WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Broomstick]

I was actually hoping you would go back to my first comment Zig, the one where I pretty much said I was only referring to the Americans I had seen on the internet, and how some of them seem terrified of North Korea, but simultaneously all aquiver with anticipation at the prospect of watching the US grind North Korea into the dirt. The sheer mass comment id because, frankly, I've seen a lot more than 3 people on a lot more than one forum, even before I begin to add up the number of 'likes' in the various likeable social media whatsits, but haven't seen a single South Korean or Japanese person express any more than the usual Í live closer to North Korea than anybody thinks is ideal' concern. Admittedly I don't spend a lot of time on sites devoted to South Korean or Japanese national interests, but I don't spend a lot of time on sites devoted to US national interests either.

Unfortunately, social media seems to bring out the asshats. Probably one reason I don't get involved with social media.

I do know one long standing complaint from South Koreans is that Americans in general pretty much act as if South Korea doesn't exist. What the US does can be very important to South Korea and can have a huge impact, and the US often completely ignores the existence of South Korea when making decisions or taking actions. You know what? The South Koreans are absolutely correct on that. I'm not proud of that fact, but it's the sad truth.

The only recent change is that with the US economic problems right now a lot more young Americans are emigrating to other countries, and one increasing common destination is South Korea, often to work as English instructors. Most of these young people are middle class, or formerly middle class, so it's focusing more American attention on South Korea than in the past. Not a lot more, but some. And some of those Americans who suddenly noticed South Korea because a relative has moved there are also noticing the DPRK in a way they didn't before. The notion their friend/loved one is now living with weapons pointed at them is making them distinctly uncomfortable because it's not a position Americans have been in for many generations now. For too long Americans have tried to solve their problems by pointing guns at people, and now guns are pointing at them. This is a very uncomfortable position and too many have no alternative tools for problem solving. Yes, it's bad. I fully support searching for less hazardous means of dealing with such situations.

Except the north Koreans have been threatening on and off to blow up parts of South Korea for the last 60 odd years, nothing too serious has happened yet, why should it all of a sudden happen now?

See note about many Americans noticing the two Koreas for the first time in those 60 years, and possible reasons why. Additional reasons include the other two current US wars winding down so anything about either Korea is more likely to make the headlines.

Actually, the new Pope dominating the news might have been a blessing, as it lessened the US media whipping up more of a frenzy over North Korea's nuclear program. There have been times recently when I want to scream WHO THE HELL CARES? when more Pope coverage is broadcast but it sure beats the media going OMIGOD OMIGOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE NUKE-BOMBED! So please, more Pope, less Kim Jong-Un.

[Mr. Coffee]

Wait, didn't us and the Russians spend most of the cold war pretty much doing exactly that?

I hate to break it to you, but as others have pointed out the Cold War was a totally different animal, during cold war both sides were "we're not gonna start a nuclear war but we will end it" which is one of the reasons it stayed in a stalemate neither side was willing to start armageddon, what North Korea is doing on the otherhand is threating to start nuclear war WITHOUT OBVIOUS PROVOCATION which is totally different, they're essentially saying "if I don't get what I want I'll start a nuclear war".

Give Coffee a break, he's not being dumb here. He's not wrong, he just isn't using the word 'threaten' the way I mean 'threaten.'

The Russians used their nukes the way a Republican would talk about Second Amendment protection of your house: it gives you a weapon and scares away intruders. North Korea is using their nukes the way an armed robber would use that same weapon: taking it out and using the threat of their Saturday night special to intimidate people into giving them money and stuff.

Actually both us and the Russians were more like themovie Grumpy Old Men, only instead cute comefic shenanigans involving ice fishing huts and a gmilf it was both of us threatening to blow up the entire lake if the other came near our hut.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you for the most part. I can completely understand why my country is making a big deal of the latest episode of Crazy Shit The Kim Family Says. It's really simple too. Turns out there's a huge difference between spending sixty years threating to invade one of our allies and suddenly moving things up to treatening to attack us directly with nuclear weapons.

I just think it's amusing as all hell.

I can also understand where Thanas and some others are coming from. The US has spent a large part of it's existence massively and disproportionately kicking the ever loving shit out of people. Where the North Koreans spent sixty years threatening to invade theit neighbor in same time the US has actually invaded, bombed, and/or kicked the shit out of several countries. The North Koreans say they'll use nuclear weapons. The US has actually used them in anger. Twice.

I can completely understand why other nations are more afraid of how we'll react then they are of the latest fatass in Pyongyang actually acting. This also amuses the hell out of me.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm really curious about how you're defining 'worse,' because you're comparing a country with slave labor camps for thousands of political dissidents to one that doesn't have them.

I could point out I am talking in terms of who is likely to start a war with other nations, rather than how each nation behaves in its own borders. But your rhetoric is the same type pro-American people use to justify the US actions. We treat our own population better than they do. Therefore we can do whatever we like to them.

But besides that, you're also ignoring changes in strategic reality. The US hasn't started any new wars in about ten years, for several very good reasons. No new ones are in the cards, vague chest-beating about Iran aside. The only thing that's going on now that we can really argue is wrong is the drone war, and the drone war proceeds with the tacit consent of the national governments in the area we're fighting over.

That's because you are still kind of involved in two. Oh I forgot, mission accomplished.

The problem is that few people right now seem willing to make intellectually honest comparisons between US "if we think you are in Al Qaeda the drones we base in your country will blow you up" and North Korea "we think nuclear war hoaxes are a good way to pass the time, so we'll tell you we're going to turn millions of your people into a sea of fire for giggles." These are very different kinds of 'threat' that mean different things to the people they're pointed at.

Didn't we mention the honest comparisons several times before? Because I am sure several people have pointed out the difference between someone who threatens but hasn't been able to follow through, and the other which threatens and follows through. How you missed this is beyond me.

Without that basic honesty, the US-NK comparison is a ridiculous distraction and waste of time.

For one side yes.

No, in this case the problem is that you're identifying with a "global civilization" tribe that looks down on the "America" tribe. When your despised enemies have a problem, you'd rather talk about how despicable they are than look realistically at the problem.

I'm sorry, was that not obvious enough?

Global civilization tribe? And I thought I was asleep at the wheel when I didn't realise I was part of the Atheist conspiracy and missed all the fringe benefits with being the secret rulers of the world. Apparently there is another tribe I am supposed to be part of. What benefits do I get?

[PeZook]

As far as I can tell, you're using "the answer is obvious, but you are too stupid-arrogant and I don't like your attitude" as an excuse to not answer questions.

Condescending and lying now. I will most definitely be scrolling by your posts from now on.

No, actually Simon asked you to explain how North Korea's circumstances make it okay for them to directly threaten neighbors with a nuclear attack, which did not make it okay for the USSR to do the same.

