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

91–100 of 102 posts

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

#91

Post by rl3 »

pps43 wrote: post #90
rl3 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-cr...

"When Russia seized Crimea in March, it acquired not just the Crimean landmass but also a maritime zone more than three times its size with the rights to underwater resources potentially worth trillions of dollars."

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

#92

Post by astine »

senorjazz wrote: post #67
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…

Add to the 6,500 the million or so children who died during the proceeding decade of sanctions. If only all those who were pro-war could see innocent children operated on without anaesthetic, if they could see the true brutality of war then perhaps we would live on a more peaceful planet. Unfortunately it is more likely to be more of the same as the war mongers can be heard quite loudly rattling their sabres ready to…

If only all those who were pro-war could see innocent children operated on without anaesthetic, if they could see the true brutality of war then perhaps we would live on a more peaceful planet.

I think you've misjudged a significant portion of human psychology. The torturous death of human children as a reason for peace? No! That's an injustice that demands retribution. It's a cause for war.

Just look at the Spanish civil war. The Republican faction wanted to vilify the Nationalists bring people to their side so they published pictures of children killed in Nationalist shelling.

In more recent years, Syrian rebels attempting to get the West to intervene against Assad published footage of dead children being mourned by their parents.

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

#93

Post by dogma1138 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #72
dogma1138 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russian tried the US walked out of the treaty and has been pulling quite a few risky moves.

In fairness to the US, their missile engineering was sufficiently advanced that by the 1990s their "anti-missile" and "anti-aircraft" systems started to converge into general platforms that were indifferent to aerial target type. In effect, many of its anti-aircraft defense systems are also classified as anti-missile defense systems. Many decades ago, these were distinct kinds of systems due to technical capability l…

I'm sorry but this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and a borderline fabrication.

The US pulled out of the Anti-AMB treaty and followed it up by decades of increasing spending on purposefully built missile defense that has had nothing to do with air defense. SDI had nothing to do with air defense. GDB has nothing to do with air defense. THAAD has nothing to do with air defense. The only somewhat capable system which is dua use is SM3 and it's ABM capabilities are questionable at best. The US has an entire agency dedicated to missile defense https://www.mda.mil.

The US has also being playing it fast and loose with strategic launch platforms converting SSBNs to cruise missile subs without notification and planning to deploy dual use warheads on its balistic missile subs which is as ideas goes might win us all a Darwin Award.

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

#94

Post by dogma1138 »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #76
jandrewrogers wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness to the US, their missile engineering was sufficiently advanced that by the 1990s their "anti-missile" and "anti-aircraft" systems started to converge into general platforms that were indifferent to aerial target type. In effect, many of its anti-aircraft defense systems are also classified as anti-missile defense systems. Many decades ago, these were distinct kinds of systems due to technical capability l…

Also, shooting down rogue nation launches has value and any hand-wringing over 'destabilization' is fairly ridiculous as nukes have counter measures and are launched in numbers that make it impractical to shoot down in mass numbers. The US's very limited shield may stop Iran or N Korea from hitting a population center (Tokyo, Tel Aviv, etc) but won't stop nuclear war with China or Russia if a full launch happened. Th…

US ABM deployment has nothing to do with rogue nations it has everything with reducing the effectiveness of Russia's strategic arsenal.

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

#95

Post by bpizzi »

rl3 wrote: post #79
bpizzi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Correct, at least with the administration at the time. Iraq was invaded on the flimsiest of pretenses, and was done in a fashion to maximize profit. For example: Critical infrastructure was targeted under the pretense of rapid dominance largely for the purpose of creating incredibly lucrative reconstruction contracts for that administratio…

> On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one.

You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?

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

#96

Post by ythn »

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…

> It's just infuriating that the Western world has allowed the entire situation to persist for so long.

It's usually lose/lose for whomever decides takes action. Does anyone ever get mad at Switzerland for always staying neutral, even if their neighbors are being herded away by the trainful and gassed? As soon as you get involved, you'll draw opponents even if you are doing it for The Right Reasons (which will be highly contested and you'll no doubt be accused of having ulterior motives)

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

#97

Post by pps43 »

rl3 wrote: post #91
pps43 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-cr... "When Russia seized Crimea in March, it acquired not just the Crimean landmass but also a maritime zone more than three times its size with the rights to underwater resources potentially worth trillions of dollars."

