor) ... which is the preferred outcome OR
He tries to. The US might shoot down the missile or it might fail. Whether it hit or not, NK would then be eradicated ...however China and Russia and rest of world would realize US was retaliating legitimately... So, similar outcome to 1 except US retains legitimacy and friends.
The negative is that the US is risking a nuclear attack. (Get in line behind the nuclear attacks being risked already from actors like China, Russia and maybe others...)

freeman3

Or paranoid. And we can rely on him not launching an ICBM even though he's crazy...and paranoid. He's crazy...and paranoid...but not suicidal. But if we do ANYTHING then he becomes suicidal and just cares about retaliation. Apparently, he can become suicidal...but only if we do something. Otherwise...he is just crazy and paranoid. But not suicidal.

The only really positive outcome is if he doesn't use his missiles.
So far he hasn't used his military in a suicidal fashion has he?

If you are suggesting that the US make a pre-emptive strike ... I ask you if its rationale to assume the certain consequences of that ....when there is an alternative that has a much better out come?

Since 1954 the US has promised SK that they would stand with them in defense of aggression from NK. US Troops have been maintained in SK in order to show SK that the US would sacrifice with SK. SK understands that aggression against SK is also aggression against the US. NK understands this too, and has not risked aggressive behaviour because they know the certain consequences...
This is essentially the same now that NK have nuclear capability. Since this strategy has been successful for 70 years .... why should the strategy be abandoned now?

You haven't offered an alternative with anything approaching a positive outcome. So what is your anything?