You dismissed the question by saying Simon was condescending while asking it, which is a direct violation of PR5. Simon is allowed to be as rude as he wants, which might not be classy, but is not grounds for ignoring him, either, as per forum rules.

Furthermore, I have to point out the tu quoque fallacy: America's evil behavior in the past does not automatically make any given American response to North Korea's threat unreasonable, which Simon pointed out, but was ignred as well.

[Simon_Jester]

But besides that, you're also ignoring changes in strategic reality. The US hasn't started any new wars in about ten years, for several very good reasons. No new ones are in the cards, vague chest-beating about Iran aside.

I hear the two wars are still ongoing (though the US has privatized one). That being said, congratulations on not invading another country in ten years. Took a great effort, I am sure.

And the sarcasm misses the point.

In the long run, if you aren't Japan or South Korea or the US, sure, US foreign policy probably affects you more than North Korean nuclear threats. But the US is not currently threatening to start wars, especially not with genocidal, indiscriminate nuclear attacks. Nor is any other country in the world, except for a few... like North Korea.

North Korea having nuclear weapons? Not the problem. Posturing on the media? Not the problem. It's the implied "we will indiscriminately wipe out hundreds of thousands of your civilians in an afternoon for reasons we're not even going to negotiate about" coming from a state official news channel. That's the problem.

That is language that no country should have to tolerate from another. Not even the United States uses it.

To be honest, Simon, few if any outside the US think the US has in any way changed its approach to foreign policy. And while I can't fault them for wanting to be concerned, I also notice that the Pentagon is not demanding an upgrade to missile defence and that there is no evidence that NK can hit California or even that it has a working ICBM. This seems like an overreaction.

The Pentagon's demands for ABM upgrades already happened years ago- the systems are being upgraded, work has been underway since the late 1990s and has been pretty intense since the 2000s. This is why the Navy has ships it can redeploy to the Pacific to thicken our missile defenses against a hypothetical North Korean attack, even if said attack would only be aimed at Hawaii or Alaska.

Except the north Koreans have been threatening on and off to blow up parts of South Korea for the last 60 odd years, nothing too serious has happened yet, why should it all of a sudden happen now?

What's changed is that with nukes, the stakes are higher. Now, one bomb or missile could kill fifty thousand people at once; the simple act of firing one weapon, instead of just being another dick move by the North, could now be the most destructive act of war in history if that weapon is nuclear-tipped.

So instead of gambling with a few lives every time North Korea decides to play hardcore nutso brinksmanship, the South (and Japan, and by extension the US) are gambling with hundreds of thousands. This changes people's calculations. And, if the North Korean government is sane, it really should impact how careful North Korea is about provocations that might make someone thing they're about to get hit with a surprise attack. It makes all that boasting and posturing more dangerous.

By analogy, it is foolish to sneak up behind a man holding a knife and say "boo." It is even more foolish to sneak up behind him when he knows you have a knife, and have reason to wish him harm. Even if all you intend is some harmless posturing, someone could get hurt. The deadlier the weapons, the greater the risk.

Actually both us and the Russians were more like themovie Grumpy Old Men, only instead cute comefic shenanigans involving ice fishing huts and a gmilf it was both of us threatening to blow up the entire lake if the other came near our hut.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you for the most part. I can completely understand why my country is making a big deal of the latest episode of Crazy Shit The Kim Family Says. It's really simple too. Turns out there's a huge difference between spending sixty years threating to invade one of our allies and suddenly moving things up to treatening to attack us directly with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Coffee, I respect your common sense. And you're right, it totally is amusing; it's just... I don't get how boneheaded someone has to be to take a question like "what the fuck are the North Koreans thinking?" and decide it's time to start another round of "repeat the Litany of American Crimes!"

It's not like there's only allowed to be one country with problems in the world at a time.

If it weren't for that, I think I could see the humor too, but that killed the joke for me because it just turned into another round of unresponsive, generic Murca-bashing.

I can completely understand why other nations are more afraid of how we'll react then they are of the latest fatass in Pyongyang actually acting. This also amuses the hell out of me.

Fair enough. The only countries that should be more worried about the Kim family than about the US reaction are... well, probably just South Korea, Japan, and the US itself. But those countries do have a right to worry, since two of them were specifically threatened and the third might be at any time.

I'm really curious about how you're defining 'worse,' because you're comparing a country with slave labor camps for thousands of political dissidents to one that doesn't have them.

I could point out I am talking in terms of who is likely to start a war with other nations, rather than how each nation behaves in its own borders. But your rhetoric is the same type pro-American people use to justify the US actions. We treat our own population better than they do. Therefore we can do whatever we like to them.

See? Now you did define "worse."

But you need to go a step further and use judgment: who is the US likely to start a war with, and why? Is there a context involved? Or does the US just permanently and routinely threaten war with designated enemies for decades?

Didn't we mention the honest comparisons several times before? Because I am sure several people have pointed out the difference between someone who threatens but hasn't been able to follow through, and the other which threatens and follows through. How you missed this is beyond me.

North Korea has just gained a huge amount of follow-through capability.

No, in this case the problem is that you're identifying with a "global civilization" tribe that looks down on the "America" tribe. When your despised enemies have a problem, you'd rather talk about how despicable they are than look realistically at the problem.

I'm sorry, was that not obvious enough?

Global civilization tribe? And I thought I was asleep at the wheel when I didn't realise I was part of the Atheist conspiracy and missed all the fringe benefits with being the secret rulers of the world. Apparently there is another tribe I am supposed to be part of. What benefits do I get?

Did I say it existed? I said you identified with it- the 'to heck with America' faction, the people who seem to think they have somehow achieved this unique awareness of how bad the Iraq War is or whatever. And that therefore they should spend the rest of their lives bouncing up and down and saying "FIGHT THE POWER!" every time anything remotely to do with the United States crops up. Again, you seem more interested in bashing the US than you are in fighting the real problem here.

So when something bad and unjustified happens to the US and its allies, you don't even notice, or you start looking for ways to blame the victim, because in this case the potential victims of disastrous attack include the US. Someone you dislike and who you expect to do wrong in the future. So whatever inane nonsense you come up with about how worrying about nuclear threats is silly, it's still there.

[mr friendly guy]

Did I say it existed? I said you identified with it- the 'to heck with America' faction, the people who seem to think they have somehow achieved this unique awareness of how bad the Iraq War is or whatever. And that therefore they should spend the rest of their lives bouncing up and down and saying "FIGHT THE POWER!" every time anything remotely to do with the United States crops up. Again, you seem more interested in bashing the US than you are in fighting the real problem here.

Mate, you are usually are pretty good, but you seem to be slipping here. I am a member of, oh sorry I mean identify with a faction which at the same time you said didn't exist. Lets not even go into the stolen concept bit.

