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

North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#81

Post by bluehazed »

ptaipale wrote: post #55
misja111 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, North Korea didn't have oil. If the US just wanted to invade a country to make the world a better place then there would have been plenty of easier countries to invade. How about Zimbabwe or Eritrea to mention just a few.

North Korea is China's laboratory for orthodox communism. They need it to remind party faithfuls what it would mean to return to the iron rice bowl (which sometimes lacks both rice and iron). Having some 25 million people occasionally suffer from hunger is preferable to losing stability in a country of 1400 million. North Korea would collapse very quickly without China's support in fuels and food.

I don't think you can really consider North Korea "orthodox communism".

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#82

Post by rl3 »

pps43 wrote: post #78
rl3 wrote: post #49

Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi... - In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money. Not to men…

> invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice This sounds just like the rationale for the Vietnam war or the recent annexation of Crimea.

It does, actually. A cynical person might say the Vietnam War constituted payday for the defense industry.

Crimea was about strategic resources (which ultimately boil down to money), and global posturing. Barely even a pretense of an underlying moral justification beyond nationalist rhetoric.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#83

Post by pps43 »

mathiasben wrote: post #3

speculation as to why the rocket test have been failing? 88% failure rate is pretty dramatic.

Not really. In the first two years (from May 1957 to May 1959), R-7 had 56% failure rate (23 launches, 13 failures). It is now one of the most reliable rockets.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#84

Post by [deleted] »

rl3 wrote: post #77
malloryerik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake. 1. North Korean artillery could have done far more damage than 100,000 deaths in Seoul. It's said that one out of three rounds holds a chemical charge. 2. South Korea under the progressive Roh Moo-hyun gov't was firmly opposed. Socially, South Korea would be torn apart by pro and anti-US (war) sides. 3. What about China? At that time the PRC ha…

> Invading North Korea in 2003 would have been an unimaginably bad mistake. Probably. It's just infuriating that the Western world has allowed the entire situation to persist for so long. It's 2017 and there's people who are born, live and die in labor camps with conditions straight out of the Holocaust. > This assumes that the US would be able to occupy North Korea long enough to create order. I often wonder what oc…

[deleted]

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#85

Post by squozzer »

nl wrote: post #60
ptaipale wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, actually. But them having nukes seems to be not much of a problem to China. If China wanted them to not have nukes, they wouldn't have.

Speaking in absolutes ("If China wanted them to not have nukes, they wouldn't have") is usually a mistake in geopolitics. China currently won't accept a unified Korea under South Korean rule (which they view as a US proxy). China also doesn't want a destabilized North Korea on its border. But it is likely that many outside China and the Koreas view China's influence as a lot more than it is. China had Kim Jong Un hal…

We have a similar view on NK's raison d'etre. I think neither China nor SK want to be neighbors, and NK makes for a perfect buffer state, with the exception of the nuclear (and other WMDs, hypothetically) wrinkle.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#86

Post by dkarl »

bpizzi wrote: post #75
rl3 wrote: post #49

Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi... - In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money. Not to men…

> In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. This sentence sounds very alien to me, am I alone? It suggests that USA had to invade something , just for the sake of invasion. Maybe the scars of the two WW are still a little too fresh where I live (France) for me to understand such a point of view. I'm trying hard to put an adjective on that mentality, but all that comes…

It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion.

After 9/11 the public found it therapeutic to have an evil enemy they could go to war against. Powerful people in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq again, and the public's psychological need made it very easy for them to sell the war. North Korea never would have worked because they weren't the right race and religion for the U.S. public to conflate them with the 9/11 attackers. Going to war with North Korea wouldn't have served the psychological drive to "strike back."

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#87

Post by tiatia »

rl3 wrote: post #49

Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi... - In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money. Not to men…

"In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq."

Yeah. Sure. With Seoul in range of NK artillery and poison gas grenades. By the way, do you know why NK still exists and will exist for a very long time? Because it has 2 boarders with superpowers, China and Russia. And both powers have zero interest that the US soldiers, stationed in SK, move close to their boarders. Invading NK looks easy on paper. But the long tail risk is enormous. Do you know why 2 Korean states exits at all? It was not the North Koreans that brought the US army to halt. But yeah, for sure this time the Russians and Chinese won't bother.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#88

Post by yk »

chvid wrote: post #40

Why cannot the west deescalate its relationship to North Korea? Sure it is fun to read about "cyberhacking" and secret missions but would diplomacy and trade not be the more constructive path? North Korea must have a fundamental interest in setting on the same path of growth as all its Asian neighbours; something that has happened without changing the political regime of these countries. And we in the west would clea…

There is the theory, that a "bad" actor has quite a bit to gain from being the "worst" actor, since the worst actor is in a natural leadership role for all bad actors. (Were "bad" and "worst" can be read as "opposed to western interests" if you prefer less loaded terms.) In a similar fashion, the North Korean elite has quite a bit to gain from having a nightmarish dystopia, since they are at the top of that nightmare, and the thing is, they set the foreign policy.

So it is by no means a given that NK has a fundamental interest in better international relations, and on the other hand western governments are not immune to internal pressure. That is, if a US or western government would try to bribe NK into a strategy change, then the opposition would claim that the government "does not stand up to a bully."

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#89

Post by rl3 »

tiatia wrote: post #87
rl3 wrote: post #49

Note: The linked article basically chronicles how the story took shape. This appears to be the actual story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-mi... - In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq. NK didn't have nukes back then, we'd have avoided destabilizing the Middle East, and the defense industry would still get its blood money. Not to men…

"In retrospect, invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice than Iraq." Yeah. Sure. With Seoul in range of NK artillery and poison gas grenades. By the way, do you know why NK still exists and will exist for a very long time? Because it has 2 boarders with superpowers, China and Russia. And both powers have zero interest that the US soldiers, stationed in SK, move close to their boarders. Invadin…

>Do you know why 2 Korean states exits at all? It was not the North Koreans that brought the US army to halt.

Obviously. The Chinese and Russians wouldn't engage in direct combat with the US in this day and age, though. Proxy war or no proxy war.

They would of course provide material support for any resistance, assuming there would be one. However, I suspect the North Korean populace's forced reverence for Kim Jong-Un isn't exactly on the same level as say, the Mujahideen's religious fervor.

>But yeah, for sure this time the Russians and Chinese won't bother.

Is that sarcasm? I genuinely can't tell. Direct conflict with the US is a terrible idea, and both countries know that.

Re: North Korea’s Missile Launches Were Failing Too Often

#90

Post by pps43 »

rl3 wrote: post #82
pps43 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice This sounds just like the rationale for the Vietnam war or the recent annexation of Crimea.

It does, actually. A cynical person might say the Vietnam War constituted payday for the defense industry. Crimea was about strategic resources (which ultimately boil down to money), and global posturing. Barely even a pretense of an underlying moral justification beyond nationalist rhetoric.

There are no strategic resources to speak of in Crimea. Black Sea fleet has no strategic importance for Russia because it is locked by Turkey, still a NATO country. All strategic ports are in the North and on the Pacific.

It was more like "Wag the Dog" play. A little war to boost morale and avoid orange revolution in Russia. Cost a lot of money due to sanctions and tanking ruble, so clearly not driven by economic considerations.

Post reply on HN