WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Broomstick

They don't care if they get squeezed tighter. Limits on foreign trade don't stop the North Korean government from staying in office. They may even actively help, insofar as it makes it less likely that individual North Koreans will figure out just how much their government lies to them and manipulates them while trapping them in misery.

Sure, that means that much of North Korea is trapped in a Steam Age or Diesel Age lifestyle as impoverished peasantry. But this doesn't bother the North Korean government at all.

So the US can make threats, but NK can't because they have been doing it for much longer? I mean if you are going to point nukes and at the same time without a "no first use" policy, you effectively imply that a "pre emptive" strike is on the table, no? I will ask again, is it because NK is totally unsubtle about it that bothers you?

Since the US nuclear threat was specifically in the context of deterrent and not "we'll blow your country off the map if you look at us funny," we can reasonably ask: is North Korea doing the same thing, or a different thing?

There is a difference between picking up a club to wave at your neighbor and say "keep your distance" and picking up a club to wave at your neighbor and say "give me your wallet or I'll bash your head in."

The difference was the doctrine of MAD. The difference is that other countries seeking to join the nuclear club have made at a least a pretense of deterrent/self-defense/retaliation rather than openly declaring a desire for first strike. The difference is that Pongyang is very plainly declaring an intent to strike first, "pre-emptively" as they put it.

Ah, so it is because NK is upfront with its intention? Ok, so someone at Pyongyang needs to get better writers sprouting their propaganda then.

But with other nuclear powers, such as Soviet Russia, it was not a hidden intention. It was explicit that they wanted a nuclear arsenal to deter nuclear attack, they made this as clear as possible. The Russians did not stomp around saying "we shall destroy the capitalists with nuclear flame!"

Even if some foreigners were paranoid and didn't trust this claim, and thought the Russians might shoot first if the odds were right, the Russians were trying to communicate their defensive intention. The North Koreans aren't doing such a good job there.

If someone says "hey, we'll shoot first if you make us mad enough..." they really do deserve to be taken seriously.

[mr friendly guy]

Since the US nuclear threat was specifically in the context of deterrent and not "we'll blow your country off the map if you look at us funny," we can reasonably ask: is North Korea doing the same thing, or a different thing?

There is a difference between picking up a club to wave at your neighbor and say "keep your distance" and picking up a club to wave at your neighbor and say "give me your wallet or I'll bash your head in."

But with other nuclear powers, such as Soviet Russia, it was not a hidden intention. It was explicit that they wanted a nuclear arsenal to deter nuclear attack, they made this as clear as possible. The Russians did not stomp around saying "we shall destroy the capitalists with nuclear flame!"

Even if some foreigners were paranoid and didn't trust this claim, and thought the Russians might shoot first if the odds were right, the Russians were trying to communicate their defensive intention. The North Koreans aren't doing such a good job there.

If someone says "hey, we'll shoot first if you make us mad enough..." they really do deserve to be taken seriously.

A quick google search
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013 ... uncil.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma ... -strike-us

Quotes the North Koreans as saying NK "will exercise its right for "pre-emptive nuclear strikes on the headquarters of the aggressors" because Washington is pushing to start a nuclear war against it.

How is that not the same deterrence as used by the major nuclear powers in the sense they will use nukes if they think the other side is about to? Its slightly different for say the PRC which has a no first use policy, but with the others which don't, it strikes me as a pre-emptive strike is not ruled out if they think the other guy is likely to use nukes even if they haven't quite done so.

Doesn't seem like "give me your wallet or I will bash your head in". Seems like they suffer from a paranoid fear that the US will attack them first. Actually the fear isn't so paranoid except for the nuclear part since the US does have a history of replacing rulers it doesn't like, trying to engage in regime change, funding insurrections in other nations etc.

What is this? America can rattle on how it will point nukes at other countries, but when another country threatens to do the same its bad somehow? I can understand you don't want nukes pointed at your country, but that's why people have a nuclear deterrent.