I pretty much said pointing nukes at others is bad and I said it earlier here. I also give non American examples earlier, which I know you saw because you replied to that post, so none of this is just attacking the US. Its that in the scale of things, I don't see NK's threat to be worse from other geopolitical manoeuvre's done by the major powers. So its not, "oh that's all", its more like "more of the same." When I tried to communicate this I get post from people trying to nitpick something that's just a little bit different to justify why its soooo bad because, because, its the US now. So we are treated to various special pleading from the board. I am not going to recap every one of them, but I can give you some examples

a. Broomstick tried the argument that its different compare to when the older nuclear powers do it to each other because of MAD, and presumably this will prevent nukes being used as a first line. I pointed out that the US and UK has threaten to use nukes against non nuclear powers before, so its not like the MAD scenario stops threats of using nukes pre-emptively (because there are situations where MAD doesn't apply).

b. Lord Revan said NK was doing this unprovoked. Come on. The US and North Korea have been stirring shit up with each other for ages, the former demanding more sanctions even when the latter do things which normally would't be considered bad when someone else does it, eg satellite launches, or satellite launches to test ballistic missile technology, while NK's action is well known including attacks on SK forces and other bullshit sheenanigans.

Its funny when you accuse us of engaging in tribalism, when the only way you can do it is to invent a tribe for us to belong to, then in a fit doublespeak implied you never claimed such a faction exists. Except when it does. The thing is, you are seeing things from a tribalist view where actually carrying out a threat isn't as bad as a just threatening, when its the US doing the action.

So when something bad and unjustified happens to the US and its allies, you don't even notice, or you start looking for ways to blame the victim, because in this case the potential victims of disastrous attack include the US. Someone you dislike and who you expect to do wrong in the future. So whatever inane nonsense you come up with about how worrying about nuclear threats is silly, it's still there.

The secrets out. I am really a Truther and I blame the victim because we all know 9/11 was really an inside job. I also think Obama is secretly an alien reptile, and the Rothschild clan really do control everything. Or is that the Blindaberg group or the Jews. I never could keep track of things.

For the moment nothing bad has happened from this threat to the US except some Americans with great fearTM wet their pants. All that needs to be done is for Kim Jong Un to get a yellow power battery and swear the oath to the Sinestro corps. You guys can get a green power ring instead, because a Green Lantern can overcome great fear and all that cool stuff.

At the risk of repeating myself, while I think its unlikely NK will nuke the US for reasons mentioned earlier (and if any Americans really really really thought it was likely, they would be asking relatives in cities which NK's missiles could reach to evacuate and go to the other side of the country), its still a threat that one has to develop countermeasures. One way to do it is by pointing nukes at Kim Jong Un, at which point the only fat man in NK will realise that he can't enjoy his caviar and luxury goods when he is dead. That being said, in the grand scale of things, I don't see the NK threat as worse than anything else threaten by the nuclear powers, and certainly less than threats which have actually been carried out. Sometimes even carried out by the US. Every time we point this out, its met with "you guys just hate the US wah wah wah."

[Broomstick]

a. Broomstick tried the argument that its different compare to when the older nuclear powers do it to each other because of MAD, and presumably this will prevent nukes being used as a first line. I pointed out that the US and UK has threaten to use nukes against non nuclear powers before, so its not like the MAD scenario stops threats of using nukes pre-emptively (because there are situations where MAD doesn't apply).

While the US/UK have threatened to use nukes pre-emptively they have not done so (I do not count the two nukes at the end of WWII as "pre-emptive" given that there were four years of open warfare prior to that attack). Of course, neither has anyone else who has threatened pre-emptive nukes used them. We don't have experience with pre-emptive nuke strikes, period, so by necessity any speculation about such a scenario is just that, speculation. It may be informed speculation, which is worthy of attention, or it might be pure wanking, which is not, but as of the present we don't know how a pre-emptive strike with those weapons would play out.

We had decades of MAD as a strategy and it seems to have worked... but for all we know there were other factors more important in preventing a nuclear war between the so-called Superpowers of the time. We have a very small pool of real-life MAD experiences on which to base an opinion. Arguably, the current situation between India and Pakistan is MAD. On the other hand, when India had the bomb and Pakistan didn't India didn't launch a pre-emptive attack so, again, there may be other factors preventing nuclear war between those two nations as well. I don't view MAD as a magic shield.

As you point out, though, MAD doesn't apply between North Korea and the US even if both now have nukes. It's a different situation than MAD. In the event of an actual nuclear war with current capabilities the US might be damaged but North Korea would be destroyed. The US will survive, North Korea will not (unless the US shows unexpected restraint but I don't think anyone here would want to bet on that). From my perspective, what North Korea is doing is playing chicken with the US train. This initially struck me as nuts because I couldn't see what North Korea got out of the game.

Well, maybe North Korea is getting something - ability to reduce the conventional military, extortion of various kinds of stuff from other nations, etc. That starts to make some sense, as the risk/reward ratio of the "game" changes. I know a lot of people here don't believe me when I say I really am trying to understand this situation better.

I think another way in which the NK/US situation differs from the Cold War is that during the Cold War the US, USSR, and China did make efforts at times to reach out to each other, work cooperatively, and defuse tensions. Yes, there was extreme hostility. Yes, there were proxy wars. On the other hand, leaders of the three nations did engage in meetings that were not mere posturing, they didn't try to extort resources out of each other but rather tried to increase peaceful trade, and there were efforts to reach out and understand the other party. I don't see the NK/US situation that way at all. The US doesn't make any effort to understand NK but rather the official line is "they're crazy" or some variant. There is nothing that North Korea has that the US desires to trade for (well, maybe animation work, but that's sub-contracted through South Korea). From what little I've been able to glean, I don't think the NK makes any attempt to understand the US, it does not want to trade so much as extort (even from its allies) or gather tribute, and even when engaged in meetings has no interest in any form of compromise. Or maybe my viewpoint is slanted. I'm still trying to find an objective viewpoint on this.

Back to the MAD argument, of course it doesn't apply to NK/US. IF South Korea or Japan had nuclear bombs it might apply between either of those two nations and the NK but they don't. Right now I'd say the NK situation is more comparable to immediately post-WWII when the US had the bomb and no one else did. What prevented the US from rampaging across the world, reducing its enemies to ash, and attempting to take over the planet? Mostly, war weariness and no real desire to add to US territory at that time. The result, as we all know, was an arms race because those who most feared confrontation/attack from the US wanted the new big stick, too. Between NK, SK, and Japan we've got the situation of one nation having a Big Bad Weapon and the other two not. Well, great, is the NK situation going to result in an Asia arms race or not? I guess we'll find out, won't we? It's not exactly comparable because you've got the US backing Japan and SK, and China backing NK and both the Superpowers work to discourage open conflict in the area. The only thing restraining the US post-WWII was the US, and I can where others didn't find that a reliable safeguard.

