From "North Korea Nuclear Test Puts Pressure on China and Undercuts Xi" (NYT).
What makes a nation a "rogue"? A "rogue" was, originally, "An idle vagrant, a vagabond; one of a group or class of such people." (I'm using the unlinkable OED, as I take a break from thinking about nuclear war to contemplate a quirk of language.) These days, a "rogue" is "A dishonest, unprincipled person; a rascal, a scoundrel." Or "A mischievous person, esp. a child; a person whose behaviour one disapproves of but who is nonetheless likeable or attractive. Frequently as a playful term of reproof or reproach or as a term of endearment." Playful. Endearment. Oh, North Korea, you rogue!
But "rogue nation" and "rogue states" are, of course, standard terms. Other standard terms are: rogue cop, rogue hero*, rogue lawyer, rogue operation, rogue priest, rogue radical, rogue soldier, rogue word**, rogue trader, rogue wave.
When we say "rogue state," we mean "a state perceived to be flouting international law and threatening the security of other nations." That is, whoever is using the term is doing the perceiving.
___________________
* "1899 F. W. Chandler Romances Roguery i. i. 6 The Roman de Renart also, with its masquerade and bold parody, and its rogue hero, the fox, went a long way toward preparing for the advent of the picaro" (OED).
** "1922 J. Joyce Ulysses i. iii. [Proteus] 47 Roguewords, tough nuggets patter in their pockets" (OED).
पोस्ट्स
१६४ टिप्पण्या:
There is another theory that China is using North Korea as stalking horse to test Trump, much as they tested Bush by forcing down the Navy recon plane shortly after he took office.
Upstarts and rogues! Never heard of them...
Previous US Presidents have just wanted to make a temporary peace with the Kims so the problems would fall to someone else in the future - they failed to act when acting was has fewer consequences. Shame on them!
Cutting off oil supplies could severely impact North Korean industries and undermine the regime’s stability...
Undermine the regimes stability?
A summary of what Chinese scholars think. Fair to say that they are as confused about Kim's goals as everyone else.
Kim appears to already have what he wants, an independent country. It seems possible that this is all driven by internal politics over which Kim himself has only partial control. If so, this will not end well.
NYT would be pleased if Trump sat down with Kim and wrote him a big fat check.
NYT seems to be trying to pressure the Trump administration to act more like the Obama administration. Evergreen, really...
Rogue: behaviour that might be accepted, even in a way celebrated, in an individual, is a much bigger problem when someone fails to accept their responsibilities, e.g. as a cop or a priest, or head of government. Robin Hood was admirable in "opposition"; he would be expected to clean up if he was ever in government.
Billy Clinton might be a lovable rogue insofar as he kept his misbehaviour away from performance of his duties; for Trump haters, Trump is a rogue President.
Fair to say that they are as confused about Kim's goals as everyone else.
Previous administrations have trained Kim to believe he will get money if he throws a tantrum.
Red China, meanwhile, is a rouge state.
Nuke 'em High!
If jaw-jaw don't work, then war-war is about it. Appeasement didn't work either.
Let China see the U.S. is quite willing to use nukes and we are no paper tiger.
Michael K we agree on one thing as a number of times over I have said on this blog that North Korea is China's cats paw which makes any threat against N. Korea risky, unless they strike first, which according to some sources, China would not condone or support, but who knows.
"In fact, some analysts contended that the latest test may have been primarily aimed at pressuring Mr. Xi, not President Trump."
Worth consideration but probably overthinking.
China has the power to crush North Korea militarily. The Chinese military ability in the area far exceeds that of the US because of their proximity. They could move an army into North Korea, at the same time controlling the air because we will not (and should not) oppose China militarily if they decide to move. A military confrontation with China is even more of a nightmare for Kim than one with the United States.
This situation is partly the result of the feckless wishful thinking policies of more than one previous administration. We have handed Russia a strong military presence in Syria, and are now in danger of a similar and even more consequential event in North Korea.
As the man says, all options are on the table. Interesting times indeed.
The article linked by ARM above is well worth a read.
Ah, Bill Clinton, you lovable rogue, we owe you a debt of gratitude for trusting the North Koreans to give up their nuclear program.
Rogue is a character class in role playing games. They often specialize in sneak attacks.
Agree with Rejahm, the Kim family has been successful in getting free stuff from South Korea, Japan, and US through threats and lies. Bush, Clinton, and Obama all let the next President deal with it.
I favor having China allow NK refugees to go to SK. May depopulate the country.
Austen Bay has a list of 6 options.
http://observer.com/2017/07/donald-trump-north-korea-options/
Don't forget Sarah Palin "Going Rogue."
Blogger David said...
"China has the power to crush North Korea militarily. The Chinese military ability in the area far exceeds that of the US because of their proximity. They could move an army into North Korea, at the same time controlling the air because we will not (and should not) oppose China militarily if they decide to move. A military confrontation with China is even more of a nightmare for Kim than one with the United States."
I would expect that if we go for decapitation, the Chinese cross the Yalu with the intent to be there for awhile. If we are lucky we can get Dennis Rodman at the same time we get Lil' Kim.
Rob much to simple, as Robert Gallucci, Chief Us Negotiator with North Korea points out after the Agreed Framework: There are those now who have come forward from the Clinton administration saying that the deal was basically abandoned by the United States. That's perhaps too strong, but that there was a lack of political will to enforce the Agreed Framework, that in fact, the complaints coming from North Korea that the United States dragged its feet and reneged have some validity.
What makes a nation a "rogue"?
Americans, especially "upper east side liberal" types see most of Asia as flyover country. Goin' rogue is anything that pisses 'em off.
Bill Clinton sat down with Kim and where did that get us?
Wait.. was it Kim that Bill Clinton signed a deal with? Or was it his father?
Obama didn't learn anything... made a similar deal with Iran.
What we do about Korea will set the tone for Iran.
Getting NK right is crucial in more ways than the obvious one i.e. getting a city blown up.
Yeah, if only the U.S. hadn't "dragged its feet," the Norks would have played nice and not developed nuclear arms.
And if only the U.S. hadn't "encircled" China in the DMZ between NK and SK, China would have played nice and put the clamps on the Nork regime.
I hope Trump is speeding up the production of bunker-busters and ABMs, and telling Apple and Walmart to diversify their supply chain. But it is not clear yet that the benefit of eliminating the NK regime is worth the costs we would have to bear, including harm to our friends in the south. As long as it is clear that that is not clear, Kim and Xi can blackmail us.
was it Kim that Bill Clinton signed a deal with? Or was it his father?
It was his father, Kim.
North Korea is a client state of Communist China. Ignore the North Koreans punish the Chinese.
The best things the US, South Korea and Japan can do at this point is to quietly prepare for war. Increase in troops, arms and the sophistication of weapons in South Korea and Japan. Greatly reduce the number of Chinese studying in the US. And reduce imports from China.
Ah, Bill Clinton, you lovable rogue, we owe you a debt of gratitude for trusting the North Koreans to give up their nuclear program.
This day was inevitable the moment Bill signed that agreement. It's Kafkaesque watching the same people who cheered that agreement act horrified now even as they pretend those who understood all along are rubes too unsophisticated to evaluate government.
There isn't even a word for how absurd it will be watching the same thing happen with Iran - including again being condescended to by our inferiors.
Michael K and R/V I think you are correct. China wouldn't make threatening noises to the US directly. The problem: Because Kim doesn't see himself in that role, China's strategy to increase leverage with the US by controlling its 'cat's paw' could backfire.
A bold but interesting tactic might be to schmooze Kim into an alliance against China. Kim wants, more than anything else, to be important. I suspect he cares more about his esteem than about his ideology.
Ce blogue rogue est en vogue.
mockturtle said...
