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

New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#111

Post by raverbashing »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #77
hackerboos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Koreas are effectively a proxy war between the US and China.

True in 1952 but hardly true now. More recently China has indulged the Kims because they don't want tens of millions of refugees flooding over the border. Kim Jong-Un may be about to find that his sponsor's patience is neither unconditional nor unlimited. The Chinese leaders are not stupid. They know they have a problem. The best endgame for Kim is an offer of exile in China, at this point. That may be what he is fis…

I wonder what's the possibility of China simply annexing NK

Considering what would happen if the borders to China were opened, I think it would be a huge humanitarian situation.

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#112

Post by cpeterso »

bjterry wrote: post #89
adventured wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the aim is retaining permanent power for Kim Jong-un and the military junta that actually runs North Korea.

There is probably a Pareto improvement that could be made by agreeing to hand Kim and the other leaders almost any amount of material wealth in exchange for them stepping down and allowing South Korea to govern North Korea. It would have to be better to live in a first world nation with hundreds of millions / billions of dollars than to be the Great Leader of North Korea. I guess the fact that this doesn't happen jus…

Would South Korea want to govern North Korea?

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#113

Post by tokenadult »

arethuza wrote: post #26
admford wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much like Nixon's Madman theory when it came to US foreign policy in the early 70's.

"His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

I like better sources that poorly sourced Wikipedia articles for controversial statements like this. I'm not sure I have enough evidence to believe the statement in your kind comment. (I'm a Wikipedian, which is why I'm deeply dubious about politically tendentious statements cited to Wikipedia.)

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#114

Post by arethuza »

tokenadult wrote: post #113
arethuza wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

I like better sources that poorly sourced Wikipedia articles for controversial statements like this. I'm not sure I have enough evidence to believe the statement in your kind comment. (I'm a Wikipedian, which is why I'm deeply dubious about politically tendentious statements cited to Wikipedia.)

I have read other accounts of that "strategy" being used by Nixon - would take me a while to find the exact references so I used that Wikipedia article.

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#115

Post by iterationx »

adventured wrote: post #108
SeanLuke wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "More than ever, I still consider the nuclear attack on America as inevitable, both because the real axis of evil (Russia and China) are still building for that attack, and because our own government is controlled by those intent upon destroying US sovereignty and delivering our nation over to a socialist New World Order." Classic Mormon survivalist subculture crazytalk.

Yep, as even if you assumed half of that were correct, it wouldn't change the fact that Russia and China have absolutely no desire to commit suicide by nuclear war, and particularly over North Korea. If those countries wanted to commit nuclear suicide, they could have and would have done it a long time ago. The past had a lot more provocations that could have been used to justify it, than the recent times have.

He presents arguments why it is not nuclear suicide. If you weren't so smug you might learn something.

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#116

Post by ufmace »

adventured wrote: post #60
benjoffe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rational North Korean state would not engage in nuclear war in just about any scenario as it would mean almost certain destruction for itself in response. To help persuade their enemies not to invade they try to appear as irrational as possible. There's an interesting segment in this psychology lecture about irrationality that seems related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5IrSEIPdwk#t=44m36s There is some advantag…

I don't believe there's any advantage to being irrational or having a temper. Sooner or later someone is going to call your bluff. If you initiate violence, you might get your ass kicked by someone stronger. If you flip out irrationally, they can simply laugh at you as you flail about, or begin ignoring you / avoiding you. When someone calls your bluff, it's game over. Everything changes from that point forward. Eith…

How do you figure that America is subsidizing them? We've tried invading them, ignoring them, and buying them off, and none of them worked very well.

The key point is that this is really a proxy war between China and the US. North Korea exists only as a proxy of China - they cannot be defeated in war until China allows it, they will continue to exist as they do as long as China allows it, and the regime will collapse about 10 minutes after China stops supporting them. The current state of affairs exists because China likes having a thorn in our side and very much does not like having a close US ally on their border.

The only plausible end that I can see is them doing something so provocative that China gets fed up with them and afraid that they'll be drawn into a shooting war, and forces the Kim dynasty out and somebody who is reasonable and favors Chinese-style reforms in.

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#117

Post by mc32 »

rthomas6 wrote: post #102
icey wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran doesn't have China on its side.

Neither does North Korea, when it comes to this. Also, Iran could be said to have Russia on its side. I think the difference comes down to it being more politically expedient to Israel's and the US's interests for Iranian regime change.

Also, Iran is more 'hegemonic' than Nk. NK has no chance of social, political nor economic influence in the Far East. Iran can exert social, economic and political influence on the ME.

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#118

Post by [deleted] »

adventured wrote: post #103
saosebastiao wrote: post #95

DRPK's military is still stuck in the 1950's. Our military got caught with its pants down when going up against a military that was trained in the hills of Afghanistan in the 1980's...and responded by combining its perfected 1950's style warfare with a 2010's style drone warfare, and fairly quickly learned its lesson with the 1980's style warfare. I can't imagine what it would be like to go up against a military that…

Isn't the case that the US obliterated the Taliban's military forces (not their ability to wage a guerrilla war) using a rather clever special forces + bombing + northern alliance approach? I don't think we got caught with our pants down at all. Guerrilla war in Afghanistan always has to be assumed. I personally don't know anybody that thought a prolonged occupation of Afghanistan was going to go well, and I'm talkin…

[deleted]

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#119

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Someone wrote: post #22
ihuman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. What I don't understand is why they are doing this. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

Nothing to gain? For North Korea threatening with war is a time-proven way to get aid, both economic and food.

Yet this threat is unprecedented. Ending a 70-year-old truce, promising(!) a preemptive nuclear strike! These threats cannot be ignored or pacified in the same way as a gunboat firing at a fishing boat.

Re: New Sanctions Imposed on North Korea as it Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack

#120

Post by zubentok »

rthomas6 wrote: post #96

It's funny how North Korea's open threats against South Korea and the US are met with basically rolling of eyes, while veiled threats from Iran against Israel and the US are met with massive fear and warmongering.

Because there is oil in Iran that can be harvested while engaging in war and "freeing" the people.
Post reply on HN