[White Haven]

The problem here is the word 'preemptive.' That doesn't mean 'you launch, we launch, we both lose,' which is at least some level a sane policy; instead, it means 'I am going to start a nuclear exchange on suspicion that you might do so.' The options on the table don't come down to 'preemptive strike or second strike.' If they did, the 'we can't absorb a first strike' argument might hold water. The entirety of the Cold War, however, illustrates the far more sane third option, that of 'oceans are big places, we'll launch before yours land if you launch.'

I've got no problem with other nations pointing missiles at me as a nuclear deterrent. Well, that's not entirely true, I'd rather no one was pointing missiles at anyone in a global Mexican Standoff, but in the context of a world where that's already been going on for more than twice the length of my life to date, eh, whatever, I'll cope. Fine, point missiles at me because you don't trust me not to launch on you. Outside of a situation where two nuclear nations are eyeball-to-eyeball across a border, however, there's more than enough flight time to make a preemptive strike doctrine hilariously, insanely irresponsible.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Pacific Ocean.

[Simon_Jester]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Pacific Ocean.

Two problems with that for the North Koreans.

One, they can't afford the kind of massive missile warning networks we built in the '60s and '70s.

Two, they are vulnerable not only to long range missiles fired across the ocean, but to ballistic missile subs that could park about 100 km off their coast and they probably wouldn't even know it. One such submarine could probably wreck their whole country with a single salvo, with no more than a few minutes' warning.

[Darth Tanner]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Pacific Ocean.

Except N. Korea can't guarantee that any attack will have to cross the entire Pacific Ocean to hit its territory. It has a direct land border with a hostile state full of foreign troops from a hostile super power with said super powers carrier groups, submarines and Japan just off its shore to provide more angles of attack.

Furthermore does N. Korea have the tech to detect launches in the USA anyway, the first it would likely know about a US first strike is when its cities are already rubble and its launch sites have been smashed. At best the first it would know is when its local radar detected the missiles just prior to impact.

[chitoryu12]

Also, I think that if a war were to actually begin, the very FIRST step would be to locate and destroy every DPRK launch site they can find and prepare themselves for a nuclear strike in retaliation (namely getting the defense nets up and watching hawkishly for any trails of smoke spiraling off into the sky). I think that behind the scenes, both South Korea and the US are already deciding just how they would engage in a war against North Korea and may very well have their plans in place should they have to go for it.

North Korea is making a massive mistake in threatening "preemptive" nuclear attack: it's mostly just really pissing off everyone that they're threatening and making them get ready for a shootout, when before we had mostly just stared at them. Testing nukes and rockets made their enemies nervous, but threatening to use them ASAP will just make them a lot more determined to put a stop to everything.

At this point, I don't think that anyone really needs to debate whether or not a war between the Koreas will (re)ignite. It's just a countdown to when.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I highly recommend watching this three part documentary by Vice on North Korea. It's really something to see just how alien their nation is.

I really feel sorry for the likes of the tea girl or the guides. They genuinely see happy to finally have a foreign devil to entertain, to break the tedium of fuck all happening. And then there's the International Friendship Museum. I'd heard of that before and it is quite the thing to behold. It's a national equivalent of someone sending themselves valentine cards.

[mr friendly guy]

I agree that using nukes only if the other guy uses it first is a sane policy. However its clear some of the nuclear powers want the option of using it first for whatever reason, or at least the ability to bluff that they will use it first. For example

1. Eisenhower threatened to use nukes to settle the Korean war if the PRC and NK didn't agree to an armistice. This was before China was a nuclear power.
2. The USSR came near to using nukes on China in 1969 during the height of their border dispute. This would constituted a first use of nukes. They only backed down because the US intervened.
3. Thatcher was rumoured to have threaten to use nukes on Argentina during the Falklands conflict. To be fair, I have no idea if this is a bluff and how serious she was.

However its quite clear most nuclear powers without a "no first use" policy want to retain the option of first use for whatever reason including ones which don't include the other side about to launch nukes first. I don't see how this is different from NK is doing, ie retaining the option of first use. I don't like it, but frankly if other sides are going to retain the option, they should get off their high horse. I suspect this angst is more from a perception that NK leader's have been crazy. I suspect though Kim Jong Un loves his luxury goods and wouldn't want to do something which changes him from dear leader, to dead leader.

[Broomstick]

You invaded Iraq on a lark Broomstick.

