War Drums: North Korea edition

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

In completely unsurprising news, Trump's fire and fury threat was improvised.  The "fire and fury" rhetoric, and its stupidity, remind me of this exchange from West Wing:

 One does not simply walk into Pyongyang.

[Ghjhero]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

This seems awfully similar to what everybody was saying when Jong-Il was in power.  I suspect if there's a fourth generation leader of the regime, the refrain will be repeated, "sure the first three were rational, but this one..."

I have no idea whether or not Jong-Un personally is rational, and neither does anybody else - that's what scares everyone.  However, the DPRK has clearly acted rationally for over a half century, and almost resiliently so since the mid-90s famine.  In academic circles, whether that rationality is based on expected utility or prospect theory, this is essentially a founding assumption for any research question on the regime at this point.  Ironically, part of that rationality is making us think they're irrational.

In completely unsurprising news, Trump's fire and fury threat was improvised.  The "fire and fury" rhetoric, and its stupidity, remind me of this exchange from West Wing:

 

The West Wing needs to apologize to the Tolkien estate asap

[Fez]

I think North Korea and its leaders are rational; but I am concerned that someday after they have ICBMs they will decide the rational move is to invade South Korea to finally reunify and threaten to nuke LA if the US intervenes and doesn't withdraw its garrisons immediately.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think North Korea and its leaders are rational; but I am concerned that someday after they have ICBMs they will decide the rational move is to invade South Korea to finally reunify and threaten to nuke LA if the US intervenes and doesn't withdraw its garrisons immediately.

Yes, to be clear, just because they're rational does not mean their current actions should not be met with resistance.  The United States government not only has an interest in depicting the regime as irrational, it has a responsibility to.  After all, if they admit to they're rationality, that fundamentally undermines any effort to get China to apply pressure on the regime.  Mattis' statement today is the appropriate response.  Unfortunately, the reason North Korea has confounded everybody for decades is because it's virtually impossible for anybody to offer the DPRK anything that is more valuable than their nuclear buildup - except, hopefully, China.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

I'm not convinced the US leadership (or rather Trump) is rational. What does that even mean? A measured response to provocations? I see no evidence of that. Considering war as a last resort because of the surety of civilian casualties (mostly South Korean, but also many US military personnel). Nope, don't think so.  Trump is the very definition of irrational.

I think this discussion of rationality is supremely ironic considering we have a loose cannon with a vast arsenal of firepower and whom we are not sure wont start a war to domestically boost his status. Yes, I am talking about Trump.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I think this discussion of rationality is supremely ironic considering we have a loose cannon with a vast arsenal of firepower and whom we are not sure wont start a war to domestically boost his status. Yes, I am talking about Trump.

Yes.  Yes it is.

[S John]

It is entirely possible that the least rational player in all of this is Trump.  And that thought makes it hard for me to contain my anger toward Trump voters.  This situation is exactly the type of thing that I dreaded when this guy won, a situation that requires thoughtful deliberation.  There's never been an ounce of evidence that Trump is capable of that.

[IheartIheartTesla]

"Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him"

says General Kim Rak Gyom, head of NK's strategic forces, about Trump.

[Maithanet]

11 hours ago, Fez said:

I think North Korea and its leaders are rational; but I am concerned that someday after they have ICBMs they will decide the rational move is to invade South Korea to finally reunify and threaten to nuke LA if the US intervenes and doesn't withdraw its garrisons immediately.

South Korea would defeat North Korea in a non-nuclear war.  Are you supposing that North Korea try and reunify South Korea via nuclear war?  Because expecting US forebearance in such a situation seems unlikely.  Particularly when we have nuclear submarines right on the Korean coast.  The time between launch and all of NK being destroyed would be just a couple of minutes. 

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

South Korea would defeat North Korea in a non-nuclear war.  Are you supposing that North Korea try and reunify South Korea via nuclear war?  Because expecting US forebearance in such a situation seems unlikely.  Particularly when we have nuclear submarines right on the Korean coast.  The time between launch and all of NK being destroyed would be just a couple of minutes. 

SK would beat NK in a non-nuclear war, but at such a cost. I wonder if they'd be willing to do so. And perhaps in several years, NK would believe that SK wouldn't be willing or that NK actually could win that war. As for nukes, yes, I expect the US would intervene if NK started nuking SK, even if it were tactical nukes that weren't near US bases. 

However, I think there's also a chance that the US would back down if NK made clear that they would nuke US cities in return; and had the capabilities to do so. And if NK leaders thought that chance was large enough, I think they might take it.

The NK regime values its survival above all else, but reunifying Korea under its leadership seems like a close second. If they think they can do both, I think there's a good chance they go for it; no matter how many of their own people or SK people die in the process.

[ljkeane]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

SK would beat NK in a non-nuclear war, but at such a cost. I wonder if they'd be willing to do so.

As opposed to what? Living under North Korean rule? It seems massively unlikely to me that they'd accept that.

The argument for the US attacking North Korea seems very slim to me. The actual threat of North Korea launching a nuclear strike on the US even if they could would have to be tiny, it's not even mutually assured destruction, it'd be destruction for North Korea and admittedly horrendous casualties for the US. The justification seems to be you need to attack North Korea before they get weapons which mean you can't attack North Korea. Surely there needs to be a stronger motivation than just we might not be able to do it later? 

[Fez]

24 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

As opposed to what? Living under North Korean rule? It seems massively unlikely to me that they'd accept that.

