WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Stark]

Right, but just like when managing anyone, the difference in perspective is key to creating the message. If you have a desperate guy who is threatening you to try to survive, if you say 'hey hey lets not get crazy, put the gun down' they may hear 'give up, you have no chance, obey me'. This is why discussions about diplomacy with everyday people is a waste of time, because they couldn't manage a receptionist let alone a high stakes game of global brinksmanship.

I'd expect that people like the US have people trained to understand both Koreas and their leaders; from what I've seen of history, however, decision-makers probably don't put a great deal of stock in these people and their understanding. As the stakes rise, people on both sides want to react in tangible, often emotional ways and make quick, inappropriate decisions.

I don't think it'd be impossible to reduce or remove the North Korean desire to have nuclear weapons (or threaten people with them), but it's quite possible that ship has sailed now that they have them and see the effect they have.

[Broomstick]

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.

No, I think there is a chance of them launching a suicidal (for their nation and a large portion of their population) war because they've been told all their lives they're the last surviving bastion of purity and the Yankee Bastards want to kill them all, and their Great/Dear/Whatever leader has some mystical means of always winning and/or protecting them. I don't think the average Korean wants to die in any way, shape, or form, whether of starvation or "nuclear fire" or conventional fire or whatever.

At this point the DPRK needs an eternal enemy to justify both the standing army and the constant deprivation the general masses are subjected to. That would seem to weigh against them actually launching an attack other than the most token gestures. I'm not sure that provides security for their neighbors.

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.

Correct. You can point to evidence that within recent memory the US has trumped up evidence as a pretext to launch an invasion. There is a basis in fact for that opinion.

Well, North Korea is threatening nuclear attack and there is evidence they have real, working nuclear bombs. It doesn't matter if they're crude by modern standards, crude atom bombs are quite effective in destroying a city. It's not a weapon that requires refinement. So... what stays their hand? Isn't knowing what they would or would not consider sufficient provocation important? Or should we, as you do, simply dismiss them as starving and ignorant? If starvation and ignorance renders them so helpless how in the hell did they get such weapons?

One problem I see here is that over the years the world has taught the DPRK that if they threaten and bluster they get stuff: food, medicine, fuel, all sorts of aid. So when they need stuff they make threats and bluster. If they need more stuff they make bigger and louder threats. We're training them to be extortionists. In that context more of their behavior makes sense. I'm not sure that it's a really a good long-term strategy for international relations.

You realize how utterly stupid you sound?

Once again, I ask questions in an attempt to understand a subject better and you call me stupid. Do you realize how much of an asshole you sound like?

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.

Not yet. So, you're saying past performance is a reliable predictor of future events? It hasn't happened yet so it never will?

Then again, Germany never seems to be mentioned by the DPRK. Why should you care? In this instance you don't have missiles pointed at you.

[Stark]

His understanding and interest probably isn't motivated solely by personal fear. :V

I think you really need to sit back and examine your own thinking (as outlined in this thread) because it looks like you're working yourself up. WHAT STAYS THEIR HAND? Imagine how the entire world felt for forty years when America was poised to kill literally everyone! Even more unfortunate is statements like 'if starvation and ignorance renders them so helpless how in the hell did they get such weapons' which highlight the kind of hierarchial thinking that can drive pressure unintentionally placed on weak (ie, not America) nations.

However, the saddest part is this, which I'll quote in full.

One problem I see here is that over the years the world has taught the DPRK that if they threaten and bluster they get stuff: food, medicine, fuel, all sorts of aid. So when they need stuff they make threats and bluster. If they need more stuff they make bigger and louder threats. We're training them to be extortionists. In that context more of their behavior makes sense. I'm not sure that it's a really a good long-term strategy for international relations.

Since both Koreas are moving closer, North Korea is arguably in a process of change, and there has been little violence (I think less violence than between Taiwan and China), are you saying that giving them money for decades until their system changes and the tension drops is bad? Why? What price are you putting on lives, or peace, or your own offended pride?

If you want to be less scared of the situation, just stop talking yourself into being afraid.

[Broomstick]

I'd expect that people like the US have people trained to understand both Koreas and their leaders; from what I've seen of history, however, decision-makers probably don't put a great deal of stock in these people and their understanding.

The other problem is that the people "trained to understand both Koreas", or any other nation, may not understand that other nation as well as they think they do. North Korean society seems to operate from some very different starting assumptions than, say, the US which can be immense barriers to understanding even for professionals.