The US is pledged to defend Japan should it ever be attacked but I can understand if the Japanese don't entirely trust that treaty given that it's never really been tested. The South Koreans worry the US doesn't really care about them and would throw them under the bus if expedient - and I can't say that's a baseless fear, either. South Korea isn't the most important piece of real estate to the US and all concerned parties know that.

Certainly, the Norks haven't launched a nuke attack. They have sunk a ship and shelled South Korean territory but apparently no one wanted to move to actual warfare over that. The NK gets to prove they Really Mean It! when they make a threat without actually instigating a shooting war. Is it the threat of being obliterated by the US (whether by conventional or other means) that stays their hand, or something else? Do the Chinese actually have them on a leash? Is the NK leadership intent on bluster and "tribute" rather than actually concerned with re-uniting the peninsula and the two Koreas?

At the risk of repeating myself, while I think its unlikely NK will nuke the US for reasons mentioned earlier (and if any Americans really really really thought it was likely, they would be asking relatives in cities which NK's missiles could reach to evacuate and go to the other side of the country), its still a threat that one has to develop countermeasures. One way to do it is by pointing nukes at Kim Jong Un, at which point the only fat man in NK will realise that he can't enjoy his caviar and luxury goods when he is dead. That being said, in the grand scale of things, I don't see the NK threat as worse than anything else threaten by the nuclear powers, and certainly less than threats which have actually been carried out. Sometimes even carried out by the US.

And this was the kind of reasoned answer I was hoping for when I started this thread.

Although if the "only fat man in North Korea" was out of the country when the missiles start flying that might change the equation. It wouldn't surprise me if the ruling elite of NK would happily throw the common masses under the bus for their own gain. Then again, being the government-in-exile of a defunct nation doesn't seem very advantageous to me. Maybe that's why they don't do it.

[Simon_Jester]

Did I say it existed? I said you identified with it- the 'to heck with America' faction, the people who seem to think they have somehow achieved this unique awareness of how bad the Iraq War is or whatever. And that therefore they should spend the rest of their lives bouncing up and down and saying "FIGHT THE POWER!" every time anything remotely to do with the United States crops up. Again, you seem more interested in bashing the US than you are in fighting the real problem here.

Mate, you are usually are pretty good, but you seem to be slipping here. I am a member of, oh sorry I mean identify with a faction which at the same time you said didn't exist. Lets not even go into the stolen concept bit.

More on this later; it's a bit more complicated than I was able to express earlier.

I pretty much said pointing nukes at others is bad and I said it earlier here. I also give non American examples earlier, which I know you saw because you replied to that post, so none of this is just attacking the US.

The examples you gave were all either:
1) Other North Korean threats, which doesn't hurt the argument "North Korean threats are bad and not OK"
2) ...actually I'm having trouble finding any specific examples. Except the ones that have the US or North Korea doing it. What am I overlooking?

Its funny when you accuse us of engaging in tribalism, when the only way you can do it is to invent a tribe for us to belong to, then in a fit doublespeak implied you never claimed such a faction exists. Except when it does.

I am sorry, I'm having trouble communicating this clearly.

There is no large, organized anti-American group involved here. What I think does exist are small social pools of people who

Those are the real groups that exist and can get tribalistic, thinking that arguments are soldiers, that any argument which appears to benefit the 'American' side of a debate is suspect and needs to be drawn out and attacked. So a statement that might seem reasonable to an outside observer ("threatening the US with nuclear death is unwise, aggressive, and makes nuclear war more likely") gets treated as an enemy soldier and counterattacked with "the US does much worse things than this!"

Those statements aren't even mutually exclusive- they can both be true. But arguments are soldiers on a side in a battle, so the second argument has to be summoned or the first argument might win! Tribalism.

This is very normal thinking for a lot of people, but it gets in the way of handling precise, complicated problems.

Now, terms like 'global civilization' were me trying to make up a name for the way these groups identify- i.e. as the people who are standing up for real enlightened, civilized democracy against the tyranny and evil of the United States. They do not and did not mean a secret conspiracy, or even an existing conspiracy. They simply mean "what the knots of pro-rights anti-American people might call themselves maybe."

The thing is, you are seeing things from a tribalist view where actually carrying out a threat isn't as bad as a just threatening, when its the US doing the action.

It is a very different thing that I assess separately. North Korea making non-nuclear threats would be very different than making nuclear threats, for example. The North can have its media say "our army of millions will sweep them into the sea!" all they like, and while this is rude, it doesn't make disaster very likely. Anyone with sense can tell when they're being invaded by a conventional army. There's time to react, time to think, time to prepare. Even if an invasion happens, you don't have to react instantly, you can take time to confirm what is happening, contact the enemy capital and go "seriously, WTF?" and so on.

But with nuclear weapons, it is suddenly possible for a split-second decision to doom millions. Several times during the Cold War, sensible people had to specifically override systems or situations that suggested a nuclear attack was underway. There was no time to have a long conversation about that, because in the time it takes to have a conversation, enemy nuclear missiles can already have landed. So you have to be able to choose peace over war right then, at that instant.

But to do that, you have to be reasonably confident that the enemy wouldn't really attack you by surprise... which means them constantly saying "we will attack you!" is bad for peace and dangerous.

For the moment nothing bad has happened from this threat to the US except some Americans with great fearTM wet their pants.

The only bad thing that has happened is a threat. Which is bad. Just not disastrous or agonizing or horrible or anything like that.

But if someone threatened to kill you, I would say that would be bad. Me, I live in the fallout plume from Washington DC, so North Korea threatened to kill me, or at least to try. Which I would say is also bad, even if they don't actually do anything about their threat.

At the risk of repeating myself, while I think its unlikely NK will nuke the US for reasons mentioned earlier (and if any Americans really really really thought it was likely, they would be asking relatives in cities which NK's missiles could reach to evacuate and go to the other side of the country),

The US has never actually done this- because we're not centralized enough as a nation to evacuate cities efficiently and we know it. Even during, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis when everyone totally expected nuclear war very soon... no mandatory evacuations.

Mandatory evacuations are a very, very last-ditch measure because of the enormous opportunity cost of having one. But that's a detail.

its still a threat that one has to develop countermeasures. One way to do it is by pointing nukes at Kim Jong Un, at which point the only fat man in NK will realise that he can't enjoy his caviar and luxury goods when he is dead. That being said, in the grand scale of things, I don't see the NK threat as worse than anything else threaten by the nuclear powers

What is bad is the difference between having an arsenal pointed at someone, and having that and making boy-who-cried-wolf announcements that they're going to use it.

The latter is just... bad nuclear doctrine.

and certainly less than threats which have actually been carried out. Sometimes even carried out by the US. Every time we point this out, its met with "you guys just hate the US wah wah wah."

