WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Broomstick]

I'm not going to link to a specific news article because it's trivial to find them yourself and all of this is well-publicized:

1) North Korea building and testing nukes
2) North Korea building and improving missiles
3) North Korea now threatening the US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Gee, I'd be hard-pressed to think of something more suicidally stupid than #3. The Americans have never been known for a proportionate response to an attack on their home soil, or even their territories. I can't imagine any response to a successful nuke landing in the US other than a wave of nukes going back in the opposite direction. And that's about where my imagination stops.

I realize that most people are of the opinion that this is just words and threats for domestic consumption. Well, maybe, but then why #1 and #2? The North Koreans seem determined to build the actual capability to do that, in which case we're back to MAD. That worked with the US/USSR cold war in large part because leaders and governments on both sides could be defined as "sane". They may have been corrupt as hell and all sorts of other unsavory things but the undeniably had some grip on reality. I'm not sure we can apply the same to North Korea. It's an Imperial Cult or Divine Kingship more than anything else these days and I'm not entirely sure if the God King Current Dear Leader ordered it they wouldn't do something suicidal.

So, I guess, someone give me some evidence why this is still just so much hot air despite solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Also, you might as well speculate on how things would play out if they did successfully nuke an American city. And while you're at it, speculate what would happen if such a missile went astray and landed somewhere other than the intended target - I've heard speculation on flight paths that would take such a missile over parts of China, the old USSR, and Canada on its way to the US (a near polar route being shorter than driving across the Pacific). You might as well speculate since someone will do it anyway.

And if it IS all fluff and bluster on the North Korean's part why are they doing it? All this seems to generate is more sanctions against them. You'd think they'd catch on by now, right? Even if the sanctions are entirely the doing of the US it's not like the rest of the world is hurrying to protest. Actually, no one seems to be making any protest other than China, and even their disagreement seems lukewarm at best.

[Esquire]

How aware of the way the rest of the world works is the North Korean leadership? They've spent two generations under their own wacky propaganda; maybe they don't realize that no amount of faith in their Dear Leader will stop the whole country from turning into a glowstick if they do anything to the US.

[Aaron MkII]

1 & 2 grant them a measure of security that they don't have now. It means the US won't be willing to do anything militarily without risking catastrophic losses to itself or it's allies.

And no, North Korea's leadership is not insane, if it was we would have had the Korean War Part II or III by now.

[Lord Revan]

1 & 2 grant them a measure of security that they don't have now. It means the US won't be willing to do anything militarily without risking catastrophic losses to itself or it's allies.

And no, North Korea's leadership is not insane, if it was we would have had the Korean War Part II or III by now.

well technically speaking the first one hasn't ended yet, but you're right about North Korean leadership not being totally insane.

however I wonder how you Russia or China react to an unprovocted nuclear strike from North Korea towards US or it's allies.

[Aaron MkII]

I can't imagine that Russia or China are going to be anything but pissed off.

[Broomstick]

I disagree Aaron.

Iraq is doing 1&2 as a deterrent, the "we're developing nuclear weapons to deter a US-backed invasion" but they aren't threatening a pre-emptive strike on anyone. Some of their leadership might think about it, but they've been very careful to speak only in terms of self-defense and deterrent, because that's all that's needed. Arguably, they have greatly reduced the odds of a US invasion by doing so.

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

And frankly, if the US hasn't budged in 60 years it's rather unlikely that, absent provocation of some sort, the US is to wake up one morning and decide to invade on a lark. The last time the US was involved in a ground war in Korea it ended in a stalemate, and resuming would require first defeating 60 years of DMZ construction and maintenance. The wall has kept out the Yankees for over half a century, adding nukes wasn't really necessary. I understand that part of demonizing the US is to give the North reason to keep demanding sacrifice from the citizens and an enemy to blame for everything bad that happens but, again, threatening a first strike isn't required to accomplish that.

Fact is, the recent posturing has resulted in the UN Security Council unanimously approving further sanctions, including the North's old ally China. It all seems rather self-defeating and the North shooting itself in the foot. For what?