As you say, Stark, it's very important not to corner people (yes, I'm agreeing with your last couple posts). It's important that the two sides truly understand each other when speaking to each other. I'm not convinced the US has any real understanding of the DPRK. Between the DPRK brandishing the Big Stick and the US thinking they understand other people when they may not that could be quite a volatile situation. In addition to the falsified evidence of weapons that didn't exist I think we saw some of that going on between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush prior to the most recent US/Iraq war. Failure to understand the other society has certainly fucked up a lot of the war - contrary to the expectations of US leaders the Iraqis did not hail the Americans as liberators. Neither have the Afghans. This has resulted in people on both sides getting killed beyond just the ordinary killing of war.

Likewise, I'm not convinced the DPRK understands the US, or modern Japan (their other bogeyman). There is also a significant cultural gulf just between the two Koreas. I'm trying to imagine how a reunification of the Korean peninsula would play out and I can't help but think it wouldn't go as smoothly as the reunification of Germany regardless of which of the two Korean governments wound up in control.

Status quo seems to be the least evil outcome here, even if there is much to be dissatisfied about it.

[Broomstick]

His understanding and interest probably isn't motivated solely by personal fear. :V

As I've been saying all along, I don't personally fear this. I'm not in an area the DPRK can reach.

I think you really need to sit back and examine your own thinking (as outlined in this thread) because it looks like you're working yourself up. WHAT STAYS THEIR HAND? Imagine how the entire world felt for forty years when America was poised to kill literally everyone!

The difference there is that I know why the US didn't start a nuclear war, and was reasonably sure that as long as no one else did we wouldn't fire the missiles. I also realize that my reasons for thinking that probably weren't nearly sufficient for those outside the US to take comfort in those reasons or trust the US not to start something.

Even more unfortunate is statements like 'if starvation and ignorance renders them so helpless how in the hell did they get such weapons' which highlight the kind of hierarchial thinking that can drive pressure unintentionally placed on weak (ie, not America) nations.

Personally, I think they got nukes because their government and society were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to fund such a program despite international sanctions. Also, I think Koreans are just as smart as anyone else, and just as capable of engaging in the required subterfuges needed to acquire/steal technology others wanted to prevent them from obtaining. I've even said that if such sanctions don't work to prevent nuclear proliferation we need to do something different. Perhaps resign ourselves to a world where such weapons are more common and we need to find other ways to resolve differences without resorting to war.

One problem I see here is that over the years the world has taught the DPRK that if they threaten and bluster they get stuff: food, medicine, fuel, all sorts of aid. So when they need stuff they make threats and bluster. If they need more stuff they make bigger and louder threats. We're training them to be extortionists. In that context more of their behavior makes sense. I'm not sure that it's a really a good long-term strategy for international relations.

Since both Koreas are moving closer, North Korea is arguably in a process of change, and there has been little violence (I think less violence than between Taiwan and China), are you saying that giving them money for decades until their system changes and the tension drops is bad? Why? What price are you putting on lives, or peace, or your own offended pride?

Are the two Koreas moving closer? On what do you base that statement? Sure, there was the "sunshine policy" started in 2000, but as early as 2002 there was a sea battle/skirmish between boats from the north and south resulting in deaths on both sides. In 2006 the south suspended aid to the north in response to missile and nuclear tests. With the election of Lee Myung-Bak in 2008 the south hardened its stance regarding the north even further. In 2010 the north sunk the ROKS Cheonan via torpedo. After the sinking the DPRK expelled southern Koreas who worked in some of the limited cross-cooperation areas. South Korea then cut all trade with the north. The north likewise severed ties with the south. Then there was the artillery fire aimed at Yeonpyeong Island, also in 2010.

That doesn't sound like "growing closer" to me. The trade suspension and other reactions to the DPRK actions by the south all came from the South Korean government, not from outside the country. And some of that does sound quite violent. Actually, both boat sinkings and the bombardment of Yeonpyeong all resulted in a certain number of corpses. I confess I haven't been keeping up with the Taiwan/China situation, have they been shelling each other's territory and sinking boats lately?

And please, do tell how the North Korea system is changing. Yes, the are allowing a certain number of cross-border industries, such as the Mount Kumgang Tourist Region (closed in 2008), and the Kaesong industrial park which is still operational but may have more to do with a need for hard currency than any fundamental change in the DPRK. Kim Jong Un took over from his father as expected. I don't see much change there.

If you want to be less scared of the situation, just stop talking yourself into being afraid.

"Concerned" might be a better word. Of course, nothing we say or do here will have any actual effect in the real world but I'd like to understand this situation better. I don't know why asking questions about a nation blustering about nuclear warfare somehow constitutes "fear".