No, we invaded Iraq based on deliberately forged evidence, not a "lark". I do regret that the criminals responsible for that will likely never be brought to justice.

[Formless]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The forged evidence was the means, not the ends, of the invasion.

[mr friendly guy]

I agree that using nukes only if the other guy uses it first is a sane policy. However its clear some of the nuclear powers want the option of using it first for whatever reason, or at least the ability to bluff that they will use it first. For example

1. Eisenhower threatened to use nukes to settle the Korean war if the PRC and NK didn't agree to an armistice. This was before China was a nuclear power.

Made a mistake. It was Truman who threaten nukes to settle the Korean war. Eisenhower threaten nukes in a conflict between the two China's.

[Broomstick]

It's been a long day and because I'm starting my work week again I'm not going to reply in detail (yes, I can hear some folks cheering).

Given that any Strike North Korea launched would be limited, even if nuclear, an all out nuclear response isn't neccessarily the only way the U.S. would retaliate.

The US has in the past said that it would use nukes in response to either a nuclear attack or a chemical attack. Of course, each administration is able to alter such statements or simply not comment on them but I can't imagine the US would not respond in kind if nuked by anyone. That doesn't necessarily mean turning the opposition into glass and slag, either, but there would be some return nukes.

Please, the US was pointing nukes at the USSR and China waaaaay before either President Bush.

So the US can make threats, but NK can't because they have been doing it for much longer?

No, that's not what I said at all. Of course NK has just as much right to pursue nuclear technology, or any other technology, as anyone else even if others find their doing so threatening. Of course, those same others can choose not to deal with or associate with NK for pursing such technology. Hence, the current situation of NK building/testing nukes and the UN security council imposing more and more sanctions.

What I'm wondering is if the NK are bluffing or if there is real substance behind their threats. They have the Bomb, are they going to use it or not?

I mean if you are going to point nukes and at the same time without a "no first use" policy, you effectively imply that a "pre emptive" strike is on the table, no? I will ask again, is it because NK is totally unsubtle about it that bothers you?

I see a distinction between “we won't take first use off the table” and “If A occurs then we will nuke B”. I find the latter more provocative because it is more directed and specific. Perhaps others do not share that view.

Ah, so it is because NK is upfront with its intention? Ok, so someone at Pyongyang needs to get better writers sprouting their propaganda then.

Well, yes, at least their propaganda for external consumption could be better... But, again, it's the specificity of their threat I find most troublesome. As an analogy, if someone says “I want to kill you!” it may very well be simply an expression of anger. If someone says “I want to kill you, and I'm going to break into your house at 2 am and duct tape you to the bed and saw your head off with a rusty steak knife” that is more alarming due to there being more detail. “If you pass new sanctions against us we're going to nuke the US” is much more specific than “We are building a bomb because we are afraid of the US pointing theirs at us”, at least in my mind.

Hell, the USSR and China were both pointing bombs at the US and each other most of my life, it's not like the situation has changed greatly. Except I was reasonably sure neither the USSR nor China was going to start something without some extremely serious provocation. Maybe North Korea views the current sanctions as sufficient, I don't know, that's why I started the thread.

But North Korea is not engaged in what I view as deterrent behavior. They are getting aggressive. They aren't saying self-defense and to deter an invasion, they are declaring an intention to start a war (or, more technically, resume shooting in a war that arguably never really ended). That, to my mind, is a different thing than mere deterrence.

GW Bush labeled them part of an "Axis of Evil" and invaded two countries with intention of regime change (obviously Afghanistan is more complex).

GW Bush is no longer in power.

The US also has a history of changing the leadership of countries it doesn’t like.

Just like every other world power, the US is in no way exceptional in that regard. Replacing uncooperative regimes with more friendly ones goes back at least to Ancient Rome.

NK on the other hand has gone 60 years without restarting the war. Or starting wars elsewhere, or changing peoples governments for them.

Right. On the other hand, they have kidnapped people for the entertainment of the ruler, bombed various bits of South Korea as they please, and sunk a ship or two. They have no qualms about poking others, and they've just acquired a bigger, sharper stick to do it with.