The argument for the US attacking North Korea seems very slim to me. The actual threat of North Korea launching a nuclear strike on the US even if they could would have to be tiny, it's not even mutually assured destruction, it'd be destruction for North Korea and admittedly horrendous casualties for the US. The justification seems to be you need to attack North Korea before they get weapons which mean you can't attack North Korea. Surely there needs to be a stronger motivation than just we might not be able to do it later? 

I'm not going to try to guess SK's war pain threshold. But I am going to say if a totalitarian country offers surrender terms that aren't quite as terrible as they could be and says the alternative is a continuation of absolutely massive civilian casualties that has already begun, the odds of those terms being accepted are not going to be 0%. Maybe they're still very low, but then its just a question of what is low enough to still be an acceptable risk to NK leadership.

Also, I'm not arguing that the US should attack NK right now. But I do think that letting NK continue on its way is just as terrible as all the other options. Probably our best hope is that Kim dies suddenly of natural causes and the result is a new leader not committed to nuclear weapons.

[Maithanet]

47 minutes ago, Fez said:

SK would beat NK in a non-nuclear war, but at such a cost. I wonder if they'd be willing to do so.

It would be costly, but I think the gap between the SK and NK militaries is growing, not shrinking.  NK has a tiny economy compared to SK, and virtually all spare resources are going towards building nukes or enriching the Kim family.  If a shooting war started, the NK military could very easily shatter and disintegrate in a matter of weeks. 

I likewise agree with @ljkeane that there's no way the SK is going to just accept living under NK rule.  I can't think of a single historical precedent where a strong military power allows a weaker one to subjugate them because they couldn't stomach the casualties that a war would bring. 

41 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

The argument for the US attacking North Korea seems very slim to me. The actual threat of North Korea launching a nuclear strike on the US even if they could would have to be tiny, it's not even mutually assured destruction, it'd be destruction for North Korea and admittedly horrendous casualties for the US. The justification seems to be you need to attack North Korea before they get weapons which mean you can't attack North Korea. Surely there needs to be a stronger motivation than just we might not be able to do it later? 

Agreed, and well said. 

[ljkeane]

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm not going to try to guess SK's war pain threshold. But I am going to say if a totalitarian country offers surrender terms that aren't quite as terrible as they could be and says the alternative is a continuation of absolutely massive civilian casualties that has already begun, the odds of those terms being accepted are not going to be 0%. Maybe they're still very low, but then its just a question of what is low enough to still be an acceptable risk to NK leadership.

I don't know. You're right I suppose we're guessing as to what the threshold would be but to accept going from a very high standard of living in a modern democracy to roughly the equivalent of living in the Stalinist Soviet Union seems like it would be a tough sell to me. Especially given most experts I've seen talk about it seem to think the likely progression of a war would be a short period of the North inflicting high civilian casualties on the South and then pretty rapidly losing.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I can't think of a single historical precedent where a strong military power allows a weaker one to subjugate them because they couldn't stomach the casualties that a war would bring. 

France in WWII is a pretty close comparison. It's not an exact analogy, since the French military had suffered some major defeats and was in a pretty bad spot by June 1940. But there were still plenty of opportunities to turn things around when Reynaud decided to resign instead, which caused the end.

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

France in WWII is a pretty close comparison. It's not an exact analogy, since the French military had suffered some major defeats and was in a pretty bad spot by June 1940. But there were still plenty of opportunities to turn things around when Reynaud decided to resign instead, which caused the end.

I do not think that is applicable; the French army was in complete collapse.  It's possible that the French could have fought on, but they were undeniably the weaker military power in June 1940.  If NK is able to have a successful first strike where huge swaths of the South Korean army are in retreat and disarray, then perhaps they could successfully sue for peace.  I am incredibly skeptical that the North Koreans could push the South so far unless they are employing nukes or the Chinese army has joined in. 

South Korea has a huge advantage in terms of aircraft, counterbattery artillery and communications, all of which are going to make it virtually impossible for the North to successfully push into SK. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If KJU actually launches a missile at Guam or the Northern Marianas, its on, isn't it?  Does anyone think he might actually try this?

[Seli]

It seems very likely that South Korea can win a renewal of the war, the question is if it can survive the peace. Which seems one of the many reasons the war hasn't become hot in the last decade.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Seli said:

It seems very likely that South Korea can win a renewal of the war, the question is if it can survive the peace. Which seems one of the many reasons the war hasn't become hot in the last decade.

What do you mean by survive the peace?  Like, any war with NK would cause a humanitarian crisis and would inevitably lead to whatever SK government being voted out of office?  Or something more drastic?

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If KJU actually launches a missile at Guam or the Northern Marianas, its on, isn't it?  Does anyone think he might actually try this?

Launching a missile at a US military base in a US territory?  That's gonna lead to a huge military counterstrike, and it would probably escalate from that point to open war. 

I think the Un regime would have everything to lose and nothing to gain from such a move.  So no, I do not think they will do that.  It would provide the perfect pretext for the US to institute regime change.  China would be super super pissed if NK did this. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

What do you mean by survive the peace?  Like, any war with NK would cause a humanitarian crisis and would inevitably lead to whatever SK government being voted out of office?  Or something more drastic?

Launching a missile at a US military base in a US territory?  That's gonna lead to a huge military counterstrike, and it would probably escalate from that point to open war. 

I think the Un regime would have everything to lose and nothing to gain from such a move.  So no, I do not think they will do that.  It would provide the perfect pretext for the US to institute regime change.  China would be super super pissed if NK did this. 

What perplexes me is what he gains from making a threat to launch a missile at US territory if he doesn't do it?  It actually makes him look weaker if he makes the specific threat but doesn't act upon it.