[mr friendly guy]

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.

Fair enough and I will accept the reproach. I will rephrase it as the NK scenario will invite AD (assured destruction) of NK. This is of course unlike some of the threats in the past, where a nuclear power threaten to use against a non nuclear power which lacked the means to retaliate. The gist of it is that, NK's threat isn't as bad, because the country being threaten can easily retaliate, and that possibility of retaliation acts as a deterrence to NK, which were not present in those other situations.

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.

So basically the North Koreans hate the US more than the Soviets ever did. Ok fair enough, I don't know enough about this topic to argue it. The question then becomes is their hatred sufficient to cause make them suicidal and attack America. My thoughts on that matter is no and I have tried to explain it earlier in this thread.

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.

Therefore if some of the tensions with NK is lessened, they might tone down their rhetoric and threats. Question is what are some of the conflicts we can afford to "let slide." Some sanctions for example luxury goods. Letting the fatty in Pyongyang get some cars won't help NK improved its military capability. The other thing is face saving measures like letting them negotiate directly with the US, rather than the insistence we involve China, Russia, Japan, SK in it.

The point is, using your reasoning, if some disputes between NK and the US can be negotiated, removed, compromised etc, we might have them withdraw these threats.

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.)

Its very hard to convince anyone when you have that type of premise. From what limited NK docos I have seen, the NK guards do believe its possible to decrease tensions with the US, just not now (or at the time of the interview which was a few years ago). There are a few things we can trial which won't really weaken our position at all, for example sanctions on luxury goods, letting them directly negotiate with the US instead of via the six party talks etc.

[Ahriman238]

Yesterday, North Korea severed communications with South Korea in outrage over US military exercises in the South. Linky

Two American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers practiced an attack on the Korean Peninsula Thursday as part of a military exercise that has sparked angry threats from North Korea.
The U.S. military said the planes involved in the firing drill left Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on a "long-duration, round-trip training mission."
Inert munitions were dropped on a range facility on the Jikdo islands off the western coast of South Korea before the jets returned to the continental U.S. in a single continuous flight.
B-2 Spirit bombers are capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear weapons.


In a statement, the United States Forces Korea said the mission "demonstrates the United States’ ability to conduct long-range, precision strikes quickly and at will."
Dubbed "Foal Eagle," the training exercise involves about 200,000 South Korean troops and 10,000 U.S. forces and is due to continue until the end of April.


The Korean Central News Agency, the official state news agency, did not immediately have a response to the stealth bomber mission on Thursday. Previously, KCNA hit out at flights made by U.S. B-52 bombers.

The mission comes at a time of raised tensions between North Korea, its neighbors and the U.S.
A propaganda video posted on the country’s Uriminzokkiri website in February showed New York City under attack from North Korean rockets – a scenario thought to be far outside the reach of the poverty-stricken nation.

The video, which was set to a version of the song "We Are the World," was widely lampooned in the U.S.

Another video posted in March showed an image of the U.S. Capitol building being hit by an explosion.

The U.S. military announced on March 15 that it was bolstering missile defenses in response to threats from the North, including a threat to conduct a "preemptive nuclear strike."
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said on March 20 that he would order military forces to attack American military installations in the Pacific and South Korea if its "enemies … make even the slightest move,” according to KCNA.

“When the drills turn into a battle, the enemies will be made to drink a bitter cup, unable to raise their heads, in the face of retaliatory blows of the strong revolutionary Paektusan army, he [Kim] said,” the same KCNA article stated in language characteristic of the state’s military-first government.

Tensions rose on the Korean Peninsula in December when the North launched a rocket test, and then again in February with the test of a nuclear bomb. The United Nations Security Council moved to impose further sanctions on the already isolated nation by a unanimous vote early in March.
On Wednesday, North Korea said it was cutting the last channel of communications with the South because war could break out at "any moment."

So the US does exercises as a thinly veiled threat, reminding them that our bombers can reach them with very little notice, and they up the saber-rattling by promising a preemptive strike if anyone they don't like so much as twitches.

Is it OK to worry just a bit now?

[Dr Roberts]

As long as you are not in Korea you are safe. We may be closing in on the end of North Korea.

[TimothyC]

Kaesong is still open

S. Korean workers get nod to enter DPRK's industrial complex

Source: Xinhua | 2013-3-28 | ONLINE EDITION

SOUTH Korean workers commuting to the Kaesong Industrial Complex today got a nod from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to enter the inter- Korean industrial zone even after the cut-off of military communications hotline between the two countries in the prior day.