[mr friendly guy]

No, that's not what I said at all. Of course NK has just as much right to pursue nuclear technology, or any other technology, as anyone else even if others find their doing so threatening. Of course, those same others can choose not to deal with or associate with NK for pursing such technology. Hence, the current situation of NK building/testing nukes and the UN security council imposing more and more sanctions.

What I'm wondering is if the NK are bluffing or if there is real substance behind their threats. They have the Bomb, are they going to use it or not?

I certainly hope they are bluffing, and I think its likely they are. I could be wrong of course.

I see a distinction between “we won't take first use off the table” and “If A occurs then we will nuke B”. I find the latter more provocative because it is more directed and specific. Perhaps others do not share that view.

I suppose you could see it that way. However when a lot of politicians use double talk, phrase in such a way it could be interpreted to include more than one meaning, I really can't get worked up about it to be honest. As far as I can tell, NK is simply more blunt about it than most of the nuclear powers. Plus given that historically (see prev post) some of the nuclear powers have threaten to use nukes even when they weren't afraid the other side would nuke them first, I would be supporting a blatant double standard if NK gets criticise just because their propaganda is somewhat less subtle than ours.

Well, yes, at least their propaganda for external consumption could be better... But, again, it's the specificity of their threat I find most troublesome. As an analogy, if someone says “I want to kill you!” it may very well be simply an expression of anger. If someone says “I want to kill you, and I'm going to break into your house at 2 am and duct tape you to the bed and saw your head off with a rusty steak knife” that is more alarming due to there being more detail. “If you pass new sanctions against us we're going to nuke the US” is much more specific than “We are building a bomb because we are afraid of the US pointing theirs at us”, at least in my mind.

I don't know. I find threats like "how is that lovely wife of yours? She needs to watch where she is going because accidents have been known to happen, and we wouldn't want anything bad to happen, now would we", a bit more subtle than the example you gave. I am however still just as uneasy about it. So in that regard, I don't see NK different from another power which retains a first use policy, especially since they did threaten first use of it historically. NK just doesn't seem to know when to keep their cards close to their chest (unless they are deliberately showing it off in the hope of gaining something in return, ie more aid).

Saying that you will only use nukes if someone else does it is great and all. Until we probe deeper and ask why we don't institute a no first use policy like the PRC does. Or go even deeper and see when powers did threaten the first use nuke option to achieve a tactical advantage. To my mind simply not advertising it the way NK is doing it, just makes you look better on the surface. Until one starts asking questions, after which you look like a used car salesman studying for the bar. Hey maybe these nuclear powers only want to retain the option so they can bluff, and are generally not serious about first use. In which case NK at least gets the bluffing option as well.

Hell, the USSR and China were both pointing bombs at the US and each other most of my life, it's not like the situation has changed greatly. Except I was reasonably sure neither the USSR nor China was going to start something without some extremely serious provocation. Maybe North Korea views the current sanctions as sufficient, I don't know, that's why I started the thread.

I think this unease stems from the fact that the USSR and China were, lets say predictable. Part of that is we expect them to be rational actors even if we disagree with them ideologically. North Korea is something we don't have a good handle on. Foreigners rarely go there, their previous leader behaved like a cult leader rather than a leader of a country. Its hard to say how "rational" the NK leaders are when they even piss off their only ally. I will say though looking at their actions, NK has managed to generally string the international community along to some extent and get what they want. This perhaps suggests they know how far they can push the envelope. Lobbing nukes first would be too far, unless in the very very unlikely event the US even needs to try to nuke them first.

[Simon_Jester]

There are a couple of very good reasons for a nation, with honorable intentions, to NOT say "no first use."

1) The US in particular abandoned its chemical and biological warfare programs and standardized on nuclear weapons as its only WMD option. Thus, the US now uses nuclear retaliation as a threat in case someone decides to use nerve gas on our troops (or civilians). In that case the nuclear attack is a first use of nuclear weapons, but not of weapons of mass destruction in general. There's no obvious reason nukes should remain off the table in a war against someone who's using persistent nerve agents to kill and poison your land and people in the tens or hundreds of thousands, or who uses plagues that could kill as many. It's unlikely to arise, but it's certainly a possible outcome of certain wars.