Key word here is "potentially". There's not much oil production in Black Sea. There are much better oil fields in Caspian sea nearby (which the linked article even mentions), let alone Siberia.

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

#98

Post by dgudkov »

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…

It doesn't depend much on the West. In North Korea (and to lesser extent in Russia) the anti-Western discourse is needed to keep local population mobilized and under control. Having an external enemy also provides legitimate ways to suppress opposition -- something that happens in both countries. Therefore deescalating relationships with the West is directly against the interests of the governing elites.

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

#99

Post by rl3 »

bpizzi wrote: post #95
rl3 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It suggests that USA had to invade something, just for the sake of invasion. Correct, at least with the administration at the time. Iraq was invaded on the flimsiest of pretenses, and was done in a fashion to maximize profit. For example: Critical infrastructure was targeted under the pretense of rapid dominance largely for the purpose of creating incredibly lucrative reconstruction contracts for that administratio…

> On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one. You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification f…

>You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties...

It's probably a worst-case estimate. It really depends on the efficacy of allied counter-battery fire and air capabilities versus enemy artillery positions.

There's also room for creativity. Park a carrier battle group off the coast of Seoul and fake a serious reactor event during a period of easterly winds, with mandatory evacuation southward in the days prior to the invasion.

>...not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war.

If you're referring to North Korea: I'm not advocating invasion presently, merely lamenting that NK was not confronted prior to acquiring nuclear weapons. Invasion today only works with absolute assurance you can neutralize NK's nuclear capability, and that's extremely difficult if not impossible.

If you're referring to China and Russia: I'm pretty sure that to them, North Korea is squarely not worth risking nuclear confrontation with the United States over.

>That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification for an invasion, don't you think?

No, I don't. There is an almost equal number of people languishing in hellish prison camps—some their entire lives—with a far greater amount in the general population living meager, miserable existences.

The very nature of it should transcend simple body count calculations in all but the most extreme cases of disparity. The civilized world has a moral obligation to wield its power in such a manner that doesn't allow such suffering to exist, even if doing so incurs a heavy cost.

Can you imagine if World War II had a different outcome, with Nazi Germany contained yet retaining its statehood? The term "Holocaust survivor" probably wouldn't be present in the modern lexicon. Such fiction isn't too dissimilar from the plight of North Korea's political prisoners today. By and large the civilized world doesn't give much of a shit about them.

When airmen go down behind enemy lines, the forces available to rescue them don't say "Well, we ran the numbers and it's not worth the potential cost of a rescue mission. So, we're just going to forget they exist instead." Esprit de corps ensures a moral obligation to do the right thing regardless of the risk.

I'm simply advocating for the same ideal on a basic humanitarian level.

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

#100

Post by bpizzi »

rl3 wrote: post #99
bpizzi wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, there's people suffering in North Korean camps that endure Holocaust-like conditions right now, as we speak. Liberating those people would be a moral justification for war if I've ever heard one. You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties, not even counting the consequences of possible nuclear war. That's a pretty bad argument for a moral justification f…

> You said yourself that it would be at the expense of hundreds of thousands casualties... It's probably a worst-case estimate. It really depends on the efficacy of allied counter-battery fire and air capabilities versus enemy artillery positions. There's also room for creativity. Park a carrier battle group off the coast of Seoul and fake a serious reactor event during a period of easterly winds, with mandatory evac…

I get your points, some makes sense.

However I will stick to thinking that NK is a problem that must be handled by SK/China/Russia/Japan. If the humanitarian crisis is really that bad in NK, then it's the role of their neighbors to see that it ends.

If said neighbors don't act, then the role of the rest of the world is to apply sufficient pressure on them.

USA is not the de facto leader of opinion you seem to be suggesting that it is (no offense intended, I just try to state my mind). It has the military/economical power, yes, but as a country it stands as equal to others. It has no legitimate mandate to solve the NK humanitarian crisis.

If you really want USA to be a benevolent dictator, then you should wish for USA to take on the third world problem (give an end to extreme poverty and uncontrolled population growth), or tackle the energy equation (seek unlimited/low-cost/co2-neutral sources).

That would be applauded and praised (but this is clearly not the path chosen right now...).

USA going into NK (deterrent/mass-destruction weapons or not) would simply repeat Vietnam, Afghanistan and Irak: a even more divided world where more and more humanitarian crisis will emerge.

Post reply on HN