Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#11

Post by nostrademons »

It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong.

Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and then very, very wrong, I suspect this essay is too. The U.S. mapped out all the game theory around nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. If you have too many states with nuclear weapons, nuclear war becomes inevitable, just like if you have too many firms in a market a price war becomes inevitable. That's why the U.S. and other nuclear powers have put so much effort into nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea may have been right in the short-term national interest sense to pursue and continue its nuclear weapons program, but the end result here is that most of humanity is going to die in a nuclear war, and we won't have such things as states and nations afterwards.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#12

Post by infotainment »

This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it.

That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#13

Post by csb6 »

beeflet wrote: post #2

This is my analogy: If you are a fisherman, and you try to catch big beautiful fish and release small ugly fish back into the water, then eventually the pond will be full of small ugly fish because that is what you are selecting for. If we want a world in which nuclear weapons are not the primary tools of war (which advantages these smaller players like NK that use it defensively when their means of conventional warf…

The message to all other states to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible is reinforced by Trump's scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal. Even if you negotiate a treaty with the U.S. agreeing to deescalation, a new leader will likely tear it up (given the flip-flopping of the U.S. presidency, which has near total power over foreign policy).

Even returning to the negotiating table isn't enough - the U.S. and its allies may strike you anyways. (as they did last year when they killed the lead Iranian negotiator and again preemptively attacked during recent negotiations)

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#14

Post by Teever »

nostrademons wrote: post #11

It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong. Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and…

Honestly in a scenario like global nuclear war I see the Kim family, and by extension NK making it out relatively unscathed.

Being one of the little players who got the bomb between the big guys and the rest of the little guys secured them in the short term, and global conflict is likely to break out between the big guys or some little guys, and NK isn't really instigating much with anyone, so when the bombs fly they're just gonna be overlooked.

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#15

Post by 11101010010001 »

nostrademons wrote: post #11

It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong. Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and…

One could argue that a way of proving Fukuyama wrong would require a 'new ideology' leading to global nuclear disarmament.

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#16

Post by credit_guy »

What this type of analysis is missing is that it is extraordinarily hard to build the bomb.

North Korea could get the bomb because they had qualms about letting hundreds of thousands or millions of people literally starve to death [1].

But let's say another country, country X, wants to acquire the bomb now. Then what? First thing: the IAEA inspectors discover that. Building a bomb is too massive an operation to be done completely in hiding. Once the IAEA inspectors find you, you either withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, or you don't, but people know you are lying (just like they knew about Iran). Sooner or later sanctions will follow. You are cut off from all the Western nuclear supply chain. If the unnamed country X is actually Sweden, or some other Nordic country, or Poland, or any country that's part of the "West", you do care if all the nuclear supply chain is legally banned from trading with you. What are you going to do? Go to Russia, or China? Are they going to help you build a bomb that you will then use to deter them? Are you sure they are that stupid?

But let's say you are a country that's not part of the "West". Then you have bigger problems. After what just happened, you know that sooner or later you might have some bunker busters rain down on you. North Korea was lucky, but now the precedent was set. The next nuclear aspirant won't be able to hope that the West will play nice and refrain from bombing you while you are busy enriching uranium.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_North_Korean_famine

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#17

Post by fakedang »

infotainment wrote: post #12

This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it. That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.

The point of nukes for NK is not about being able to use them to attack its neighbours. The point of nukes for NK is to ensure that they don't get invaded themselves. That's why NK makes a big deal about nukes that can reach the US - currently the only viable threat the NK regime has had is the US.

Which is also the reason why Pakistan pursued a nuclear programme (vs India). Which is why India pursued a nuclear programme (vs China). Which is why China pursued a nuclear programme (vs the USSR). People apparently discount the important of nukes and MAD doctrine in helping preserve the peace in today's world.

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#18

Post by mytailorisrich »

gherkinnn wrote: post #6
mytailorisrich wrote: post #3

Yes they were, but the key difference is that North Korea is not actually a threat and its nuclear weapons program is obviously purely a deterrent. The track record of Iran is very different. Even if nuclear weapons were only a deterrent they would likely embolden them to be more aggressive abroad.

In practice, Iran posed a local threat. It wasn't Iran that exported Wahabism around the globe. Iran didn't fund the Mujahedeen, nor was it the source of IS. It wasn't Persians flying the jets of 911 nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime. I find the Iranian regime despicable, as frankly any decent human should, and I am glad they don't have nukes. But I do not se…

> nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime.

Your lifetime is a fuzzy reference that possibly works because your are relatively young.

Iram carried out terrorist attacks in Europe in the 80s that left tens of people dead. Iran has been linked to an infamous bombing in Argentina in the 90s.

Iran has been linked to other attacks since.

Recently, the war in Yemen and attacks on shipping routes has also links to Iran.

Iran hasn't been a "local threat".

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#19

Post by mytailorisrich »

infotainment wrote: post #12

This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it. That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.

NK is also protected by China. The last time the US tried to militarily topple NK it didn't end well.

Re: North Korea Was Right About Nuclear Weapons

#20

Post by bdangubic »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #19
infotainment wrote: post #12

This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it. That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.

NK is also protected by China. The last time the US tried to militarily topple NK it didn't end well.

> The last time the US tried to militarily

The last many times the US tried to militarily do anything at all it did not end well...

Post reply on HN