If merely having a nuclear weapon is a threat, then there are many much more dangerous threats around. As for being irrational, why do you assume that? Isn’t it more reasonable to interpret the country (or at least the ruling cabal) as leveraging their available resources to their benefit? Do you really think that one day, out of nowhere, they will launch a nuke at Los Angeles, just because?
Not “having nuclear weapon” but “having a nuclear missile that can reach me”. By that criteria, who is the “much more dangerous threat”?
I think one day, out of nowhere, a NK-produced nuclear weapon may explode somewhere in the world because North Koreans sold it to some terrorist organization. Because NK “leveraged their available resources to their benefit”.
Again, what would you have US&Allies do about NK now?
What is a more dangerous threat than having nuclear weapons?
Have enough resolve to wipe out the NK regime now, before the genie is completely out of the bottle. Not that I think that will ever happen.
In a cost/benefit analysis, that’s the rational thing to do. But then such analyses rarely prevail, due to political and emotional overrides.
China. Russia. India. France.
Please. Terrorist Nukes? A nuclear weapon is massively expensive and difficult to produce. There isn’t a terrorist organization in existence that could make it worth their while to sell a nuke. May as well worry about ISIS buying a submarine or aircraft carrier. Not to mention the risk of being caught, and the high likelihood of being blamed if it should be used- and what if the buyers decide to go after the Chinese instead? Just not a realistic worry.
Although… If I were North Korea I would gladly sell ISIS a bomb casing full of pinball machine parts…
It entailed me having to listen to a podcast, which I didn’t do, so that’s why I didn’t comment on it or quote it. Since you did go over it in a later post:
I don’t think we (the NK’s and basically the rest of the world, though the US is probably who is meant) are talking past each other (or, at least not before Trump et al took power in the US). NK is doing a lot more at this point than just trying to assert its ‘independence’ (something it already has), it is an active and growing threat who is and has been deliberately provoking not just the US but other regional nations. They aren’t just blustering at this point, not when they are doing underground nuclear testing (which is banned) and tossing ICBM tests over other nations. I also have less faith that the NK’s won’t use the things because they know it will mean their doom. I can see several scenarios where they might just say fuck it and push the button, just to do as much damage as they can and go out in a blaze of glory. Or they might just do it in a fit of pique, or even because by not doing it the loss of face would be so great as to spell the doom of the regime anyway.
As for cutting a deal with the Chinese, I suppose that hinges on what you think the Chinese would be willing to actually (as opposed to talking about, inferring, etc) do in a concrete manner…and, even if they WERE willing (and this would mean all the various factions of the CCP were in lock step on this and willing to take one path), that it would have the desired impact on NK’s nuclear program, freezing it in place. As I said…not gonna happen. So, to my mind, the choices are kicking the can down the road and hope like hell that when this finally blows up we can put the pieces back together, or precipitate a massive humanitarian crisis now before it gets to the critical stage. Both are bad options. To me, kicking the can is the least bad option, but I’m not kidding myself here…eventually, a lot of people are going to die because of this situation, regardless. Not sure what could have been done about this even in the past, but by this stage, there is no way out that gets around that.
I can only imagind your views on Pakistan then.
North Korea just launched another missile over Japan.
Isn’t that an act of war?
As I mentioned above, this will likely lead to a revitalized Japanese military. This is further evidence that the N Korean behavior has no rational and its consequences will destabilize the region. Maybe this will be the impetus that prod the Chinese into undermining the Kim regime. There is nothing about a rejuvenated Japan that works in China’s favor.
This is an unsupported assumption on your part and certainly wrong.
Do you consider the collateral damage of such an action to both SK and possibly Japan to be acceptable? What about the tens of thousands of American soldiers stationed in SK and the US Navy in the nearby waters? All acceptable casualty risks to bring down the NK regime?
None of these are a more serious threat to the US than NK.
As I said, rational cost/benefit analysis. Weigh the above against millions of casualties when NK lob nuclear missiles at Japan/SK/US. Or sell nuclear weapons to terrorists who then detonate them in population centers.
On the contrary. I think a marginalized country and a dictatorial regime that wants a seat at the table with the other nuclear power nations is acting entirely rationally in this respect.
There is no denying that the only reason the world is paying NK any attention at all is that they are an emerging nuclear power.
I don’t think the way to “do something abut North Korea” is to turn them into a parking lot.
They won’t sell a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. They might use one themselves, but there is zero chance they would just sell one to anyone, not after everything they have gone through to acquire the things.
So you’ve decided it’s a question of “when” not “if”?
Why not assume the same with existing non-allied nuclear power nations?
Is it rational simply because we can kill more of them than they of us?
Why isn’t the “rational cost/benefit analysis” that which spares lives on both sides?
If you are certain that NK will eventually use nukes against the U.S. (or share them with someone who will), then maybe you can make the case that we should attack now, and sacrifice Seoul to save L.A. (or whichever U.S. city).
But do you really think the rational thing is to sacrifice Seoul to save L.A. from something that might happen?
Because it doesn’t matter to some actors…Mao was one.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/4758-maos-nuclear-mass-extinction-speech-aired-on-chinese-tv/
They aren’t acting rationally nor will they get any sort of ‘seat at the table’ with anyone. They will still be an outcast rogue state no matter how many nukes they get. And their actions aren’t anything that would change that. Nor do I think they would want such a seat at such a table in any case since they want to be a hermit kingdom.
True enough, though of course when they were starving millions of their own people the world took notice as well to help out. So, it’s not the ONLY way they have to get attention. Do you think that this cry for attention is rational?
Agreed. It’s always the case that the easy, knee-jerk solutions are never as easy as they seem when someone spouts them off.