Kim wants, more than anything else, to be important. I suspect he cares more about his esteem than about his ideology.
I am sensing some symmetry here.
kim jong un goals include driving the US out of Korea, reunification of Korea with the North taking over all of Korea, enslaving, re-educating and punishing the South Koreans and punishing and extorting the Japanese.
China does not need to "crush North Korea militarily." If they choose to bring down Li'l Kim, all they need to do is throw a switch and kill the electric powerlines into North Korea.
Not only the direct effect when everybody's house goes dark, but the unmistakeable signal to the Korean 'deep state" that the Chinese government does not like him any more.
North Korea is a client state of Communist China.
Well I'm a cat person, so the way I see it a nation of dog eaters can't be all bad.
Reminds me a lot of Saddam Hussein, only worse. Hussein's perception of his own political position internally and with the other Arab states forced him to pretend to have a nuclear program. And it did not allow him to take Western response into account.
The difference, of course, is that North Korea really does have nukes and soon will be able to deliver them. They are a hundred times scarier; Iraq only got hit because of 9/11 panic. Kim is going to get himself wiped out soon, and he still can't stop posturing.
We were a rogue nation once. To some, we still are.
North Korea's program is much further along than our experts thought. Maybe this is in part a reaction to their miscall re Iraq's WMDs. We should always assume that things are worse than the experts think, and act accordingly.
Kim is just jealous that Iran got all the goodies and he didn't.
As I have said before, if the critical components of North Korea's missiles bear Chinese factory markings, so do the critical components of their bombs.
And I do not believe the Chinese have given Li'l Kim a real miniaturized H-bomb to play with. Much too dangerous for China.
And I do not think North Korea has either the intellectual or the industrial base necessary to produce a nuclear missile program by themselves.
I don't think China is happy with the deployment of THAAD in SK. That was not China's goal. It does seem reasonable given Kim's pattern of escalation, however.
I think Kim or his regime is out of control. It seems to me that Kim is pushing China around and too far. But I wonder if this isn't for internal reasons. Maybe there is rot from within?
Among other reports, I read this summer that the NK army was so ill-fed that they were levying school children for contributions to feed them, and that there was a population-wide levy to provide the soldiers a protein meal for Victory Day. But the soldiers were complaining that they did not receive that meal.
Perhaps the internal corruption and pressures have built up so far that NK's top leadership is pretty desperate? There was supposedly a drought this year, and the UN is providing some food aid, but it may be that the army's ability to maintain control is waning if the soldiers are now not being fed. Even Venezuela's Maduro was smart enough to cede control of the food supply to the army before this year. A starving army is dangerous to internal stability in any country.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/north-koreans-fear-more-sanctions-as-drought-pushes-millions-towards-malnutrition?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_New_Post
I try to follow Jiro Ishimaru's reporting, and he has pretty consistently recorded not a liberalization, but a different spirit in the country. I'm guessing that the compensations have become more important than the system, and thus the fabric of control is slowly slipping and now endangered by corruption (diversion of food rations from military personnel by upper-level military personnel).
The problem with the hungry military is not new, but if it extends too far up into the ranks the regime could collapse. This from 2015:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/defector-north-korean-troops-starving/
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/08/03/Report-North-Korea-rabbit-stew-never-reached-soldiers/9841501765422/
Maybe this administration has just reached the dead-tree stage, and Kim has to create a crisis to get China to prop him up. Maybe corruption is all there is left, so it can't be cured because it's a death sentence. They can't be giving all these hungry soldiers weapons, can they?
Althouse forgets to mention "Rogue Cheddar (1967)."
Mousebender It's not much of a cheese shop really, is it?
Wensleydale Finest in the district, sir.
Mousebender And what leads you to that conclusion?
Wensleydale Well, it's so clean.
Mousebender Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by cheese...
Mousebender Now I'm going to ask you that question once more, and if you say 'no' I'm going to shoot you through the head. Now, do you have any cheese at all?
Wensleydale No.
Mousebender (shoots him) What a senseless waste of human life.
[Mousebender puts a cowboy hat on his head. Cut to stock shot of man on horse riding into the sunset. Music swells dramatically.
CAPTION: 'ROGUE CHEDDAR (1967)'
CAPTION: 'FIN']
Kim appears to already have what he wants, an independent country.
Except of course for the minor fact that he wants South Korea to be a part of that country.
"Breaking......Argentina President Says Obama Administration Tried Get Her To Secretly Provide Iran w/Nuclear Fuel"
Thanks Obama.
The premise here is that Kim is on some level acting rationally and that there is a rational solution to the problems that he poses. Another premise is that this will have a happy ending.
Perhaps the internal corruption and pressures have built up so far that NK's top leadership is pretty desperate?
I have read that NK is really a warlord society but that was a few years ago when Eraserhead was still the boss.
Things may have changed and the son may be trying to get control but that is even more dangerous.
David - I suspect that Kim knows that neither SK nor the US is a threat to him. It is very possible that he fears both the Chinese and internal forces; the net effect of his maneuvers so far has been more against Chinese interests than ours. We have beefed up SK defense, the THAAD system is being deployed again (the THAAD drama has been off and on again for two years now. It was on in 2016, the latest admin stopped it and then in August they apparently said it was on again), and Japan is looking at beefing up its missile defense - maybe adding shore AEGIS sites.
It is easy for China to take Kim out - all they have to do is open up their border and let the defectors stream across with the promise of transport to SK. That's it - everyone who can makes a stampede for it, including all the soldiers who can make it across. China doesn't even have to go to war to take out NK. Their problem is that they need a putatively third-party NK. I suspect that Kim is really trying to prevent China from overthrowing him and substituting a regime more to China's liking. China could easily support his regime with food and various other items.
It is certainly true that China is pretty much the only country that has the requisite leverage to get North Korea to comply. But China is very worried about regime collapse in the peninsula. For one, such a collapse would almost certainly result in potentially millions of refugees flooding into China. China has already been ramping up its crackdown of North Koreans illegally crossing into China, including detaining and sending back anyone it finds and adding more guards, CCTV cameras, and barbed wire to areas on the border. Also, if the regime collapses, the entire peninsula could potentially become united under a single government allied with the United States, another development the Chinese greatly wish to avoid.
The best policy from an America First perspective would be to dissolve our mutual defense treaty with South Korea and begin moving our forces off the peninsula. If South Korea wished to develop its own nuclear deterrent against North Korea, we should give them our blessing, as well as sell them military hardware. But there is absolute no reason why it should be US law that we are obligated to defend South Korea in the event of an attack. The prospect of the South Koreans developing their own nuclear deterrent may concentrate the Chinese mind on the costs of allowing further nuclear developments in the North.
However, the US has no vital interests in maintaining a Cold War-era arrangement on the Korean peninsula that makes little to no sense now. All evidence points to the fact that the Kim regime wants nuclear weapons for deterrence, not to start attacking countries, since nuclear weapons make little sense as offensive weapons against other nuclear-powered countries. The Kim regime has prized self-preservation over virtually every other national concern for decades, and it makes no sense to portray the current Kim as a suicidal madman who would start a military confrontation with a superpower that would most certainly end in his destruction. Similarly, the North Koreans are likely to be deterred by South Korean's own massive economic, technological, and military advantage over its brothers to the North. The South Koreans may be prepared to make concessions to buy peace from the North, and if so, that's their business. There is no reason the US to be in the middle of that conflict, anymore then we would need to have tens of thousands of troops on the border between India and Pakistan trying to mediate the Kashmir conflict. That conflict has nothing to do with our national interests, and we are right to stay out of it. We should replicate the lesson on Korean peninsula.
Mistake #1: North Korea will not use it nuclear weapons other than to intimidate.
What's not on the table: Taking away Kim's first-strike capability.