2) The US has a history of using military units with tactical nuclear weapons as 'lines in the sand' to deter a rival from crossing certain borders (i.e. the West German frontier). The premise is that if this unit is attacked seriously, it will go nuclear to protect itself, and that this will inevitably cause the war as a whole to go nuclear. Other countries might do the same- say, if an invading enemy army crosses an arbitrary line on the map, nukes are not off the table as a way to stop them from penetrating deeper into my country.

While it might be distasteful, it would hardly be unjustified for me to use a nuclear attack to stop an advancing armored column from an invading conqueror. You can't ask a country to refuse to fire its nuclear weapons even in self-defense against overwhelming conventional attack.
______________________

For North Korea option (2) is an issue. This may become very significant if they develop nuclear artillery shells (possible but difficult); they might distribute those widely precisely to make it dangerous and costly to attack their armed forces in any real strength. You have to concentrate to attack and push them back... but if you do, suddenly it's raining kiloton bombs.

[Aaron MkII]

Disregard.

[chitoryu12]

The thing is, North Korea is escalating what was already a tense situation by making active threats to use their weapons. The dispute between the two Koreas has always been practically on the verge of reigniting, and there's been constant minor clashes (along the lines of a few shots here and there, or a sunken ship or two) for years. Testing rockets and nuclear devices put everyone on edge, but now they're threatening to fire ICBMs.

Moreover, this isn't the same thing as how the US and USSR handled nuclear threats. The Cold War remained a stalemate because each party only really intended to use their nukes if the other group used theirs, and neither party really wanted to be the one to blow the planet to smithereens. So they kept their weapons in their silos and just planned on using them if the other side did. Since neither side wanted to use theirs first, nobody did and we're all still here. North Korea, on the other hand, is threatening a preemptive strike. They're not going "We will use nukes if you use them." They're going "We think Washington is planning a nuclear strike, so we're probably going to blow them up pretty soon just in case. Prepare your anus." It's a much different animal, and considering that we have confirmed knowledge of missiles and nuclear devices, they may very well have the capability to at least make an attack. It's something that should be treated a lot more seriously than the Cold War.

[Stark]

Putting aside (again) that this is almost certainly for internal consumption and required to support the very specific social forces in play, sabre rattling has a long and storied tradition.

Talking about OH NOEZ THE FIRST STRIKZZZ when its a state so small and weak that the scope for a second round strike or anything but a totally meaningless second strike is zero. They want nukes to stop America rolling over them whenever they want like the rest of the world, and the only way those nukes have value is if people believe they will be used.

What good is a deterrant if nobody knows about it? This is so obvious it was a joke 40 years ago. The sad part is they may not have figured on the natural cowardice of the American creating so much social knee-shaking and political pressure that such games cannot be played.

[Thanas]

Stark nailed it and that is really all that needs to be said about the matter.

[Broomstick]

It's something that should be treated a lot more seriously than the Cold War.

Now that I have to disagree with. The USSR and US had the capability to annihilate each other, hence the term "mutually assured destruction". North Korea might, at some future point, have the capability to take out a city or three but while that would be very damaging it won't destroy the US as an entity. They certainly do not have the ability to reach Washington, D.C. at this time, and even if DC was lost the government already has contingency plans (thanks to the Cold War) and the states can each function with sufficient autonomy to keep things from collapsing until a new Federal government is set up.

So, no, I don't think this should be taken more seriously than the Cold War. Don't blow things out of proportion.

[Simon_Jester]

Side note:

Meanwhile, the US is building up ABM capability at least as fast as the North Koreans can build missiles. If we wanted to, we are probably no more than several years and one Afghan War's worth of money away from a system that could stop everything North Korea can throw at us, six times over.

[Simon_Jester]

PS: should have put this in the first post, sorry.

I agree that using nukes only if the other guy uses it first is a sane policy. However its clear some of the nuclear powers want the option of using it first for whatever reason, or at least the ability to bluff that they will use it first. For example

1. Eisenhower threatened to use nukes to settle the Korean war if the PRC and NK didn't agree to an armistice. This was before China was a nuclear power.
2. The USSR came near to using nukes on China in 1969 during the height of their border dispute. This would constituted a first use of nukes. They only backed down because the US intervened.
3. Thatcher was rumoured to have threaten to use nukes on Argentina during the Falklands conflict. To be fair, I have no idea if this is a bluff and how serious she was.

