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.
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.Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, so let's have every country with them! Woo-hoo!
danivon wrote: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.Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, so let's have every country with them! Woo-hoo!
You can't constrain knowledge like that, as much as we gave it a good try with the NNT.
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.
We're supposed to feel better just because you think he's rational?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.