For me, it is the perception that you are spending more time condemning historical US action than discussing the wisdom or morality of the North Korean action on its own merits. Perhaps this perception is wrong, and I am off base; at the moment I am unsure what to think.

[Ziggy Stardust]

For the moment nothing bad has happened from this threat to the US except some Americans with great fearTM wet their pants.

Who has wet their pants? I have asked this question multiple times in this thread, and it has yet to be addressed. Nobody in this thread is wetting their pants. I haven't seen any news stories where people are overreacting to this. Alkaloid just waves his hand and vaguely refers to unidentified people on unidentified social media outlets.

You say this as a truism. Who is wetting their pants?

That being said, in the grand scale of things, I don't see the NK threat as worse than anything else threaten by the nuclear powers, and certainly less than threats which have actually been carried out. Sometimes even carried out by the US.

What do past threats the US may or may not have made have to do with the NK threat? Is every American citizen commenting on this situation also responsible for past US actions? Do Russian or Cuban citizens lose the right to comment on threats made against their countries due to past actions?

Every time we point this out, its met with "you guys just hate the US wah wah wah."

That's a strawman. Nobody has done this. So far, everyone has tried to have a constructive discussion, but people like you continually bring up complete red herrings.

A: "Huh, I wonder what the geopolitical implications of this threat are."
B: "Well, it doesn't matter because America invaded Iraq!"
A: "But that's not relevant to this. We are talking about NK's threat."
B: "DERRRP YOU'RE JUST BEING TRIBALIST!"

That is exactly how this thread has devolved.

As PeZook told CaptHawkeye,

No, actually Simon asked you to explain how North Korea's circumstances make it okay for them to directly threaten neighbors with a nuclear attack, which did not make it okay for the USSR to do the same. ... [snip] Furthermore, I have to point out the tu quoque fallacy: America's evil behavior in the past does not automatically make any given American response to North Korea's threat unreasonable, which Simon pointed out, but was ignred as well.

[mr friendly guy]

1) Other North Korean threats, which doesn't hurt the argument "North Korean threats are bad and not OK"
2) ...actually I'm having trouble finding any specific examples. Except the ones that have the US or North Korea doing it. What am I overlooking?

The UK example. You know, the one where you replied to. I also gave one for the former USSR. Basically the US threaten to nuke the PRC twice before it was a nuclear power. The USSR threaten to nuke the PRC over a border dispute. The UK threaten to use nukes against Argentina, a non nuclear power to this day. Basically I see NK threat as more of the same. Using the nuclear card as a diplomatic stick, but so far, like the nuclear powers before them, no one actually carrying out the threat. How serious they are in using the nukes, only those leaders know.

I am sorry, I'm having trouble communicating this clearly.

There is no large, organized anti-American group involved here. What I think does exist are small social pools of people who

Those are the real groups that exist and can get tribalistic, thinking that arguments are soldiers, that any argument which appears to benefit the 'American' side of a debate is suspect and needs to be drawn out and attacked. So a statement that might seem reasonable to an outside observer ("threatening the US with nuclear death is unwise, aggressive, and makes nuclear war more likely") gets treated as an enemy soldier and counterattacked with "the US does much worse things than this!"

Those statements aren't even mutually exclusive- they can both be true. But arguments are soldiers on a side in a battle, so the second argument has to be summoned or the first argument might win! Tribalism.

This is very normal thinking for a lot of people, but it gets in the way of handling precise, complicated problems.

Now, terms like 'global civilization' were me trying to make up a name for the way these groups identify- i.e. as the people who are standing up for real enlightened, civilized democracy against the tyranny and evil of the United States. They do not and did not mean a secret conspiracy, or even an existing conspiracy. They simply mean "what the knots of pro-rights anti-American people might call themselves maybe."

Ok I guess. Its just that I seen the term "anti-american" used to try and dismiss any comparison or any criticism of the US.

It is a very different thing that I assess separately. North Korea making non-nuclear threats would be very different than making nuclear threats, for example. The North can have its media say "our army of millions will sweep them into the sea!" all they like, and while this is rude, it doesn't make disaster very likely. Anyone with sense can tell when they're being invaded by a conventional army. There's time to react, time to think, time to prepare. Even if an invasion happens, you don't have to react instantly, you can take time to confirm what is happening, contact the enemy capital and go "seriously, WTF?" and so on.

But with nuclear weapons, it is suddenly possible for a split-second decision to doom millions. Several times during the Cold War, sensible people had to specifically override systems or situations that suggested a nuclear attack was underway. There was no time to have a long conversation about that, because in the time it takes to have a conversation, enemy nuclear missiles can already have landed. So you have to be able to choose peace over war right then, at that instant.

But to do that, you have to be reasonably confident that the enemy wouldn't really attack you by surprise... which means them constantly saying "we will attack you!" is bad for peace and dangerous.

The problem seems to be in the magnitude of the threat vs the threat actually happens. So if the first threat potentially is worse than the second threat even if the latter is carried out, you get more worried about the first? Am I interpreting this correct. In which case I suppose I can make some hypotheticals, but I think the easiest thing to do is to point out the nuclear powers threatening non nuclear powers. At least NK's threat is against another nuclear power with the ability to retaliate, thus bringing the MAD scenario into play as a deterrence.

But if someone threatened to kill you, I would say that would be bad. Me, I live in the fallout plume from Washington DC, so North Korea threatened to kill me, or at least to try. Which I would say is also bad, even if they don't actually do anything about their threat.

Sure its bad. Thats why I said earlier that is the reason a nuclear deterrence is for. But I try to put this in context of other actions that have happened before. It doesn't seem worse than others. It seems strange people were willing to accept the USSR pointing nukes at them, their own country and allies threatening nuclear use against non nuclear powers, but why go apeshit against NK, who is comparatively weaker than those others doing the threatening with nukes.

The US has never actually done this- because we're not centralized enough as a nation to evacuate cities efficiently and we know it. Even during, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis when everyone totally expected nuclear war very soon... no mandatory evacuations.

Mandatory evacuations are a very, very last-ditch measure because of the enormous opportunity cost of having one. But that's a detail.

I was thinking of private citizens telling their relatives when I said this rather than a government sponsored evacuation.

What is bad is the difference between having an arsenal pointed at someone, and having that and making boy-who-cried-wolf announcements that they're going to use it.

The latter is just... bad nuclear doctrine.

To be honest I don't find lack of subtlety on NK that bad. We know the nuclear powers aren't above threatening non nuclear powers with nukes. NK is just really unsubtle with it.

For me, it is the perception that you are spending more time condemning historical US action than discussing the wisdom or morality of the North Korean action on its own merits. Perhaps this perception is wrong, and I am off base; at the moment I am unsure what to think.