[Broomstick]

however I wonder how you Russia or China react to an unprovocted nuclear strike from North Korea towards US or it's allies.

I can't imagine that Russia or China are going to be anything but pissed off.

I imagine EVERYONE would be pissed off in that event, but how do you think Russia and China will react?

Once scenario I've seen bandied about would have China nuke North Korea if North Korea lobbed a nuke at the US, just to avoid the US dropping bombs in Asia, basically cleaning up in their own backyard rather than having someone else exert military power on their border. I'm not sure that's plausible or if it would work.

[TheHammer]

Russia and China will post statements condeming North Korea and calling for restraint, but in the end will do nothing while the U.S., South Korea, and its Nato allies proceed to grind North Korea into dust.

It is a less clear cut scenario as to how we would do that. Unlike a scenario involving Russia, or a lesser extent China, this isn't a MAD situation. Given that any Strike North Korea launched would be limited, even if nuclear, an all out nuclear response isn't neccessarily the only way the U.S. would retaliate. The primary reason not do to this would be out of consideration for our allies in the region (most notably South Korea, and Japan). Its quite possible we'd do a lot more conventional warfare, with perhaps limited Nuclear stikes. But either way, you can be completely certain that regime change with extreme predjudice is going to occur in North Korea, possibly resulting in re-unification under the South Koreans.

That being said, I don't think they could possibly be that stupid to actually follow through with any sort of threat. They need look no further than Iraq to realize that our military specializes in destroying conventional Military targets, have recent experience doing so, and are very fucking good at it, even if they aren't quite so good in the aftermath.

[Tanasinn]

This smacks of propaganda for internal consumption.

[Ralin]

Once scenario I've seen bandied about would have China nuke North Korea if North Korea lobbed a nuke at the US, just to avoid the US dropping bombs in Asia, basically cleaning up in their own backyard rather than having someone else exert military power on their border. I'm not sure that's plausible or if it would work.

That would also require China to handle rebuilding/occupying North Korea, if they were serious about keeping the US away from their border. Which would presumably cost at least as much as occupying Iraq did, and I somehow doubt the PRC leadership wants to pay for that.

[mr friendly guy]

3) North Korea now threatening the US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

How is this different from George W Bush saying America should point nukes at China and Russia, in the context of a country that does not have a "no first use" policy. Is it because NK is less subtle than even Bush.

[Broomstick]

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

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

Oh, and recently they've developed both actual nukes and some better missiles. Granted, they don't yet have a reliable delivery system but they aren't stupid and given sufficient time it seems inevitable they will. And blowing up a city or two is not going to destroy the US. So... WTF?

[Stark]

When you can't understand the rationale for something, maybe your approach or premises are just wrong. I mean, are you seriously saying you are afraid North Korea will fire a nuclear missile at America? And that this confuses and terrifies you because America would probably respond by slaughtering millions so why would anyone do this?

All this is putting aside the obvious internal value of these statements beyond their accuracy as high level policy. I'm just trying to understand your fear.

[Simon_Jester]

It is not unreasonable to think a slaughter of millions is confusing and frightening. The real question seems to be 'are the North Korean leadership nuts enough to do this?'

Broomstick, a lot hinges on your perception that the North Koreans are going specifically for preemptive strike doctrine. That they are saying they are nuts enough to do this. Could you please detail why you think this?

[Stark]

Don't worry, the rest of the world has lived with nuclear fear for decades.

Its the bizarre simultaneous idea that the NK leaders are insane (or possibly aliens) and that their behaviour can also be predicted by people on the internet from news headlines and propaganda.

Simon, pre-emptive doctrine is arguably forced upon them by the realities of the world. There's probably no way that NK could launch their nukes AFTER a war has started, because the US has repeatedly demonstrated that it'll have total air superiority in a few days. Thus, if you have nukes and their deterrant effect fails in a given situation, you may feel that you have to launch them immediately or forget they exist. Being the big dog means everyone else has to strike first.

[EdgarjPublius]

I was under the impression North Korea didn't actually possess missiles with sufficient carry weight/deltaV to actually hit the U.S. mainland with a nuclear payload. That means realistically they're limited to hitting U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan.