@David Baker:
Mistake #1: North Korea will not use it nuclear weapons other than to intimidate.
Why would North Korea initiate a nuclear first-strike? What would it gain from such an action?
Why would North Korea initiate a nuclear first-strike? What would it gain from such an action?
Prestige.
The only "threat" to Li'l Kim is his own people.
All evidence points to the fact that the Kim regime wants nuclear weapons for deterrence, not to start attacking countries, since nuclear weapons make little sense as offensive weapons against other nuclear-powered countries.
This is not true and endemic of the fantasy thinking which has led to so many missteps in our recent foreign policy. NK doesn't have to use their nukes, their possession prevents others from using them freeing their conventional forces to attack.
@mockturtle:
Prestige.
That makes no sense. A nuclear attack against South Korea, Japan, or the US would provoke a counterattack that would destroy the country. How prestigious is total destruction? Unless you want to make the argument that Kim is a suicidal madman who doesn't care if he and his entire country is destroyed. I have not seen or heard anyone make a strong case for that position, but as usual, I am willing to be persuaded.
@Rick:
NK doesn't have to use their nukes, their possession prevents others from using them freeing their conventional forces to attack.
For that scenario to be true, North Korea would have to believe that by possessing nuclear weapons, they could launch a conventional military attack against an adversary and expect that that adversary would not fight back or defend itself because North Korea possessed nuclear weapons. But for that to be true, North Korea would have to be prepared to deploy its nuclear weapons against that adversary, in which case nuclear weapons would be returned against them.
J. Farmer, I'm not trying to persuade anyone but, believe it or not, there are leaders whose personal prestige comes before the welfare of their citizens [sarc]. IF the regime is in trouble from within, and IF Kim senses its inevitable demise, he might be willing to go out in a blaze of glory by attacking the US. I'm not suggesting this is the case but you asked what would be gained from such a move and I merely responded with one possibility.
I suspect that they would use the EMP [electromagnetic pulse] attack first.
Conventional war would be lost by NK. SK has large and well equipped military...
US forces are a trip wire and reassurance, and no longer needed.
SK and Japan getting nukes is China's nightmare. Same with more anti missile capabilities.
"What would it gain from such an action?"
Logical question with no logical answer.
My assessment is that Kim has become drunk on power, and now his own invincibility. Therefore, he perceives no downsides, and is protected by his own immortality. And who can blame him, he's currently the undisputed ruler of the world.
@mockturtle:
J. Farmer, I'm not trying to persuade anyone but, believe it or not, there are leaders whose personal prestige comes before the welfare of their citizens
I don't deny that. In fact, it's plainly obvious from the entire history of North Korea that that is true. What I deny is that there is any evidence of suicidality. And I think your scenario is still widely implausible. If Kim had such tenuous control over his country that he is willing to destroy himself and his society, it is most probable that he would not then retain the kind of control over the armed forces that would permit him to order such an attack, since he would not be ordering his own destruction but everyone who would be involved in carrying out orders for such an attack.
I think we have to act on what is probable, not on what is possible. We could just easily say that a scenario could exist where the Chinese or the Pakistani would launch an attack against us, but nobody believes these scenarios should push us to forceful, aggressive confrontation to rid those countries of nuclear weapons.
For that scenario to be true, North Korea would have to believe that by possessing nuclear weapons, they could launch a conventional military attack against an adversary and expect that that adversary would not fight back or defend itself because North Korea possessed nuclear weapons
This is false and reveals your fantasy thinking again. It only requires them to believe their possession means retaliation by nuclear weapons won't happen and they can win a conventional war.
Mistake #2: Kim is not crazy.
J. Farmer said...
@mockturtle:
Prestige.
That makes no sense.
Missing words: "to me"
Does not mean that some apocalyptic minded general or colonel will will not provoke a war so that the Kim regime will be destroyed in the general conflagration.
@David Baker:
My assessment is that Kim has become drunk on power, and now his own invincibility. Therefore, he perceives no downsides, and is protected by his own immortality. And who can blame him, he's currently the undisputed ruler of the world.
And what has led you to such an assessment? I used to live briefly in South Korea and still regularly correspond with many friends from there. I have made this point before, but their primary attitude to the North is indifference. That people that live 30 miles from the DMZ are less concerned with being attacked by Kim than people who are 5,000 miles away is, I think, instructive.
J. Farmer writes: We could just easily say that a scenario could exist where the Chinese or the Pakistani
Two reasons they would not: In the first case, trade. In the second case, billions in foreign aid.
"What I deny is that there is any evidence of suicidality."
The problem with single ruler societies with young men as ruler, is that mistakes happen.
He may well be involved in internal pressures we don't know about. I posted earlier that I had read a few years ago that NK is really a warlord society.
Hitler had won his war until he made the mistake of invading the USSR,
Germany might well have won WWI if they had avoided Belgium which brought Britain in.
We assume Kim is rationale and that may well be true,
Our best course, I think, is to drop the ABM treaty that was signed with a country that no longer exists and start building a large network of ABM sites.
@Rick:
This is false and reveals your fantasy thinking again. It only requires them to believe their possession means retaliation by nuclear weapons won't happen and they can win a conventional war.
The "fantasy thinking" I am engaging is the very basic doctrine of deterrence. It's been a conventional doctrine for 70 years and thus far as held. To argue against it you would have to argue that North Korea is, in some sense, undeterrable. Of course anyone is free to make that claim, but they need to back it up. Have nuclear weapons in the hands of India and Pakistan led either country to believe they can launch conventional military assaults against each other with impunity?
@David Baker:
Mistake #2: Kim is not crazy.
What is the evidence that he is crazy?
@Hagar:
Does not mean that some apocalyptic minded general or colonel will will not provoke a war so that the Kim regime will be destroyed in the general conflagration.
Does not mean that some apocalyptic minded general or colonel will will not provoke a war so that the Pakistani regime will be destroyed in the general conflagration? Is the sufficient to argue that we should preemptively take out Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability?
"Mad Dog's" latest response bordered on the pathetic. There, accompanied by his top general, issuing yet another strong statement. But when we allowed Kim to launch a missile across (into) Japan, the battle was lost. Now all we have are words, about tables and tables of great conflagrations, while Kim's generals are setting their nuclear coordinates.
Serious men don' play these games. Yet here we are, like trained seals performing for a madman.
@mockturtle:
Two reasons they would not: In the first case, trade. In the second case, billions in foreign aid.
Three reasons actually. You forgot the most important: they don't want themselves and their countries destroyed by massive nuclear explosions.
J. Farmer: "What is the evidence that he is crazy?"
He's playing a game he can't ultimately win.
Three reasons actually. You forgot the most important: they don't want themselves and their countries destroyed by massive nuclear explosions.
A Muslim country might very well consider a suicide bombing. I'm not suggesting that Pakistan is in that mode. Yet.
@David Baker:
Now all we have are words, about tables and tables of great conflagrations, while Kim's generals are setting their nuclear coordinates.
Can you please explain to me why the North Koreans would launch a nuclear first-strike against a nuclear superpower? If, as you contended earlier, Kim is "drunk on power, and now his own invincibility" and "perceives no downsides, and is protected by his own immortality" then what is stopping him from simply launching a conventional military assault against South Koreans? Why aren't his armed forced marching south as we speak? Why do you think such an action is not taking place?
David Baker suggests: Yet here we are, like trained seals performing for a madman.
Agree. Naive [I suppose] question: Do we, or do we not, have the capability of shooting down their 'test' missiles?
Without advance warning it is very difficult to destroy missiles as they launch. Also very hard after re-entry.
Not impossible.
@David Baker:
He's playing a game he can't ultimately win.
Can you elaborate, because I am not sure what you mean. What game is he playing and why can he not ultimately win? One could say that the regime has been winning for almost 70 years, if we define winning as simply remaining in power.