This is what happens when a discussion gets side track when people argue and I summarise "no, its different this time." When you go along that route, I have to bring up past examples for comparison to argue, its just more of the same.

[mr friendly guy]

Who has wet their pants? I have asked this question multiple times in this thread, and it has yet to be addressed. Nobody in this thread is wetting their pants. I haven't seen any news stories where people are overreacting to this. Alkaloid just waves his hand and vaguely refers to unidentified people on unidentified social media outlets.

You say this as a truism. Who is wetting their pants?

Overreacting to fear is a fair approximation of the phrase wet their pants, no?

What do past threats the US may or may not have made have to do with the NK threat?

Buddy this was addressed several times. I don't know how to make any more clearer but to dumb this down for you. Try this analogy. Two people both commit the same crime. Both are clearly wrong. But why is one person being villified more? That's what it looks like here. I gave historical examples where the old nuclear powers threaten nukes against non nuclear powers. NK is at least threatening a country which can easily fight back and "win" (or as much victory as a nuclear war allows), because the US also has nukes.

Is every American citizen commenting on this situation also responsible for past US actions? Do Russian or Cuban citizens lose the right to comment on threats made against their countries due to past actions?

The right to criticise the threat isn't the issue, especially since I pointed waaay earlier pointing nukes at others is bad, ergo I agreed with them. What is being criticised is why people seem to get worked up over NK when I have argued its simply more of the same. I can only subscribe this to some culture of fearTM. At least Simon Jester and Broomstick argued why they thought the threat is different from before. You on the other hand simply accuse me of denying people the right to criticise, which I believe is what you call a strawman.

That's a strawman. Nobody has done this.

Oh really? You serious? Despite Simon Jester accusing us of being in global civilisation which looks down on the US, explaining in quite a lot of detail just how we hate the US. Even gave us some cool propaganda points. Seriously buddy? Would you like me to link to those posts, because they are kind of on the same page.

So far, everyone has tried to have a constructive discussion, but people like you continually bring up complete red herrings.

A: "Huh, I wonder what the geopolitical implications of this threat are."
B: "Well, it doesn't matter because America invaded Iraq!"
A: "But that's not relevant to this. We are talking about NK's threat."
B: "DERRRP YOU'RE JUST BEING TRIBALIST!"

That is exactly how this thread has devolved.

I can't speak for others, but I could have sworn in my very first post I argued that it doesn't seem worse than what is, and has been going on. When Broomstick objected, I gave examples. If I am arguing it doesn't seem worse than what has happen before, I am obligated to give examples, no? Nothing wrong with the thread at this point. But somewhere along the line the thread morphed from "You shouldn't give examples involving the US, because the US has nothing to do with it", and then finally into "You hate America".

[Alkaloid]

Alkaloid just waves his hand and vaguely refers to unidentified people on unidentified social media outlets.

Well, yeah, because I was talking about people I've never met on social media websites I browse, not Op-Eds or government statements. If you really want I suppose I could trawl reddit or twitter for usernames and threads/tweets, but I feel it would be a waste of both our time, especially for an offhand comment that I was enjoying the dichotomy between their statements indicating fear and the ones indicating they couldn't wait for the US Military to lay waste to the Korean Peninsula.

[Broomstick]

At least NK's threat is against another nuclear power with the ability to retaliate, thus bringing the MAD scenario into play as a deterrence.

As pointed out, this is not a MAD scenario. NK might be able to hit a fraction of the US. The US can obliterate NK. The only way this could be MAD is if NK is counting on the rest of the world to nuke the US in retaliation for the US bombing NK after NK bombs the US.

Which doesn't eliminate the deterrence use of have a nuke - no nuclear bomb holding nation has ever been invaded by another so apparently it is useful to hold nuclear weapons. It's just that you can't characterize the situation as MAD because destruction is not mutually assured.

It seems strange people were willing to accept the USSR pointing nukes at them, their own country and allies threatening nuclear use against non nuclear powers, but why go apeshit against NK, who is comparatively weaker than those others doing the threatening with nukes.

It wasn't so much that people in the US "accepted" the USSR pointing nukes at them as they couldn't do anything about it. For some time there's been this notion that harsh sanctions can somehow prevent smaller nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, though NK has demonstrated that with sufficient determination and sacrifice that can be overcome. (We should also stop pretending sanctions are going to change Cuba. They're not. But that's a separate issue.) At best, sanctions slow down the acquisition of nuclear arms they do not prevent them.

There is another difference between the NK and USSR. By and large, the US and USSR tended to see each other as human beings of good will but erroneous ideology. You know, they're nice guys, just mistaken, but if we could just show them how wonderful our system is they'll come to their senses (and I do mean that worked both ways). The political conflicts were definitely serious, but there was the sense that we could be friends, or at least friendly towards each other, if we could just find a way not to get into a fight with each other. The USSR government was demonized, but the people were not (I'm assuming, based on what little I have learned from Russian immigrants, that the same was largely true on the other side).

From what I've been able to glean about NK propaganda it is the American people who are demonized. America is the Great Enemy not because of the government but because of the inherent character of the people. It's not mistaken ideology, it's Evil People, and the North Korean people can never be friends with those evil people. I've seen translations of children's songs that talk about killing Americans and making them grovel, North Koreans are indoctrinated from the cradle to hate Americans. That strikes me as a different form of hate than what was in play during the Cold War. I certainly don't recall any nursery rhymes about killing communists of any nationality, nor have I heard about Soviet and Chinese children singing in unison about killing those goddamn American bastards in nursery school. Apparently, North Korean children do exactly that. The Cold War conflict was real and potentially deadly, but each side recognized the right of the other to exist and acknowledged that Russian, American, and Chinese people, individuals, could be good, heroic, kind, [insert positive trait of your choice], etc. From what I've been able to find that is entirely absent in NK propaganda. There is nothing good about an American, there can not be a good American. For that matter, they don't seem to have anything nice to say about anyone outside of their fellow Koreans (those poor southern chaps - in league with demons Americans! The Great/Dear/Whatever Leader works tirelessly to save them!).

So, I guess, to sum it up, during all the long years of the Cold War I had the sense that people on all sides were working for a way to resolve tensions and threats so we could all get along with each other even if we had serious disagreements. The USSR was in conflict with my government, not with me personally. What I get from North Korea is that Americans aren't human and the world would be a better, safer place without them. It's not an explicit exterminate all Americans/drive them into the sea that I have yet seen but it has overtones of that. North Koreans don't just hate my government, if they met me they would hate me, personally, because I'm an American. It reminds me of the how the Nazis viewed the Jews. The Norks aren't capable of waging a Holocaust against Americans but at times they sure sound like they'd like to have that capability.