[Simon_Jester]

I was under the impression North Korea didn't actually possess missiles with sufficient carry weight/deltaV to actually hit the U.S. mainland with a nuclear payload. That means realistically they're limited to hitting U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan.

Their latest generation is getting very close- if they can't do it now they'll probably be able to in 5-10 years.

Don't worry, the rest of the world has lived with nuclear fear for decades.

Its the bizarre simultaneous idea that the NK leaders are insane (or possibly aliens) and that their behaviour can also be predicted by people on the internet from news headlines and propaganda.

Simon, pre-emptive doctrine is arguably forced upon them by the realities of the world. There's probably no way that NK could launch their nukes AFTER a war has started, because the US has repeatedly demonstrated that it'll have total air superiority in a few days. Thus, if you have nukes and their deterrant effect fails in a given situation, you may feel that you have to launch them immediately or forget they exist. Being the big dog means everyone else has to strike first.

Our customary nuclear fear target was about as big as we are and could realistically aim for second strike capability, so we're not used to that part.

[The Romulan Republic]

I was under the impression North Korea didn't actually possess missiles with sufficient carry weight/deltaV to actually hit the U.S. mainland with a nuclear payload. That means realistically they're limited to hitting U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan.

What about Hawaii? And doesn't America control some other Pacific islands? Would they be in range?

[Skywalker_T-65]

There is Guam, Wake, and Midway. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They should be able to nail Alaska and Hawai'i competently at this point. The new tests may have been of a Pakistani design that is miniaturized enough for use as a warhead, but that is not confirmed, and a lot of people in the know don't buy it... But the Norks have surprised us before. They are smart and capable people. Really, I think the real objective is to convince the rest of the world they will use nukes at the drop of a hat, so that they can start to drawdown their conventional military without the risk of a conventional invasion. I think Kim Jong-Eun wants economic development like China's, and he knows the military budget must shrink massively to allow for that. To accomplish this, from his point of view, he must convince the world that nuclear weapons are North Korea's choice number one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, etc.

[Zaune]

My guess would be that they're hoping the US will decide that the South Koreans are more trouble than they're worth now that there's a possibility of Pearl Harbour getting nuked (Anchorage might be considered an acceptable loss) and throw them under a bus.

[Simon_Jester]

More likely, they're just hoping nothing will happen.

There is no real advantage to North Korea of actually fighting a war at this point. Their state is so low-margin that even if they win, they sort of lose because they can't sustain the costs of occupation. The North Korean leadership's main goal really looks like "stay in power," and their provocations are mostly aimed at preserving the status quo in foreign affairs- which is that they are taken seriously, but not meddled with.

[Broomstick]

When you can't understand the rationale for something, maybe your approach or premises are just wrong. I mean, are you seriously saying you are afraid North Korea will fire a nuclear missile at America?

I realize that the current dominant view is to smile indulgently at the grandstanding Norks and not believe them capable of doing such a thing, but once in awhile I wonder if one of these days they'll actually do something crazy after decades of not being taken seriously.

And that this confuses and terrifies you because America would probably respond by slaughtering millions so why would anyone do this?

Yes, I absolutely believe that if the US were ever nuked America would respond in kind and yes, that would mean a slaughter in the millions, if not tens of millions. It's not a matter of "probably", it's a certainty as far as I'm concerned for the result of hypothetical nuclear attack from anyone. Losing a single city to a nuke is tragedy enough but should that occur on US soil there would be no moderating the US response. It would be massive and nuclear.

The question then comes down to "Is North Korea's declaration of a pre-emptive strike on the US a credible threat?" I am aware that current information indicates that no, they can't hit the US at this time, at least not reliably even if in theory what they have can reach the westernmost outposts of the US. On the other hand, they certainly can hit their near neighbors with a nuke, and they continue to work on their military capability.

All this is putting aside the obvious internal value of these statements beyond their accuracy as high level policy. I'm just trying to understand your fear.

Consider it speculation on a black swan event. It's not likely, but should it occur the outcome would be huge.