@mockturtle:
A Muslim country might very well consider a suicide bombing. I'm not suggesting that Pakistan is in that mode. Yet.
Then why not advocate preemptive strikes against Pakistan? If the logic is that anyone with nuclear weapons can potentially launch them for irrational reasons, then how can we countenance any country possessing nuclear weapons?
"IF the regime is in trouble from within, and IF Kim senses its inevitable demise, he might be willing to go out in a blaze of glory by attacking the US."
Yes. His nuclear capacity must be destroyed.
And in Mr. Kim’s calculation, China has the influence to make that negotiation happen.
Mr. Kim does not understand trade flows.
M.A.D. was extremely tenuous even between two parties. There were generals on both sides of the Iron Curtain advocating for preemption. There were several close calls.
Cartels are inherently unstable. The more members to a cartel, the more unstable. A credible enforcement mechanism is required to maintain discipline.
The enforcement mechanism is a threat of nuclear retaliation. But retaliation against whom? Shall we believe evidence presented by Colin Powell at the General Assembly?
The assumptions are a wondrous sight.
@Rabel:
Yes. His nuclear capacity must be destroyed.
Should we destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability? Why or why not?
As this article on U.S. missile defense options notes, the ICBM threat from Iran and North Korea is not only real, but even the defense of the North American continent against them is by no means assured. A "hypothetical Iranian ICBM (based on the North-Korean Unha-3 space launcher) heading towards the Northwestern United States" will be vulnerable in a window only 300 seconds wide to interceptors in Poland.
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/09/03/the-end-of-containment/
Follow that URL to find other links about the technical problems with missile interception.
J. Farmer asks hypothetically:
Then why not advocate preemptive strikes against Pakistan? If the logic is that anyone with nuclear weapons can potentially launch them for irrational reasons, then how can we countenance any country possessing nuclear weapons?
Now you're being ridiculous. And so is your line of logic.
mockturtle:
If you can't do all good things, you must choose to do nothing.
/sarc
From Birkel: Follow that URL to find other links about the technical problems with missile interception.
Well, crap. Why would a missile detection and interception system from SK not be able to do this? What have we spent all that money on if we can't really defend ourselves or our allies against a second rate power like NK?
We spent all that money to get closer to being able to protect ourselves from limited missile strikes. We may even get all the way there.
Farmer, Pakistan is not North Korea so no.
Strawman....
"As this article on U.S. missile defense options notes, the ICBM threat from Iran and North Korea is not only real, but even the defense of the North American continent against them is by no means assured."
As of now it appears that they can put 100 kilotons in a footlocker. You don't need to be Tom Clancy to figure out how they could deliver weapons to SK and the US west coast ports. The missile issue is secondary.
J. Farmer,
Our stated policy; a nuclear North Korea is totally unacceptable.
Kim's (actual) policy; a nuclear North Korea, which he has now achieved.
More, we have now accepted - if not welcomed - NK into the world's nuclear family. In other words, we have granted NK nuclear-weapons parity. Which is a long way from totally unacceptable.
My analysis is that we will now push for limits, say, 5 or 10 nuclear warheads on their side. With a promise not to aim them at the United States. And in return for their solemn oath, we'll supply them with 9-million metric tons of rice, 300-metric tons of corn, and so on and so forth.
It must be noted that Kim was greatly emboldened when Trump failed to trash Obama's Iranian deal, signaling a timidity not seen since pre-war Germany. And what bully can resist kicking the kid wearing "Kick Me" on his back.
"It must be noted that Kim was greatly emboldened when Trump failed to trash Obama's Iranian deal, signaling a timidity not seen since pre-war Germany."
Oh, my.
Rogue = uncouth as in Trump, rogue President. ... meets Kim rogue President.
We don't know what the North Koreans think about an invasion of South Korea. North Korea has been a closed society for decades where only the true believers advance in their clique. It is entirely possible with limited information, a desire to please their superiors and decades of conformation bias, the North Koreans actually believe they would win in an all out invasion of South Korea.
To claim that we know the North Koreans, Kim in particular, is not insane enough to invade the South because he knows he will lose is a specious argument. Through out history hundreds of wars were started by sure losers who lost... The Bush administration thought Iraq was a good idea; Russia-Afghanistan; the Argentinians-Falklands; Germans-Russia; USA-Bay of Pigs; Napolean-Russia; US Confederacy the Civil War' Japan-Pearl Harbor(attacking the US).
Agree. Naive [I suppose] question: Do we, or do we not, have the capability of shooting down their 'test' missiles?
There are some intelligent discussions of this around these days.
The problems, as I understand them, include the problem of interception above the boost phase. We would have to have Aegis ships very close to NK to intercept in boost phase. The apogee is at the limits of the current ABM missiles' range.
We have only a few sites active. China might be using NK as a way to study our intercept ability.
Build more !
Michael K said...
"There is another theory that China is using North Korea as stalking horse to test Trump, much as they tested Bush by forcing down the Navy recon plane shortly after he took office."
China lost control of any political influence over N Korea a long time ago. A nuclear N korea is a greater threat to China than it is to the US.
This is about the projection of power by N Korea. LilKim want's a place at the table with the big boys.A nuclear N Korea will become more than just a mere embarrassment to China. I honestly believe that Beijing never thought that the Kims would get this far.
Why not take out Kim?
Offer rewards to do it.
Same for mullahs.
Unfortunately I think Kim reflects the views of the North Korean authoritarian government. Removing just Kim risks all out war without eliminating the North Korean nukes or the their aggressive policies.
Kim, Schmim. I'd happily bet that 2/3rds of N. Korea's General Staff and all of the command and control for it's advanced weapons are puppets for the Chinese and always have been. Does anyone really think that Mao took 180,000 combat deaths in the Korean War and then just walked away? Unlikely in the extreme.
Diogenes, I have to agree. We would just be playing 'whack-a-mole' with NK officials, any of whom would step into his shoes. We may see Kim as a just ruthless dictator but he is practically worshiped by much of the NK population, much as we don't want to believe it.
J. Farmer on the subject of the two Koreas sounds remarkably like Neville Chamberlain on the subject of Czechoslovakia, does he not?
J. Farmer on the subject of the two Koreas sounds remarkably like Neville Chamberlain on the subject of Czechoslovakia, does he not?
A good deal of projection and wishful thinking, for sure.
US withdrew from the ABM treaty under Bush.
Just like Munich except that N. Korea has the power to occupy nothing and win no wars. N. Korea has only the power to destroy itself.
Not every brinksmanship scenario is analogous to 1938. Poor Neville. He wasn't a coward, he'd just read too much H. G. Wells.
Does anyone really think that Mao took 180,000 combat deaths in the Korean War and then just walked away?
China lost millions in WW2 and drove the KMT to Taiwan. 180,000 was peanuts to keep the US from continuing past NK into China, as some in the US advocated, or unifying Korea and using it for a KMT re-entry onto the mainland.
China wanted a buffer between itself and US allies hostile to it. Mao would have been happier had NK driven the US off the peninsula and reunified the country under communist control, but when that didn't happen, the cost was 180,000 lives to keep the US from setting up an unified Korea on the Chinese border.
This the real issue with the Chinese now: how they deal with Kim such that the US doesn't enter into a war which leaves reunification as the best option when it's over. If they could solve that issue, Kim would likely already be gone.
"Tough nuggets patter in my pockets," (see post). What a great all around retort.
"I don't love you anymore." "TNPIMP"
"You're a trump loving facist." "TNPIMP"
"Sorry you didn't get the job." "TNPIMP"
"US withdrew from the ABM treaty under Bush."
If I remember correctly, we are still observing its limits.