The Ministry of Unification said by phone that 161 South Korean commuters to Kaesong crossed the land border and entered the industrial complex without a hitch as of 8:30am. A total of 530 South Koreans are scheduled to go to the complex today, while 511 workers are slated to return to Seoul.

"The north side (DPRK) gave the daily approval on the cross- border movement through the Kaesong Industrial Complex Management Committee by phone," Yonhap News Agency quoted an official at the Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) office as saying.

The approval came a day after the DPRK severed its military hotline with the South in protest against the military drills between Seoul and Washington. The communist nation cut off the inter-Korean Red Cross hotline around two weeks ago.

The joint industrial park in the DPRK border town of Kaesong was launched in 2004, housing around 120 South Korean companies that employ some 50,000 DPRK workers. The factory zone has been believed to be one of the DPRK's main hard currency income sources.

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There is always a boom tomorrow.

[Stark]

As long as you are not in Korea you are safe. We may be closing in on the end of North Korea.

So Ahriman, when someone is making threats, do you believe making far more credible and destructive threats is constructive? I mean I know you're probably in the 'never been in a fight' camp, but once someone has made threats replying with more threats (particularly when you are by far the stronger, more violent party) is not how you defuse a situation.

[CaptHawkeye]

The US hasn't skipped a beat either. Every threat North Korea makes the US doubles by announcing equally brinksman moves like B-2 flyovers. Yeah just what we need, an international disaster involving an impulsive shootdown of a US aircraft. I see "gunboat diplomacy" has turned into "bomber diplomacy". Billy Mitchell and Italo Balbo never knew how right they'd be one day.

[Zaune]

Is there an election coming up in the US, mid-terms or something? Bombing the shit out of a bunch of non-white people is well known to be an effective campaign tactic.

[Rogue 9]

Is there an election coming up in the US, mid-terms or something? Bombing the shit out of a bunch of non-white people is well known to be an effective campaign tactic.

U.S. federal elections for Congress are held in even numbered years, presidential elections in leap years. So no, not what you'd call soon. Not that anyone actually got bombed anyway.

I'm pretty sure a war in Korea wouldn't be the sort of pushover campaign that stereotypically rallies the voters anyway; any such conflict would result in the destruction of Seoul (conventionally or otherwise) and the almost certain death of the U.S. garrison in South Korea.

[Zaune]

Never too early to start campaigning, I guess. And I stand by my central point; winning a war is always good for the administration's approval rating. why the hell do you think the North Koreans picked the fight in the first place? And the US has a lot less to lose.

[ChaserGrey]

Never too early to start campaigning, I guess. And I stand by my central point; winning a war is always good for the administration's approval rating. why the hell do you think the North Koreans picked the fight in the first place? And the US has a lot less to lose.

Wars are good in the short run, but wars with lots of casualties aren't in the long run. There are just shy of 30,000 American troops in South Korea, about 2/3rds Army stationed very close to the DMZ. Given how many guns and rockets North Korea has pointed across the border, if the balloon goes up there are going to be a lot of dead and wounded Americans coming home. If the US wanted to drop some bombs for PR purposes there are plenty of other hotspots that don't have a lot of American troops under the gun already. Syria and Mali come immediately to mind.

[The Romulan Republic]

And Obama doesn't need to worry about his approval rating very much since he's already been reelected.

[chitoryu12]

The artillery pointed over the border is pretty much the best reason anyone has had for not starting a war. This article is rather old, but it does point out their threat.

In their current positions, a large percentage of North Korea’s estimated 10,000 or so artillery pieces are deployed within range of Seoul, with the capability to fire several rounds a minute. The initial speed of a fired shell is generally around half a kilometre per second. Therefore, even if an allied counter-battery radar, some 10km away picked up a North Korean missile or artillery shell and established a track on it within seconds, a counter-strike would not be able to silence the North Korean gun or launcher for at least a minute. As a result, one artillery piece could probably fire 2–5 rounds before being neutralised or forced to retreat into its shelter. Theoretically, several thousand artillery rounds could land in Seoul no matter how hard the allies tried to prevent or stop the attack.

Even if half of the guns they suggest haven't been maintained to proper readiness in 2013, that's still a hell of a lot of ordnance they can lob at civilian targets. Unless you happen to be actively looking at the gun sites to see them loading or bringing them out of hiding for a strike, you won't know that they've launched an attack until the shells are already in the air and you can't stop them from hitting.