Right now, the prediction seems to be that they're either bluffing or incapable of such a deed. If, however, they continue to advance in their missile and bomb technology and do pull it off in retrospect it will seem "obvious" they weren't bluffing this time, or that there were indications that this time they were serious.

It's not a personal fear - there isn't any reason (as far as I can see - of course, none of us are privy to top secret levels of data on this) to think they could reach my location with such weaponry. Then don't have to, to make for a truly miserable outcome. It's the Pacific territories of the US and the West Coast that would need to worry about a direct and personal missile threat. It's the resulting aftermath, which won't be good for anybody, really.

Broomstick, a lot hinges on your perception that the North Koreans are going specifically for preemptive strike doctrine. That they are saying they are nuts enough to do this. Could you please detail why you think this?

As I said, the trend seems to be to smile in indulgently and just write it off as more crazy talk. After all, none of us would be crazy enough to commit that form of suicide. On the other hand, a lot of what the North Korean government does makes little sense to me so I don't feel I can assume they will view a situation as I would, or react as I would. It's not because they're crazy (despite frequent statement by lots of people they are), it's because they're very different than myself.

If the regime gets desperate enough would they go out with a bang? I don't think the prospect of killing millions of their own would really bother the ruling elite, they show enormous contempt, or perhaps massive indifference is a better word, for the population at large. So... it comes down to would they risk their own lives for something of this sort? I'd expect that if they did take such an action the ruling elite would not be in Pongyang but in hiding or even out of the country as they know there would be retaliation. Or if they felt they were in imminent danger of being eliminated anyway would they push the button, having nothing further to lose but wanting to hurt their Big Enemy before the end?

You now have a couple generations of North Koreans that have been raised knowing nothing other than the party propaganda in what is essentially an absolute monarchy with a state-based religion holding the originator of the dynasty as divine even if the North Korean state uses different terms. If the king orders something will the rest of them government follow, or is the king a puppet of some sort of inner cabal and thus not at the mercy of one man's directives?

Its the bizarre simultaneous idea that the NK leaders are insane (or possibly aliens) and that their behaviour can also be predicted by people on the internet from news headlines and propaganda.

Well, no, we sitting here aren't privy to all the relevant data so no, we can't predict anything. On the other hand, just because in the past they've been full of hot air doesn't mean that state will continue indefinitely. They've gone to a lot of effort and poured a lot of resources into missile systems and nuclear technology that I don't see as necessary for the internal propaganda machine. After all, their people have little to no outside information, they could just tell their people they've got more nukes than anyone else and the rest of the world trembles in fear at their feet and the average person in the street would have no reason to disbelieve such a thing. That's why I think people who dismiss the posturing as for “internal consumption” have it all wrong. The testing they've done is to communicate to the outside world, not interally.

Simon, pre-emptive doctrine is arguably forced upon them by the realities of the world. There's probably no way that NK could launch their nukes AFTER a war has started, because the US has repeatedly demonstrated that it'll have total air superiority in a few days.

In this case, probably almost immediately with the base at Okinawa.

Actually, outside of a few brief years post WWII, no one could reliably launch their nukes after a war started and it doesn't come down to planes so much as the other side having nukes, too. In the US for decades the notion was that as soon as the missiles started flying the other side had to launch, too, or risk losing any form of retaliation. With MAD any benefit of launching first was eliminated because both sides would destroy each other. You wouldn't be around to enjoy any sort of victory. I believe this make a first launch much less likely and indeed during the Cold War nobody got nuked.

In this case, however, no matter how much of their arsenal they North Koreans launch on the US they can't destroy the US, they just don't have enough bombs for the territory involved. The US, however, could completely obliterate them. No MAD here. I think that makes it more likely someone might launch do to the use-it-or-lose-it nature of the situation. I think the circumstances would need to be very desperate, essentially the regime going down in flames already so it becomes a matter of taking the other guy with them. I suppose the upside is that the regime is so entrenched and in control internal revolution is unlikely.