That doesn't mean that I, personally, feel threatened by the Norks right now, but clearly they seek more ability to confront the US. If they just wanted to sit behind their walls and keep to themselves I wouldn't find it as disturbing - hey, some people don't like Americans, what a surprise! - but they constantly jab at others outside, constantly try to extort more from others, including their worst enemy. They've set up a system where conflict with the outside is necessary to the national mythology and keeping the elite in power. Is there going to be a point where they take it from words and bluster to outright shooting and bombing? (Well, actually they have fired upon South Korea and sunk a ship or two, their threats aren't entirely bluster even if, in the larger scheme of things, their actions aren't deemed sufficient to re-start a war over.) They can't win in a fair fight, but will they take it to asymmetrical warfare at some point? If they can build working nukes they can also build working chemical weapons and working biological weapons if they choose to apply the effort and money towards that - and really, I'd wish they'd just stick to nukes, one of the three is bad enough.

It's not so much what the North Koreans can do today, it's where they're going in the future.

The US has never actually done this- because we're not centralized enough as a nation to evacuate cities efficiently and we know it. Even during, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis when everyone totally expected nuclear war very soon... no mandatory evacuations.

Even when we have days notice for a natural disaster we can't effectively evacuate a city - see Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans. No one is going to get that much notice for a nuclear attack. I wish someone could come up with a way to safely evacuate a city but so far as I know no one has.

I was thinking of private citizens telling their relatives when I said this rather than a government sponsored evacuation.

The average American isn't paying sufficient attention to either Korea to tell their relatives that. As the number of Americans living in South Korea increases that is slowly changing, but the number of such Americans is still a very tiny fraction of the whole. The US media doesn't really pay much attention, either (recent threats being an exception). It's entirely possible the American relatives of Americans living in Korea aren't going to get sufficient warning of a serious threat to warn their Korea-living relatives.

To be honest I don't find lack of subtlety on NK that bad. We know the nuclear powers aren't above threatening non nuclear powers with nukes. NK is just really unsubtle with it.

The UK threatened to nuke the Falklands over a territorial dispute, which is arguably bad enough, but when the war was over the threat was ended. The UK is not currently threatening Argentina with the bomb. Again, the USSR threatened the PRC over a border dispute. Settle the border dispute the threat diminishes. The Cuban missile crisis was due to stationing missiles "too close" (as the US saw it) to US territory. Remove the missiles and both sides stand down. The prior threats were over things - territory, missiles, etc. - that can be negotiated, removed, dismantled, negotiated, and compromised on.

The problem North Korea seems to have with the US is that the US exists. It may have started with the Americans in conflict with the North Korean allies but it seems to have changed over the years. It's not that the US is occupying half the Korean peninsula, holding the South Koreans in thrall (according to the Norks), situations that could conceivably be resolved by somehow removing the Americans from the area, it's that the Americans exist at all as some sort of anti-Koreans. Americans are the bogeymen Korean children hear about from infancy. Unlike fairy-tale boogeymen you don't grow up and find they're fantasy. When North Koreans grow up the Americans boogeyman is right there, big as life. Actually, bigger than the usual North Korean, they're not just boogeymen, they're giant boogeymen. (Apparently, I'm as tall as the average male North Korean, although among Americans I'm considered short even for a woman).

Stepping back from all that, I fully realize that I am having to work through limited sources translated from a different language. There could be a lot I'm missing here so I am quite open to people providing contrary evidence. On the other hand, the North Korean websites in English, which presumably the Norks have full control over, don't seem to contradict what I've learned from other sources. So, my concern stems from looking at a nation that, while unable to invade or destroy my nation at present has a serious hate for not just what we do but our very existence and seems determined to acquire ever larger weapons to brandish at us.

So, feel free to convince me otherwise. (hint: saying the US is just as bad won't do it. If they're just as bad as the US that is definitely cause for concern.)

[Thanas]

This whole thing seems to be overblown to me. Dictatorships are not typically interested in going all Hearts of Iron on anybody else but their own population. As if NK would ever have enough power to invade the US. NK does not have the capability to strike mainland USA and it would be far more sensible to actually worry about people who do.

[Broomstick]

As I said, my concern is not so much today as in the future. Both the UK and Japan are examples of small island nations that build very large empires. North Korea is not an island but is as isolated as one in many ways. Just because you find their threats laughable today does not mean they won't be an actual threat tomorrow, or next year, or next decade.

But hey, I'm fine to differ with you on this.

[Thanas]

They won't be a threat in the next thirty or fourty years unless they somehow manage to find unobtanium or something equally crazy. Their GDP is laughably low. They cannot feed their own people. Malnourishment takes a toll, they have not been able to fund an independent scientific community that would herald technological innovations. Why waste time worrying about them to such a degree and not focus on more immediate and longer-staying strategical challenges like India and China?

BTW, even if by magic they would rise to South Korean levels, they still would not be able to even remotely challenge the US due to their small country and small populace. Heck, New York has only 2 mil less inhabitants and way higher GDP. That is the scale of the challenge we are talking about here.

[Broomstick]

Nonetheless, these malnourished and starving people still managed to develop nuclear weapons. They're just as smart as anyone else. They don't need to innovate, they merely need to duplicate what others have already done. Clearly, they have no cultural problems in sacrificing millions of their own to achieve a goal they consider worthwhile. Much as I wish they would redirect their energies towards something positive for all mankind they seem to have chosen hostility to anyone not themselves.

As for India and China - they aren't threatening to pre-emptively nuke anyone at this point in time. China and the US are busy engaging in trade rather than fighting. The US and India certainly have had their differences, but again, neither side is attempting to ratchet up conflict right now. The parties to the conflicts between those nations all seem content to keep the conflicts economic and financial rather than military at this point in time.

And, as difficult as you find it to believe, I actually do give a damn about South Korea and Japan which are much more likely to be actual targets in the near future. I no more want to see Seoul damaged or destroyed than Honolulu or LA.

And finally, it is conceivable that I could still be alive in 30-40 years. I prefer to live in a future with fewer serious threats rather than more.

[Thanas]

And you think the NKs will just press a button because......?

[CaptHawkeye]

Who has wet their pants? I have asked this question multiple times in this thread, and it has yet to be addressed. Nobody in this thread is wetting their pants. I haven't seen any news stories where people are overreacting to this. Alkaloid just waves his hand and vaguely refers to unidentified people on unidentified social media outlets.

You say this as a truism. Who is wetting their pants?

You keep demanding people explain this to you like it's their fault you just have no perspective.

What do past threats the US may or may not have made have to do with the NK threat? Is every American citizen commenting on this situation also responsible for past US actions? Do Russian or Cuban citizens lose the right to comment on threats made against their countries due to past actions?

Lordy lou the hypocrisy. See this level of melodramatic horseshit is what absolutely blows me away. But you think criticizism of American Exceptionalism = Suppression of American views. We've been schooled to fly into irrelevant, dramatic tirades about FREEDOM every time we get critized I see.