[TimothyC]

Even if half of the guns they suggest haven't been maintained to proper readiness in 2013, that's still a hell of a lot of ordnance they can lob at civilian targets. Unless you happen to be actively looking at the gun sites to see them loading or bringing them out of hiding for a strike, you won't know that they've launched an attack until the shells are already in the air and you can't stop them from hitting.

That's one of the reasons why South Korea has expressed interest in Iron Dome and similar systems.

[ChaserGrey]

That's one of the reasons why South Korea has expressed interest in Iron Dome and similar systems.

They better hope it scales up. Way up.

[LaCroix]

That's one of the reasons why South Korea has expressed interest in Iron Dome and similar systems.

They better hope it scales up. Way up.

Improbable. You can't have systems that can engage thousands of targets and not have multiple engagements on single targets. There is a limit on how well the various units can coordinate and still intercept with a reasonable sucess. You would need a good percentage more interceptors than expected attackers or you will be quickly saturated. It would prabably be cheaper to simply build a metal dome to cover Seoul...

[Dr. Trainwreck]

So the US does exercises as a thinly veiled threat, reminding them that our bombers can reach them with very little notice, and they up the saber-rattling by promising a preemptive strike if anyone they don't like so much as twitches.

Is it OK to worry just a bit now?

Are you in North Korea? Because when the Norks are bullshitting on TV, and the Americans respond by actually going and actually doing an actual military exercise, yeah that's a cause for concern. Worry, even. Go as far as to be... scared. Seriously the Norks are upping the ante?

Apparently people think that flexing your muscles intimidates a guy. The guy is already intimidated by the muscle itself; flexing it won't do anything further, except cementing the guy's fear that you're about to kick his ass. Am I saying what Stark tries to say already, or I need more effort?

[LaCroix]

Well reacting to a threat like the Nork one with a military exercise is like...

Let's say you meet your asshole neighbour you already had a few fistfights with, in front of your houses. He puts his hand on his open carried 38 in his holster and tells you he'll shoot if you reach for your M16 dangling over your shoulder. In reaction, you take your M1911 (not the M16) and shoot a few sqirrels in your garden, telling him "See, I'm just as good with my pistol".

Would you call this a clever way to de-escalate tensions?

And voila, North Korea re-raises...
Korea readies said missiles in response to B2 demonstration, US condemns them for raising tensions

[chitoryu12]

Well reacting to a threat like the Nork one with a military exercise is like...

Let's say you meet your asshole neighbour you already had a few fistfights with, in front of your houses. He puts his hand on his open carried 38 in his holster and tells you he'll shoot if you reach for your M16 dangling over your shoulder. In reaction, you take your M1911 (not the M16) and shoot a few sqirrels in your garden, telling him "See, I'm just as good with my pistol".

Would you call this a clever way to de-escalate tensions?

And voila, North Korea re-raises...
Korea readies said missiles in response to B2 demonstration, US condemns them for raising tensions

To improve upon your analogy, said neighbor begins wildly waving his gun at another neighbor of yours and threatening to shoot him, and occasionally firing shots into his windows. You're responding because he was taking potshots at someone you like BEFORE threatening you personally.

[LaCroix]

To improve upon your analogy, said neighbor begins wildly waving his gun at another neighbor of yours and threatening to shoot him, and occasionally firing shots into his windows. You're responding because he was taking potshots at someone you like BEFORE threatening you personally.

He did that, earlier. But that's not what he did, NOW. But it is what he might do now, because the US have sucessfully backed them into a corner with their re-raise...

If they just had ignored them or only responded verbally, the tension could have bled off over time, keeping the status quo.

But by forcing the issue with a demonstration of power, the Norks either had to re-raise their bet or back down and loose face, which they can't afford due to internal pressures. Ergo, they raised their bet, and reported that they have armed their missiles and might fire at the next provocation.

Basically, doing that B2 Bomber stunt was the equivalent of yelling "Come at me, bro!"

[TheHammer]

That's one of the reasons why South Korea has expressed interest in Iron Dome and similar systems.

They better hope it scales up. Way up.

Improbable. You can't have systems that can engage thousands of targets and not have multiple engagements on single targets. There is a limit on how well the various units can coordinate and still intercept with a reasonable sucess. You would need a good percentage more interceptors than expected attackers or you will be quickly saturated. It would prabably be cheaper to simply build a metal dome to cover Seoul...

This might be a situation where the best defense would be a good offense. Namely, if it seems like an attack is probable then take out as many launchers as you can in a crippling first strike, and hope your iron dome like system can catch the ones you miss.