It's hard to find current sources but I believe we are still avoiding a national system.
mockturtle wrote: We may see Kim as a just ruthless dictator but he is practically worshiped by much of the NK population, much as we don't want to believe it.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Far from it, in fact, they are mutually dependent. Ruthlessness is a sine qua non of divinity, and no dictator can survive if he's just another Joe.
Earlier mockturtle bluntly answered the question What does Kim seek to gain by threats of nuclear attack on the United States? (my paraphrase) with the brilliantly succinct answer, Prestige. J. Framer countered with condensation, That makes no sense, thus exposing his understanding to be a mile wide and an inch deep. If Kim Kong-un is the god of the North Koreans, prestige is his ambrosia.
The Munich Crisis of 1938 has lessons to teach us. Britain was governed by a Tory/Liberal/Labour coalition with the cooly rational supremely logical Neville Chamberlain. Though not of Oxbridge he adopted their style and manner from top to toe, with his frock coat and pinstripes. His rationality and self-assurance fatally crippled his government and the entire Anglosphere generally, dooming all to the greatest disaster. In Germany, there were men of conscience who understood Hitler and tried to discretely advise Chamberlain, most notably Wilhelm Canaris, head of Intelligence, and Ludwig Beck, chief of staff of the German Army. They urged Chamberlain not to deal with Hitler, to steadfastly refuse to be cowed by his threats and propaganda, in short, to deny the false god his feast of ambrosia — the prestige of winning. Chamberlain considered their advice to be devoid of good sense. Much more rational to buy peace with the freedom of a "far away country [and] people of whom we know nothing."
Just like Munich except that N. Korea has the power to occupy nothing and win no wars. N. Korea has only the power to destroy itself.
Wishful thinking. Kim has the power to annex South Korea if the United States acquiesces.
"Should we destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability? Why or why not?"
One at a time, Farmer. One at a time.
Oso Negro said: "I would expect that if we go for decapitation, the Chinese cross the Yalu with the intent to be there for awhile."
Maybe or maybe not. But you have identified the crucial defect of "decapitation." That is, what comes next? The answer is "we don't know." Not only do we not know what others might do, we do not know what we would do. We don't even know what we might be able to do, because the political and popular support for many of the options is not there.
Decapitation is an avoidant fantasy. The problem is an unstable unpredictable regime in possession of nuclear weapons that can be delivered against us and some of our closest allies. Decapitation would only replace one unpredictable regime with another, or with the Chinese or a Chinese puppet, which would not be much better.
If military action is taken, it must destroy the actual threat. The actual threat is the nuclear capacity. A secondary threat is the North Korean conventional capacity, including the artillery threat to Seoul and the threat of invasion over the American "tripwire." This means that we must cripple their conventional threat while destroying the nuclear threat.
The thought that this can all be achieved by a few special forces units or smart bombs is a complete fantasty.
mockturtle said... Kim wants, more than anything else, to be important. I suspect he cares more about his esteem than about his ideology.
--
Respect the Dong!
Actually, what Li'l Kim wants most of all is to keep on living.
This discussion is all very interesting, but to get back to the original post: What kind of "deal" could China possibly offer the US that would get us (at least the post-Obama "us") to accept a North Korea armed with nuclear (perhaps thermonuclear) missles that could strike the US?
I say: None.
Look at it the other way. What would it take for the US to get China to "persuade" North Korea to stand down? That's what we ought to be focusing on.
What would it take for the US to get China to "persuade" North Korea to stand down? That's what we ought to be focusing on.
Several answers come to mind. Xi would prefer an attractive deal that rewards China for her by proxy brinksmanship, such as de facto recognition of China's annexation of the Spratleys and monopolization of their oil reserves, something the United States has denied since the Chinese began pouring concrete five years ago. Another attractive deal would be US neutrality in the case of Chinese annexation of Taiwan. However, like any Great Power, China has interests that may make a much harsher deal, one that leaves China no choice but to accept the status quo ante, i.e. no strategic reward, preferable to the alternative. Greenlighting a Japanese nuclear weapons program would do it. I call it the Cuban Missile Gambit.
J. Farmer wrote: Should we destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability? Why or why not?
When the situations are more than remotely analogous then you may ask your silly question in reasonable assurance of a non-silly answer. Until then the wise will ignore you like any other insignificant pest.
The "fantasy thinking" I am engaging is the very basic doctrine of deterrence.
Wrong. The "fantasy thinking" is eliminating undesirable possibilities based not on evidence but rather your own desires. Your preferred solution is much more sellable to the public if the destruction caused by nuclear weapons is deemed to preclude an attack. It's so much easier to pretend the obvious method doesn't exist than to argue against it.
"Wishful thinking. Kim has the power to annex South Korea if the United States acquiesces."
Sure, with a war that sets East Asia on fire. Just what China wants, yes? Not a chance.
Remember too that surrendering S. Korea means, effectively, surrending Japan. Never, ever, happen. China understands that, S. Korea understands that, and I would be very surprised if the N. Korean generals did not understand that.
@J.Farmer:
if nations only attacked other nations, or went to war, when it made sense, they would be many fewer wars.
"Should we destroy Pakistan's nuclear capability? Why or why not?"
If we can do so through stealth sure. It's never a good thing to allow Muslims to control the bomb.
However, Pakistan and India are basically in a state of M.A.D. and Pakistan is nominally an ally.
A confluence of seemingly disparate events and processes. It sounds like a first-order forcing of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Keep it green, boys and girls. Everyone back to the lawn on their side of the fence.
NYT? How can we be sure that they will not plead ignorance to incitement?
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has been forced over lesser things.
"When we say 'rogue state,' we mean 'a state perceived to be flouting international law and threatening the security of other nations.'"
Oh! I know this one. The USA! (Oh, I know there are others, but, we're the best!)
"It's never a good thing to allow Muslims to control the bomb."
Or Christians either. Or atheists. Or any human beings of any religious or philosophical persuasion.
"J. Farmer asks hypothetically:
'Then why not advocate preemptive strikes against Pakistan? If the logic is that anyone with nuclear weapons can potentially launch them for irrational reasons, then how can we countenance any country possessing nuclear weapons?'
"Now you're being ridiculous. And so is your line of logic."
Not ridiculous at all, in fact, entirely rational. My guess is the first nation since WWII to use nukes will be...the USA.
Your forgot rogue elephant.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin hinted at what we are going to do (unless Trump changes his mind): severe trade sanctions on countries doing business with NK. Once that rain starts (if it does) then the next stop is severe sanctions on countries that do business with countries that do business with NK. I wouldn't say we wouldn't get out economic hair mussed up, ten to twenty million more unemployed, tops, but the other guys get several hundred million unemployed. Can China risk losing the heart of its export economy and risk a collapse just to keep NK as it is? I don't think so. China will find a way not to lose face (its going to cost us something)but that will be the condition to neuter Kim. We will pay it and be glad for it. We don't want a war on the scale a war in Korea will likely be. China doesn't want a nuclear Japan or South Korea (and possibly a nuclear Taiwan). Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and put things right.
J Farmer, your apologetics for the Iranians and North Koreans should embarrass you. Those two countries unlike every other nuclear power have repeatedly threaten first strike use.
The problems with sanctions are (1) getting others to participate and (2) policing compliance once others agree. Sanctions by the United States alone will not get the results desired. Our track record with sanctions is weak. Again, it is usually an avoidance mechanism. Our whole NK policy has largely been an avoidance mechanism for many years. It did not begin with Obama. With existential problem, eventually the path of avoidance narrows and then ends. It appears to be ending now, which makes this situation very dangerous.
I believe cubanbob is on the mark. Applying economic leverage on China is the strategy that will ultimately resolve this situation. No need to go into detail, cubanbob did an excellent treatise on that.