They should be able to nail Alaska and Hawai'i competently at this point. The new tests may have been of a Pakistani design that is miniaturized enough for use as a warhead, but that is not confirmed, and a lot of people in the know don't buy it... But the Norks have surprised us before. They are smart and capable people. Really, I think the real objective is to convince the rest of the world they will use nukes at the drop of a hat, so that they can start to drawdown their conventional military without the risk of a conventional invasion. I think Kim Jong-Eun wants economic development like China's, and he knows the military budget must shrink massively to allow for that. To accomplish this, from his point of view, he must convince the world that nuclear weapons are North Korea's choice number one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, etc.

This actually starts to make a lot of sense to me. It doesn't downgrade the intelligence or capability of the North Koreans. The idea of using a nuclear threat to reduce the size of their military is one of the more sensible explanations I've heard (the other being the notion that having nukes makes you immune from ground-based US-backed invasion due to reluctance to get in a shooting war with someone who has nukes). The North Korean military is huge out of proportion to their size (fourth largest in the world if I recall correctly) and must constitute a significant drain on limited resources. Being able to reduce its size would be of benefit to the state. This starts to make the risk/benefit of a nuke program look more balanced to me.

My guess would be that they're hoping the US will decide that the South Koreans are more trouble than they're worth now that there's a possibility of Pearl Harbour getting nuked (Anchorage might be considered an acceptable loss) and throw them under a bus.

I find that about as likely as the notion that by bombing Pearl Harbor it would convince the US not to get involved in opposing Imperial Japan in the Pacific. That's not how the US thinks, or perhaps more accurately, emotes. Even if we abandoned South Korea, which I don't for a minute believe we'd do, there is still Japan sitting nearby and aside from that pledge to defend Japan we made oh, 70 years and more ago, we have too many other ties to Japan to throw them under a bus.

There is no real advantage to North Korea of actually fighting a war at this point. Their state is so low-margin that even if they win, they sort of lose because they can't sustain the costs of occupation. The North Korean leadership's main goal really looks like "stay in power," and their provocations are mostly aimed at preserving the status quo in foreign affairs- which is that they are taken seriously, but not meddled with.

Except that their current course of action is resulting in ever-tightening sanctions that are now supported by their closest ally. That would seem to be a deteriorating state of affairs and not a status quo. Every time they advance their nuclear program they get squeezed tighter.

[mr friendly guy]

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

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

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

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

[Aaron MkII]

I disagree Aaron.

Iraq is doing 1&2 as a deterrent, the "we're developing nuclear weapons to deter a US-backed invasion" but they aren't threatening a pre-emptive strike on anyone. Some of their leadership might think about it, but they've been very careful to speak only in terms of self-defense and deterrent, because that's all that's needed. Arguably, they have greatly reduced the odds of a US invasion by doing so.

Iran

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

GW Bush labeled them part of an "Axis of Evil" and invaded two countries with intention of regime change (obviously Afghanistan is more complex). The US also has a history of changing the leadership of countries it doesn’t like. NK on the other hand has gone 60 years without restarting the war. Or starting wars elsewhere, or changing peoples governments for them.

They talk like the US but they don't act like you. It's totally understandable why they would want nukes. It gives the leadership the security it wants. There's also been rumours of reforms under the new guy, he may feel secure enough to pursue them further with nukes.

And frankly, if the US hasn't budged in 60 years it's rather unlikely that, absent provocation of some sort, the US is to wake up one morning and decide to invade on a lark. The last time the US was involved in a ground war in Korea it ended in a stalemate, and resuming would require first defeating 60 years of DMZ construction and maintenance. The wall has kept out the Yankees for over half a century, adding nukes wasn't really necessary. I understand that part of demonizing the US is to give the North reason to keep demanding sacrifice from the citizens and an enemy to blame for everything bad that happens but, again, threatening a first strike isn't required to accomplish that.

Fact is, the recent posturing has resulted in the UN Security Council unanimously approving further sanctions, including the North's old ally China. It all seems rather self-defeating and the North shooting itself in the foot. For what?

You invaded Iraq on a lark Broomstick.

I get your fear, I remember the Cold War too. But the situation has been fairly stable for a long time and though you don't understand their motivation it doesn't make them insane.