Thatcher had a problem in that there was a very real danger Britain would lose a conventional war. No one knew exactly what modern (or semimodern) missiles and modern ships would do, and if the Argentines had sunk more of the ships Britain sent to take back the Falklands, the Royal Navy didn't have much more where that came from. So she may have been seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons, just to make sure she won the war.

Would nuclear attacks on Argentine soil be disproportionate and wrong? I'd say yes, especially if civilian Argentines got caught in the blasts and if it wasn't just attacks on their military bases. But it's also natural- as I said, a nuclear power will always think about using its nukes to avoid letting a foreign country just walk away with a chunk of its land.

However its quite clear most nuclear powers without a "no first use" policy want to retain the option of first use for whatever reason including ones which don't include the other side about to launch nukes first. I don't see how this is different from NK is doing, ie retaining the option of first use. I don't like it, but frankly if other sides are going to retain the option, they should get off their high horse. I suspect this angst is more from a perception that NK leader's have been crazy. I suspect though Kim Jong Un loves his luxury goods and wouldn't want to do something which changes him from dear leader, to dead leader.

The catch is simply one of wording. It's one thing to 'reserve the right' to threaten use of nuclear weapons at some later time, when you MIGHT have to say "look here, either you take those tanks right across the border this minute or we start nuking you."

It's another matter entirely to say that you think the enemy's planning a sneak attack and will wipe him out first. Or (to pick a US example) to say "I have now outlawed the Soviet Union. The bombing will commence in five minutes..." It isn't funny coming from a guy with real nuclear launch codes in a real briefcase.

The North Koreans are used to being able to make horrendous, outlandish threats about how their nationalist whatever will destroy their enemies. Having nuclear weapons means that such threats are taken a lot more seriously, or ought to be.

"I'll kill you, you bastard!" can be an outright joke if you're standing fifty feet away from someone, waving your empty hand and standing still. It's not so funny if you're waving a machine gun.

[Broomstick]

Putting aside (again) that this is almost certainly for internal consumption and required to support the very specific social forces in play, sabre rattling has a long and storied tradition.

I'm not convinced on that point, I think the saber rattling is very much intended for external consumption as well. That whole "what good is a deterrent if no one knows about it" thing. The thing is, NK is going about it in such a way that it's getting squeezed tighter and tighter. Yes, other countries have been the target of sanctions for developing a nuclear program but i don't recall it being quite like this. Then again, maybe I'm paying more attention to external affairs than when I was younger.

[Thanas]

The thing is though - what is the world trying to achieve with the sanctions?

[Simon_Jester]

The biggest ostensible goal I know of is to stop North Korea from developing a big enough economy to support a stronger, more dangerous military. Not just by importing weapons, but by being richer and more able to pay for development of their own and the deployment of more troops.

[mr friendly guy]

The catch is simply one of wording. It's one thing to 'reserve the right' to threaten use of nuclear weapons at some later time, when you MIGHT have to say "look here, either you take those tanks right across the border this minute or we start nuking you."

It's another matter entirely to say that you think the enemy's planning a sneak attack and will wipe him out first. Or (to pick a US example) to say "I have now outlawed the Soviet Union. The bombing will commence in five minutes..." It isn't funny coming from a guy with real nuclear launch codes in a real briefcase.

The North Koreans are used to being able to make horrendous, outlandish threats about how their nationalist whatever will destroy their enemies. Having nuclear weapons means that such threats are taken a lot more seriously, or ought to be.

"I'll kill you, you bastard!" can be an outright joke if you're standing fifty feet away from someone, waving your empty hand and standing still. It's not so funny if you're waving a machine gun.

Its not funny, but the fact is its not much different except in subtlety. Ok, some people might find the lack of subtlety scary, but frankly to me it just seems more of the same (as what we have been used to from the major powers). Unlike the British situation in the Falklands where the British might lose a conventional war, chances are NK will definitely lose a conventional war. They need the nukes as a deterrent.

On another note, I find the NK threats of first use almost as likely as this "North Korean" claim.