@cubanbob:
J Farmer, your apologetics for the Iranians and North Koreans should embarrass you. Those two countries unlike every other nuclear power have repeatedly threaten first strike use.
Oh, please. First, I am not making any argument "for the...North Koreans." Second, here is something I wrote 10 hours ago:
"The best policy from an America First perspective would be to dissolve our mutual defense treaty with South Korea and begin moving our forces off the peninsula. If South Korea wished to develop its own nuclear deterrent against North Korea, we should give them our blessing, as well as sell them military hardware. But there is absolutely no reason why it should be US law that we are obligated to defend South Korea in the event of an attack. The prospect of the South Koreans developing their own nuclear deterrent may concentrate the Chinese mind on the costs of allowing further nuclear developments in the North."
@Rick:
Wrong. The "fantasy thinking" is eliminating undesirable possibilities based not on evidence but rather your own desires.
That is not what you eliminate "undesirable possibilities." There is no evidence to prove a negative. It is up to the person making the assertion to prove their case. All I said is that I have not seen any evidence to suggest that those "possibilities" are probable. That was the point of my thought experiment about Pakistan. If we want to posture mere "possibilities" and then use them to justify taking military action, then you should have good evidence to support the probabilities.
My position has always been the same. I do not believe North Korea poses a significant threat to American national interests, and I am prepared to defend that assertion. And my primary evidence is the behavior of the region for the last 70 years. If deterrence does not work against the North Koreans, why have they not launched a conventional military invasion of South Korea? What has kept the North Korean military on their side of the DMZ for all these years? My answer is deterrence. The North Koreans have not invaded South Korea because they do not believe they could survive such an invasion. So, if conventional military force has deterred the regime, which has for many years, why should we believe that the threat of nuclear retaliation would not deter them?
The closest answer I have gotten to this question is from mockturtle, who stated: "IF the regime is in trouble from within, and IF Kim senses its inevitable demise, he might be willing to go out in a blaze of glory by attacking the US." And yes, I do find this fanciful. Mostly because if Kim were in such a state of "inevitable demise," it would be highly improbable that he would still be in a position of authority to order a nuclear attack on the United States or that his military (which would obviously be aware of his inevitable demise) would be equally willing to destroy themselves and their country.
And as I have mentioned several times before, your typical South Korean is nowhere near as worried about the threat of North Korea as the average Althouse commenter. For one, they are keenly aware that their population would suffer the brunt of any military conflagration that resulted from a war on the peninsula. Moon Jae-in, who was elected president in May of this year, ran on a platform of seeking dialogue and diplomacy with the North. If the South Koreans wish to buy peace with the North Koreans, that's their business. There is no need for 25,000 US military service members to be in the middle of that conflict.
All I said is that I have not seen any evidence to suggest that those "possibilities" are probable.
Wrong. You wrote all evidence points to the conclusion which supports your preferred policy while hiding that the evidence cannot distinguish between your preferred conclusion and other conclusions under which your preferred policy would be disastrous.
That was the point of my thought experiment about Pakistan.
No, the point of your "thought experiment" was to distract from your logical failure thus hoping no one will notice your original assertion is still unsupported.
So, if conventional military force has deterred the regime, which has for many years,
American military force has deterred them, they seem to believe the possession of nuclear weapons will change our willingness to use them. Interestingly that's exactly what you advocate. A framework which relies in one argument on something you advocate removing in another is inherently contradictory and therefore unconvincing.
J Farmer you just don't get it. Pulling out of South Korea guarantees us nothing except the probability of a nuclear arms race in Asia and the possibility of a general land war on the continent. Just like the original purpose of NATO was to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in to prevent yet another catastrophic European land war the purpose of the US in the Pacific was to keep Japan down, China and the Soviets out and America in and keep everyone else from getting to rambunctious. If we are going to pull out of South Korea then finish the job (why waste money in Japan for no benefit?) and bring back all of our forces back to Hawaii and the West Coast. However a North Korea that drop an H-Bomb on the US mainland is a North Korea that can blackmail us. They know that can't win against the US in a nuclear exchange. That stupid they are not. They just have to able to hurt us enough that even though we can still destroy them a much weakened US will still have to face an untouched China and Russia, hence they don't get hit to begin with. This is the reason the French built their nuclear forces, they never believed the US would sacrifice Chicago to revenge a Soviet attack on Paris. Any illusions they may have had they lost at Suez. And so did the British (not for nothing they developed their own nukes and the bombers to deliver the weapons) except the British were more polite and never said so publicly. Pulling out of South Korea is the same as stiffing the British and the French at Suez. Nothing good can come from that, neither from our perspective or just as importantly from China's perspective. Neither South Korea or Japan are going to go quietly into the goodnight. China needs to come back to its senses; an America in the Pacific that isn't too aggressive and simply keeps the cats herded is in everyone in the neighborhoods best interest. China has legitimate reasons to have a serious navy, it is a maritime country with global economic interests, indeed in that sense hardly different than us. However it needs to neuter the Kim regime and stop cozying up to regimes like Iran so its naval expansion isn't seen as a threat but rather just making sure China's supply lines aren't interrupted.
And yes, you have at other times in different threads been an apologist for Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions. As I have said before, no other nuclear or wannabee nuclear power besides these two has ever stated that they will launch a first strike attack or that they will destroy a country for no other reason that the fact they exist. That alone changes the calculus of war.
David said...
The problems with sanctions are (1) getting others to participate and (2) policing compliance once others agree. Sanctions by the United States alone will not get the results desired. Our track record with sanctions is weak. Again, it is usually an avoidance mechanism. Our whole NK policy has largely been an avoidance mechanism for many years. It did not begin with Obama. With existential problem, eventually the path of avoidance narrows and then ends. It appears to be ending now, which makes this situation very dangerous."
We have never been that serious about sanctions to begin with. You have no idea just how problematic US Customs can be when it wants to be. Ships can't be unloaded because of "issues" and ships don't depart ports of lading because they can't get unloaded upon arrival. Nothing is ever formally said but somehow the message gets through. When Kim is able to hit five US cities with nukes then we get serious with sanctions. Maybe with Trump, sooner. When Kim can hit several US cities and threatens to do so, the US stops giving a crap about trade wars with other countries when we informally block countries that do business with NK or countries that do business with other countries that do business with countries that do business with NK.
wareagle69 said...
I believe cubanbob is on the mark. Applying economic leverage on China is the strategy that will ultimately resolve this situation. No need to go into detail, cubanbob did an excellent treatise on that."
Thank you.
J. Farmer said...
The best policy from an America First perspective would be to dissolve our mutual defense treaty with South Korea and begin moving our forces off the peninsula. If South Korea wished to develop its own nuclear deterrent against North Korea, we should give them our blessing, as well as sell them military hardware. But there is absolutely no reason why it should be US law that we are obligated to defend South Korea in the event of an attack. The prospect of the South Koreans developing their own nuclear deterrent may concentrate the Chinese mind on the costs of allowing further nuclear developments in the North.
It is best to describe what exactly you think will happen over the next couple of decades if this happens. I will go first since I seriously doubt you will participate honestly in this exercise.
1. Within 3 years North Korea will have the ability to detonate 5-10 Hydrogen bombs over the west coast. That would be sufficient to cover 95-100% of the population west of the Rockies with an EMP pulse. 5-10 years anywhere in the northern hemisphere.
2. Anytime the US tries to confront China in any sort of trade talks, as Trump is now, North Korea will threaten to launch on the US. Idiots will pretend like it is unrelated just like they are now.
3. China will continue to build Islands. They will consolidate their hold on rare earth minerals and other resources that effectively give them monopoly control over modern battery technology and solar panel production among other things. Chinese companies/interests are already in other countries in Asia manipulating economies.