Double ironic if you think about all those brutal dictatorships and stifling regimes we've propped up for decades.

That's a strawman. Nobody has done this. So far, everyone has tried to have a constructive discussion, but people like you continually bring up complete red herrings.

Too bad that's exactly what Jester accused me of before, but just like him, you read selectively.

A: "Huh, I wonder what the geopolitical implications of this threat are."
B: "Well, it doesn't matter because America invaded Iraq!"
A: "But that's not relevant to this. We are talking about NK's threat."
B: "DERRRP YOU'RE JUST BEING TRIBALIST!"

That is exactly how this thread has devolved.

In your mind, sure. Man all those straw man accusations and here you are making the biggest one of the thread. Let me tell you how it really went down.

A. "Americans: No country should have the right to make nuclear threats to another! Least of all North Korea!"
B. "America has no right to speak for the world community in criticizing North Korea's threats. Moreover, the US has consistently revealed itself to be unable to appropriately gauge threats."
C. "WHY DO YOU HATE THE US?"
D. "...."

As PeZook told CaptHawkeye,

I think it's hilarious you use the opinions of other posters as ammunition for your own arguments. Are you insecure about something or just lazy?

No, actually Simon asked you to explain how North Korea's circumstances make it okay for them to directly threaten neighbors with a nuclear attack, which did not make it okay for the USSR to do the same. ... [snip] Furthermore, I have to point out the tu quoque fallacy: America's evil behavior in the past does not automatically make any given American response to North Korea's threat unreasonable, which Simon pointed out, but was ignred as well.

I originally wasn't going to reply to this, it blows my mind that PeZook was digging up an argument Jester so clearly lost. But fine whatever.

Zook the problem here is that Jester's questions are loaded and that he is fundamentally incapable of appropriately judging the situation. He asks his questions implying that I don't think nations have any right to defend themselves. He obviously knows that's not how I feel, who would? He's just totally oblivious to how much a question like that sounds a sarcastic joke to non-westerners and then just callously disregards callouts on it with "you just hate America".

Plus when he says things as insane as dislike of Mutually Assured Destruction being morally wrong, how can you ever take him seriously again?

[Broomstick]

And you think the NKs will just press a button because......?

Oh, I think they'll have a reason that makes sense to them. Knowing what would be sufficient reason would be valuable to anyone who cares about security on the Korean peninsula or other nearby areas.

I don't simply dismiss them because they're poor, isolationist, and different from me.

[Thanas]

And you think the NKs will just press a button because......?

Oh, I think they'll have a reason that makes sense to them. Knowing what would be sufficient reason would be valuable to anyone who cares about security on the Korean peninsula or other nearby areas.

I don't simply dismiss them because they're poor, isolationist, and different from me.

No, you think they will randomly nuke people and willingly die a glorious death in nuclear fire because they are poor, isolationist and different from you. What great, totally non-casual racist thinking. This "they will have a reason" is so convincing, really. It has the same validity as me saying "the USA will just find a reason to invade a random country they dislike". Oh wait, that actually would be more valid than this drivel, because the USA went and did that just recently. You realize how utterly stupid you sound?

Nuclear powers - even when led by drunken dictators or the worst mass murderer in history - don't just find a reason to nuke somebody when their utter annihilation is guaranteed.

[Stark]

And even if they did, is it THAT hard to not push people into a corner? Managing expectations and understanding is what international politics is supposed to be about, after all.

If people didn't feel they needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves or be taken seriously, maybe they wouldn't develop them. :V Even better, if it didn't have such a track record of success.

[Simon_Jester]

No, you think they will randomly nuke people and willingly die a glorious death in nuclear fire because they are poor, isolationist and different from you. What great, totally non-casual racist thinking. This "they will have a reason" is so convincing, really. It has the same validity as me saying "the USA will just find a reason to invade a random country they dislike". Oh wait, that actually would be more valid than this drivel, because the USA went and did that just recently. You realize how utterly stupid you sound?

Nuclear powers - even when led by drunken dictators or the worst mass murderer in history - don't just find a reason to nuke somebody when their utter annihilation is guaranteed.

Excuse me, I don't think you understood her.

Let's think about the history of nuclear arms a bit. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, when two huge nuclear powers really were that close to launching on each other. Did either side want a nuclear war? No. Did that mean no nuclear war would happen? No.

Nobody wanted World War One to wind up like it did either, and we still got 'the guns of August' in their full horror and all the bloodshed that followed. Sometimes events get out of control.

Because North Korea is isolated, self-propagandized, and partly by choice a hypermilitarized garrison state... Broomstick suspects events in North Korea are more likely to get out of control than in a saner, more open society. Like Stalinist Russia, and the irony of my saying that is not lost on me.

So maybe some day North Korea's aging radar systems hiccup and they see incoming jets where none exist, and they're in the middle of a round of brinksmanship and sabre-rattling already and already kind of half-expecting a preemptive attack... and they go "FIRE THE MISSILES!" because they know perfectly well that they have to shoot first or risk loss of their launch bases in any really large surprise conventional attack by the US Air Force.

This is a reasonable concern, I think. There are real precedents for that, breakdowns in command and control that lead people to think there's an attack when there's not. It's even more dangerous on the regional level where missile flight times are short than it is over intercontinental ranges (i.e. US vs Russia)

It has nothing to do with race; a similarly isolated, supremacist society of American political wingnuts would be at least as big a risk.

And even if they did, is it THAT hard to not push people into a corner? Managing expectations and understanding is what international politics is supposed to be about, after all.

In your opinion, how much agency does North Korea have in this process?

[Stark]

What you should be asking is how much agency they THINK they have. Putting aside that they may be functionally unable to rationally assess the world, if they're in a place where they think that they have no options and there's no way forward and that the are doomed in the very short term to failure and oppression, that is something people should worry about and work to resolve. Its difficult to do that when people think diplomacy should be about being 'tough' or 'winning' or whatever (much like social programs).

When the political system in question is a very centralised one, managing the few people that make the decisions that affect other countries is obviously an important goal of diplomacy. A key element of this is understanding their perspective so that you can avoid (for instance) going into heart palpitations in response to their posturing, which they will perceive within their own experience and draw learnings from that may be fundamentally flawed.

Maybe this is why horrible people who just want to be rich (and fund lobby groups with aid money while they fight a war and their people starve, lol) are the sort of thing the west can simply ignore. :V

[Simon_Jester]

OK, this I am mostly agreeable with.

Although I do think it important to discourage people from posturing in ways that make the situation more dangerous: "excuse me, but how seriously were we supposed to take your statement that you were planning to kill us?" This can be handled gracefully though, and I am happy with the idea of doing it that way.

The world has had far too much of people who obsess with being tough.