Kimmy might be crazy enough to say something like that, but it wouldn’t end well.
Given the disproportionate power between China and NK, and Chinese policy and culture being heavily against being bullied, this is one thing that could actually wake the dragon.
The only thing that would save NK from being obliterated in this scenario, is that China could end what little is left of an NK “economy” with no effort at all, so it would just do that instead.
What would save NK is having nukes, NK just isn’t worth China eating a nuke from them.
Not in the specific scenario you outlined. Your suggestion was that China would take on a proven nuclear superpower (USA) because a country which maybe might have a usable nuke is trying to bully them. It would make no sense.
This is what I got out of the original post; It does not matter if a country such as Iran gets nukes or not - the example of North Korea shows that they do not serve as any kind of deterrent. Which is an odd supposition to make, and disagrees with a vast array of knowledgeable folks around the world.
And also strongly disagree with this theory. I struggle to see why this theory was even proposed in the first place.
I also don’t agree with the moronic way that the US is trying to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.
Of course it matters - they might nuke someone, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
The point I was making is the one I outlined, not these delusional leaps of logic. The reason the US has not attacked North Korea isn’t because of North Korean nukes, it’s because of North Korea’s neighbor China - the same reason the US left in the 50s and hasn’t come back.
That doesn’t mean that North Korean nukes are not a problem, because the fact that an irrational actor like Kim has nukes means he may use them on someone like Japan. (I’m less worried about South Korea because while Kim might nuke Seoul he could also destroy Seoul with conventional artillery just as easily, so the nukes don’t really change that equation).
Iran doesn’t have China next door threatening to thwart any invasion with its massive conventional army, so I don’t see why any of you think the point I made about North Korea’s neighbor China would apply to Iran.
Thank you for your reasoned reply.
You’re welcome - I hope you didn’t ignore three paragraphs of reasoning because of one snarky sentence, but that’s up to you.
But the thing is, unlike the attack itself, the decision not to attack North Korea is not hypothetical. There were plenty of times during the later Bush and Obama administration after North Korea developed nuclear weapons when things got heated and the US could have attacked North Korea but decided not to. Real people in the US administration took that decision, and a decade or two later we know what they discussed and what factors they considered. And the fact North Korea had nukes, and would use them if attacked, was 100% definitely one of those factors.
That’s the thing about nukes they are very little practical use in actually preventing your opponent from achieving their tactical goals, they aren’t a fortress or a tank army or a navy. They only exist as a threat that will (hopefully) scare your opponent into not attacking you.
Sure, that’s precisely the claim I don’t believe. Do you have any evidence for the claim that it was North Korea’s nukes and not the prospect of a massive ground war with China that deterred Obama and Bush from intervening in North Korea?
I find it far more likely that the issue was China, because the US continued the same policy of tolerating North Korea both before and after the development of nukes. Because China was there on the border the whole time.
Cite. Note no reference to China.
In May 2015, the Joint Chiefs of Staff organized a half-day long secret war game to review how much progress had been made. The answers fell far short of what Obama wanted. According to one White House aide, the Pentagon’s bottom line – “We are just not sure we can catch everything” – was disappointing.
Moreover, North Korea’s response to a strike could devastate South Korea and Japan. Past presidents going back to Richard Nixon, who considered attacking the North after it shot down an American spy plane in 1969, had faced the same dilemma. Seoul, a city with millions of inhabitants, is only 22 kilometers from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
Still, Obama reminded his advisers that the United States had found Osama Bin Laden. Why couldn’t it find North Korea’s mobile missiles? “You’ve got to be working harder,” an aide heard him argue.
After Pyongyang’s hydrogen bomb test in September 2016, Obama asked again if it was possible to launch a preemptive strike supported by cyber operations.
…but also no references to nuclear threats?
Unless you think that Nixon in 1969 also faced the “same dilemma” of a nuclear North Korea?
Sorry cut and paste error…
In May 2015, the Joint Chiefs of Staff organized a half-day long secret war game to review how much progress had been made. The answers fell far short of what Obama wanted. According to one White House aide, the Pentagon’s bottom line – “We are just not sure we can catch everything” – was disappointing.
Moreover, North Korea’s response to a strike could devastate South Korea and Japan. Past presidents going back to Richard Nixon, who considered attacking the North after it shot down an American spy plane in 1969, had faced the same dilemma. Seoul, a city with millions of inhabitants, is only 22 kilometers from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
Still, Obama reminded his advisers that the United States had found Osama Bin Laden. Why couldn’t it find North Korea’s mobile missiles? “You’ve got to be working harder,” an aide heard him argue.
After Pyongyang’s hydrogen bomb test in September 2016, Obama asked again if it was possible to launch a preemptive strike supported by cyber operations.
Yes, that’s what you quoted earlier. The retaliation being discussed doesn’t make much sense as nuclear in nature since the article says that Nixon faced the same threat in 1969.
Lll
What did you read the article! The whole article was about how the Obama administration considered attacking North Korea but didn’t because they didn’t think they could successfully destroy NKs ability to launch a nuclear attack in retaliation to m What do you think those missiles have in them, kimchi!?!
Obama had decided to personally take on the task of making sure an uninformed Trump, who didn’t even know there were two Koreas, understood that Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons would soon be able to devastate American cities
From your own quote:
North Korea’s response to a strike is under discussion here. You’re insisting this response is nuclear and this is the only possible way to interpret the article, but that’s obviously silly, because Nixon did not face ‘the same dilemma’ of a nuclear strike from North Korea… “Kimchi”.
So yes there were other considerations not just the nuclear weapons. But the nuclear weapons were absolutely 100% definely a major consideration. It’s objectively wrong to say otherwise
The idea that nukes play no role in deterring attacks is a ludicrous assertion, whether in the case of North Korea or anywhere else. There’s no way military planners aren’t going to consider a non-zero possibility of an adversary with nukes using them, and no way that the possibility of nukes being used is anything but a net negative in consideration of whether to engage militarily. Maybe not the only factor, but no factor at all? Totally ridiculous.
Sorry, did not see any paragraphs of reasoning.
Well, this is obvious, but ludicrous assertions are pretty commonly thrown about these days. One might say that they are all that are left after everything else is considered.
I would like to see a cite for this becasue it’s militarily impossible for them to invade Japan in huge numbers. It’s an absurd claim.
Do you have any idea of the size of a naval force to land a “huge” number of troops at that distance? The North Korean Navy is a green / brown water force with small vessels and obsolete subs. They would be going up against one of the world’s modern navies, Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force (SDF) is strong enough to blow them out of the water.
There have always been concern if a small number of special forces (50 or so people) could slip through to do some damage, but any damage would be limited. They wouldn’t be able to bring in armoured vehicles, for example, and would be limited with the amount of materiel.