Conventional war would be pretty devastating. This is precisely what Clinton was told in '94, before the DPRK became a nuclear weapons state. A Million casualties, including 100,000 US troops.
But the ROK military is strong, stronger in conventional terms than the DPRK’s. The former’s expenditures amount to something like three times the latter’s (I’m pretty sure S. Korea military expenditures almost equal N. Korea GDP).
Destruction of a city (even a city that’s but a stone’s throw from your border) with conventional weapons takes a relatively greater amount of time, and time is something Lil Kim would run quickly out of.
A city razed with one single turn of a key, on the other hand…
(And that’s one of the reasons why WMD in general and nuclear politics in particular are more important than any other thing we discuss here.)
A common theme across the entire world. Comes with the territory of hegemony, I think. Ironically, iirc, Japan makes sure that it has one of the shortest nuclear breakout windows in the world.
It does seems unusual to me that a country that waded into Russia, China, UK, to a lesser extent France, and ultimately the US within a 50 year period, would turn so ‘pacifistic’.
I have been reading to try to figure out if the Bushido culture was common through the history (as opposed to a few warriors mixed in with mostly farmers), the atomic bombs cut off the hair of their Samsons (Tojo et al), or maybe Japan has mostly stuck to an isolationist and quiet existence except for a few decades.
Maybe all of this is sociology/anthropology and you don’t give a crap… haha
Anyway, it seems as a society, Japan would be moving from - US will protect us from China in a conventional battle and they wouldn’t nuke us anyway, to Kim is a nutcase and we better get nukes ourselves, to complement missile defenses.
N Korea gives the impression of a large criminal operation, surrounded by millions of slaves to that operation, rather than a actual country. The threat to S Korea seems existential to me. I would feel compelled to decapitate before they could actual deliver up multiple nukes.
Not trying to sound cavalier. DPRK just feels like a cancer that will kill the body anyway, if not eradicated.
If you go to the link I posted yesterday – the one that isn’t Foreign Affairs – you’ll see that that guy has a hyperlinked phrase which will bring you to a piece he wrote on exactly that topic. I think it will depend on whether NK keeps going as that March (iirc) paper argued it could. As dude notes, there is a rational deterrent reason for NK to have the nuclear arsenal it has now. Beyond this, you create existential dread in Seoul – and risk inviting the attention of old Uncle Sam, too. It will be interesting to see what they do. NK elites don’t really want to die, and China has some real (albeit tense) influence. Let’s hope.
If it were to happen, it would be devastating. Casualties, refugees, even more famine for the poor people living in the DPRK. Maybe the world’s first offensive nuclear detonation since the 1940s. The lesson is clear: put absolutely every ounce of energy you have into ante factum non-proliferation. Diplomacy. Don’t give up. Don’t be hard-headed. Be ready to shoot if you truly have to.
I read two of his other pieces last night and that was one of them. I had the same thoughts before reading it (in my mind - need to cut the head off of the snake). The 5 nukes to protect one’s sovereignty makes sense to me, from a dreary and dystopian viewpoint. Analogous to Israel, India, and Pakistan.
Pakistan looks to be a precursory view of N Korea. No apparent defensive reason for continued enlarging of nuclear stockpile, refusal to participate in any NPT or non first strike accords, and preference of nukes to food for a starving populace.
I believe the above explains the DPRK’s nuclear program to a significant degree. In the regime’s eyes, nuclear weapons bolster the hermit kingdom’s metaphysical narrative.
Going from Towering Volcano to Broken Chopstick is no issue for a real volcano
Enjoying the quick lessons.
Do you see any concerted efforts being pushed to move from defensive to more offensive capabilities even up to nuclear?
I can 3 factors tamping that down - your statement on societal pacifism since new constitution, S Korea and China not digging, and decades-long recession making an expensive venture unappealing.