4. In the face of shiftless cowardice and globalist preference for command economies China will grow like the Soviet Union did. Chinese business people will effectively control the economies of the poor Asian countries and any resources there.
5. Taiwan will fall just like Hong Kong. Half my family lives in Hong Kong. It is pretty much over there. Without access to resources and competing with Chinese slaves in other countries Taiwan will fade until Chinese businesses move in and take over.
6. South Korea will fall next. China will use the constant threat of N Korean attack and aggressive business/currency manipulation to pull them down. Just like they are pulling us down.
7. Japan due to demographic decline in addition to the above tactics will not be able to hold up alone. It will fall.
8. Within 20 years every country in South East Asia will essentially be a satellite of China. Additionally they will be able to threaten anyone in the world with Nuclear attack through North Korea. One or more of their satellites will also develop nukes and the ability to deliver.
9. Eventually they will spend one of those chips. They will nuke someone and sacrifice one of those regimes. Could be NK. Could be Iran.
None of that fits with "America First" unless of course your wish is for America to become a whiny petulant welfare client state like Europe that has no economic growth and has to beg everyone around it for scraps while it commits demographic and cultural suicide.
Sure, with a war that sets East Asia on fire. Just what China wants, yes? Not a chance.
More wishful thinking. And your answer reveals nonlinear thinking mayn't be one of your strong suits
@Achilles:
It is best to describe what exactly you think will happen over the next couple of decades if this happens.
Sure. My answer is I don't have the slightest damn idea. And neither do you. Futurology is a fool's game. But I do find this statement of yours very interesting:
"They will nuke someone and sacrifice one of those regimes."
By "they," I suppose you mean China. So why exactly would North Korea launch nuclear weapons against another country, supposedly on the order of China, when the response would be North Korean annihilation? What kind of leverage would China have over North Korea where North Korea would be willing to sacrifice itself totally for China? And if such a geopolitical system materialized, we could easily tell the Chinese that we would hold them responsible for any attack initiated by North Korea and launch against them as well.
So we are still back to my original point. Why won't nuclear deterrence work against North Korea (and the Chinese under your scenario)?
"So we are still back to my original point. Why won't nuclear deterrence work against North Korea (and the Chinese under your scenario)?"
Because it's not working now.
Diogenes of Sinope said...
"Unfortunately I think Kim reflects the views of the North Korean authoritarian government. Removing just Kim risks all out war without eliminating the North Korean nukes or the their aggressive policies."
Yes. Removing Kim would go a long way to dialing down the threats, but we're still left with a military junta. The generals surrounding Kim are mad for power. I don't think they're mad for self destruction.
The absolute worst thing we could do would be to walk away.
9-11 has proven that the United States is resilient, and an extremely dangerous enemy when roused, but not invulnerable. Kim is a dangerous threat, but probably not all that resilient. Think of a six month long blackout with gunfire erupting as the rule of law breaks down. It's a non-negligable possibility.
I don't like to think about what the above means, but if anybody can explain to me that those statements are not true, I would love to hear it, on account of they have a logic of their own that I don't particularly like.
So why exactly would North Korea launch nuclear weapons against another country, supposedly on the order of China, when the response would be North Korean annihilation?
I read these threads backwards, so I have no idea how China ends up ordering an attack on its biggest customer, but North Korea seems to be run by a single man who seems maniacally dedicated to complete North Korean self-reliance,and revered as a god, so it takes some mighty big balls to assume that a single man won't do something that might seem logical to him, and not to us.
"it would be highly improbable that he would still be in a position of authority to order a nuclear attack on the United States or that his military (which would obviously be aware of his inevitable demise) would be equally willing to destroy themselves and their country."
History proves you wrong time and again. Japanese boys patriotically climbed into fighter planes with the stated aim of killing themselves in defense of their emperor. But I am sure that conceding to threats and selling out allied populations on the belief that the concession will remove those threats will bring is 'peace in our time." It's always worked great in the past. Worked for the American Indians, didn't it?
This is why M.A.D. is a bad strategy, as above:
Blogger Birkel said...
M.A.D. was extremely tenuous even between two parties. There were generals on both sides of the Iron Curtain advocating for preemption. There were several close calls.
Cartels are inherently unstable. The more members to a cartel, the more unstable. A credible enforcement mechanism is required to maintain discipline.
The enforcement mechanism is a threat of nuclear retaliation. But retaliation against whom? Shall we believe evidence presented by Colin Powell at the General Assembly?
The assumptions are a wondrous sight.
9/4/17, 12:43 PM Delete
@tim in vermont:
History proves you wrong time and again.
The example of kamikaze pilots does not even address the point, let alone prove it wrong. Individual pilots willingly committing suicide is not the same thing as a nation committing suicide. In fact, the Japanese example strengthens my point. When faced with the prospect of atomic annihilation, Japan capitulated to total surrender.
But I am sure that conceding to threats and selling out allied populations on the belief that the concession will remove those threats will bring is 'peace in our time."
I never advocated anything on the basis of it bringing "peace in our time." I have repeatedly said that North Korea does not significantly threaten US national interests. The South Koreans have more than enough of a military, technology, and economic advantage to defend themselves against attacks from the North. The US-ROK alliance is a Cold War relic that I believe should be jettisoned. We can still cooperate with them on many levels (e.g. arms sales, diplomatic unity) without being treaty bound to go to war for them and without having to station tens of thousands of troops on the peninsula.
The prospect of the South Koreans developing their own nuclear deterrent may concentrate the Chinese mind on the costs of allowing further nuclear developments in the North.
The South Koreans need develop nothing. The US can put nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula as soon as they agree to take them.
Kim has given them all the pretext necessary to do so.
I have repeatedly said that North Korea does not significantly threaten US national interests.
No true Scotsman enters the debate.
@Kevin:
What threat does North Korea pose to the US? The only answer seems to be that they will attack us militarily, and I have explained numerous times why I do not believe that will happen. And I have attempted to respond to arguments for why it would happen.
J. Farmer
Will you defend the notion that a cartel with more members is just as easy to advance as a cartel with only two members? Is there any case where more members makes a cartel likelier to succeed?
Smug your way out of that issue.
I never advocated anything on the basis of it bringing "peace in our time." I have repeatedly said that North Korea does not significantly threaten US national interests.
That would take a very shallow interpretation of our, "interests". We have treaties with N Korea and japan as well as the Philippines and Australia. Not only that but our naval presence assures freedom of the seas in that area. You are suggesting we abrogate those treaties and remove ourselves from Asia?
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Kevin:
"What threat does North Korea pose to the US? The only answer seems to be that they will attack us militarily, and I have explained numerous times why I do not believe that will happen. And I have attempted to respond to arguments for why it would happen."
You always couch your answer in this question. I have addressed this in a couple of areas before as well as above.
Let me propose a novel answer. Lets make every effort to insure they are never capable of threatening the US.
"What threat does North Korea pose to the US? The only answer seems to be that they will attack us militarily, and I have explained numerous times why I do not believe that will happen. And I have attempted to respond to arguments for why it would happen."
When a man with a loaded gun pointed at your head says he is going to kill you unless you do what he wants I say take the guy seriously. As for the threat, a shakedown is a shakedown and the shakedown doesn't work unless its believable. We view Kim as crazy. That is debatable. Still one has to remember even crazy follows its own internal logic system. Kim is probably acting quite rationally in his own logic system. We just have to figure out what it is or better still impose ours on those than can impose their on Kim.
@Rusty:
You are suggesting we abrogate those treaties and remove ourselves from Asia?
Those are two separate questions. Yes, in general, I am opposed to mutual defense treaties. The US would still have the ability to come to the military assistance of a country that was attacked, but that decision would need to be authorized by Congress. Mutual defense treaties make it the law of the land that we are obligated to come to the defense of the nation. That does not, however, mean removing "ourselves from Asia."
Lets make every effort to insure they are never capable of threatening the US.
Our mutual defense treaty forces us to treat an attack on South Korea as an attack on us. Your standard would require that North Korea had no military capability whatsoever.
@cubanbob:
When a man with a loaded gun pointed at your head says he is going to kill you unless you do what he wants I say take the guy seriously.
The North Koreans have never made such a threat against the United States. They have made threats of retaliatory strikes but not to unilaterally attack the US for no reason. If I have missed an example, feel free to quote one.
"Our mutual defense treaty forces us to treat an attack on South Korea as an attack on us. Your standard would require that North Korea had no military capability whatsoever. "
You're assuming facts not in evidence and as an argument -reducto absurdum- that is not the argument I made. The subject is N Korea and nuclear arms. Let's leave the goal posts where they are.
"Those are two separate questions. Yes, in general, I am opposed to mutual defense treaties. The US would still have the ability to come to the military assistance of a country that was attacked, but that decision would need to be authorized by Congress. Mutual defense treaties make it the law of the land that we are obligated to come to the defense of the nation. That does not, however, mean removing "ourselves from Asia.""
The logical conclusion of your position is to withdraw to our own boarders and remove our navy from Asian waters.
You are not making a compelling argument not to confront N Korea. Just the opposite in fact.
@Rusty:
You're assuming facts not in evidence and as an argument -reducto absurdum- that is not the argument I made. The subject is N Korea and nuclear arms. Let's leave the goal posts where they are.
First I am not "assuming facts not in evidence," even though you may have been looking for an opportunity to use that phrase. Second, you set the goal post: "Lets make every effort to insure they are never capable of threatening the US." You support a mutual defense treaty with the South Koreans, so if North Korea attacked the South, we would have to treat if as an attack on us. But if you're talking about North Korea initiating a nuclear strike against us, I have already argued why I don't consider that a significant threat to us--deterrence. Similarly, Russia and China are capable of threatening us, since that have a stockpile of nuclear-armed ICBMS, but I don't consider it a significant threat, because I believe Russian and China can be deterred. I have yet, in all of this back and forth, still not heard a credible argument for why deterrence won't work against North Korea. If you have one, I'm all ears.
The logical conclusion of your position is to withdraw to our own boarders and remove our navy from Asian waters.
Not at all. Not having a mutual defense treaty with South Korea has nothing to do with our ability to move our Navy through international waters, in Asia, Europe, Africa, etc. The US Naval Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, and we don't have a mutual defense treaty with them. There is absolute no connection (logical or otherwise) between mutual defense treaties and where were position our naval forces.
"Not at all. Not having a mutual defense treaty with South Korea has nothing to do with our ability to move our Navy through international waters."
Without the treaties there would be no point for a Pacific navy. Our defenses could be procured by a littoral fleet. We could then leave the freedom of the seas to China, Japan , the Koreas, Indonesia, Australia, etc.
"
First I am not "assuming facts not in evidence," even though you may have been looking for an opportunity to use that phrase. Second, you set the goal post: "Lets make every effort to insure they are never capable of threatening the US." You support a mutual defense treaty with the South Koreans, so if North Korea attacked the South, we would have to treat if as an attack on us. But if you're talking about North Korea initiating a nuclear strike against us, I have already argued why I don't consider that a significant threat to us--deterrence. Similarly, Russia and China are capable of threatening us, since that have a stockpile of nuclear-armed ICBMS, but I don't consider it a significant threat, because I believe Russian and China can be deterred. I have yet, in all of this back and forth, still not heard a credible argument for why deterrence won't work against North Korea. If you have one, I'm all ears."
Please refer to my previous answer on the other Korea thread. You are addressing issue delt with elseware.
Pakistan is afraid of a first strike by India, so they are constantly moving Nukes around the country using not very secure methods.
Blogger Birkel said...
This is why M.A.D. is a bad strategy, as above:
Blogger Birkel said...
M.A.D. was extremely tenuous even between two parties. There were generals on both sides of the Iron Curtain advocating for preemption. There were several close calls.
Cartels are inherently unstable. The more members to a cartel, the more unstable. A credible enforcement mechanism is required to maintain discipline.
The enforcement mechanism is a threat of nuclear retaliation. But retaliation against whom? Shall we believe evidence presented by Colin Powell at the General Assembly?
The assumptions are a wondrous sight.
9/4/17, 12:43 PM Delete
9/5/17, 7:29 AM
Again, no answer to this obvious question.
Thought experiment: Imagine if South Korea were developing and testing nuclear weapons and threatening to nuke Chinese territories and All we did was wring our hands like the Chinese are now (and say we would side with SK if China dared preemptively attack SK). What do you suppose China's response would be?
@Rusty:
Without the treaties there would be no point for a Pacific navy. Our defenses could be procured by a littoral fleet. We could then leave the freedom of the seas to China, Japan , the Koreas, Indonesia, Australia, etc.
We have no mutual defense treaties with any middle eastern or African country, yet our fleet is very active in the region.
Please refer to my previous answer on the other Korea thread. You are addressing issue delt with elseware.
Sorry, but I am not going to search back through pages beyond the first page to find your answer in some previous thread. We all repeat ourselves on these issues; it's the nature of the format.
@Mr. Majestyk:
Thought experiment: Imagine if South Korea were developing and testing nuclear weapons and threatening to nuke Chinese territories and All we did was wring our hands like the Chinese are now (and say we would side with SK if China dared preemptively attack SK). What do you suppose China's response would be?
Not much, because there is not a lot they could do. They opposed the US putting THAAD launchers in South Korea and responded with minor punitive sanctions against South Korea that did not amount to much. China similarly loathes that we sell Taiwan weaponry, but there is not a lot they can do about it but complain, and so they are forced to put up with it. Similarly, we have forces deployed in Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and southeast Asia, all of which annoy the Chinese, but there is not a lot they can do about it, so they put up with it. Now, to turn the thought experiment around: how do you think we would react if the Chinese started building military bases and deploying their forces in Canada and Mexico?
And still a cartel, when it has more members, is nearly impossible to discipline.
Smug cannot answer that fact?
"We have no mutual defense treaties with any middle eastern or African country, yet our fleet is very active in the region."
Not really the point , is it.
"Sorry, but I am not going to search back through pages beyond the first page to find your answer in some previous thread. We all repeat ourselves on these issues; it's the nature of the format."
Well. Some of us do.
To proceed.
This question is for the other participants since I already know what your answer will be.
Should N Korea build a nuclear bomb and a missile capable of delivering it, how will this impact the balance of power in Asia? What will India's role be? How will it impact Australia, the Philippines?
@Rusty:
Not really the point , is it.
You claimed that without a mutual defense treaty, there would be no reason for our Navy to operate in Asia. I gave you counterexamples to why that was not true.
This question is for the other participants since I already know what your answer will be.
I doubt anyone else is going to wonder in this far down the thread to this old of a post. Even though you're not interested in my answer, I will give one.
Should N Korea build a nuclear bomb and a missile capable of delivering it, how will this impact the balance of power in Asia? What will India's role be? How will it impact Australia, the Philippines?
The most proximate cause will likely be South Korea or Japan considering building their own nuclear arsenals as a check. This would likely be very alarming to the Chinese and may actually put pressure on them to work harder to constrain North Korea. But even then, the Chinese are very hesitant about applying too heavy a hand to the North Koreans, given what a regime collapse would result in. As for Australia or Philippines, I don't think the impact would be that significant.
Again, your premise requires the contention that North Korea could not be deterred. Since you apparently won't address that argument there, there is not much sense in continuing the discussion any further.
Blogger Birkel said...
And still a cartel, when it has more members, is nearly impossible to discipline.
Smug cannot answer that fact?
.........
Asked again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा