It seems like the Kim regime is backed into a corner where only the capability to launch nuclear weapons will ensure that they aren't wiped off the face of the planet.
Nukes seem peripheral to the core capability of just being able to do enough damage before you can be stopped that anyone is afraid to engage you. (to provide an example; if you watch the news running up to the iraq invasion, many outlets were _very convinced_ we'd see WMD used against us, but that didn't seem to be the primary or even tangential cause for hesitation at the time.)
Put in real terms, if the U.S. strongly believed that N.K. would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the pacific northwest accurately in the next year, a preemptive strike by the U.S. that causes massive casualties in S.K. in retaliation might go from unthinkable to "a hard decision that needs careful thought." to those in power in the U.S.
There is a reason China plays ball with them.
I'm just noting that "ability to cause a lot of damage to ally" and "ability to cause a lot of damage to you" can have different weights in the decision process.
> I'm just noting that "ability to cause a lot of damage to ally" and "ability to cause a lot of damage to you" can have different weights in the decision process.
Definitely true. But at this point with so much made in China, Korea, and Japan I'd expect that any big political disruption in East Asia would end up being extremely disruptive to the US even though we wouldn't (in this example) be under attack ourselves.
At least that's the commonly accepted view.
If NK only had basic missles people wouldn't like them, but they're not a huge threat. The fact they have them and keep making threats is what gives them 'power'.
Everyone is so afraid of the results of an attack that we (the rest of the world) is willing to deal with them and help keep their people out of starvation (to the degree they let us), etc.
If provoked with an attack they retaliate, possibly months later, but don't actually make first strikes. If they did that they would be too dangerous, but if they make it clear they may start nuking people if you go mess with them they suddenly get treated better.
It's their only bargaining chip and they've become EXPERTS at using it to get what they want.
So the question would be what event are they retaliating against here? Who attacked them or so they think isn't taking them seriously enough? I don't follow things close enough to know.
The US president is facing tons of trouble. The 4th biggest city in thebUS is under water and may get hit again in a few days.
NK will likely lead the news tonight.
They know what they're doing. It's not the normal game, but they're not crazy. There is a strategy.
Anyone looking for a fight will eventually find one.
http://www.newsweek.com/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-starving-hi...
NK leadership doesn't think that they'll survive that step.
China's two concerns are avoiding a refugee crisis, and not having a US ally directly on such a sensitive border.
Seoul would certainly face hardship, but is currently willing to help. (Plus they would be happy to have solved their fear of immanent invasion.) However allowing Seoul to help would leave a US ally directly on China's border.
However Seoul's support is faltering as memories fade. In public polls, 56% of South Koreans think that supporting reunification as "essential", but support is much stronger among older generations. If the stalemate lasts a couple more generations, the two countries may not want to reunite.
This may be fixed with the regime change method with open borders.
I'm sure you are correct that the memory will fade and in turn, the desire to help, when there are no longer families that have to meet across the border.
And to think the countries were destroyed for the mere fact that they happened to have 'the wrong system of government'...
The Ukraine gave up their nuclear weaponry, with a promise from the west that we’d protect them.
Only a few years later, Russia is invading the Ukraine right now, and we all don’t do shit.
Well actually, with a promise that the USA and Russia would protect them. So it's not quite so clean cut as saying no one came to my aid. When infact, they were attacked by the people who were going to come to their aid.
They could have joined NATO to get the backing of the full NATO Alliance, but they failed to get that done in 20 years because they didn't want to assure human rights for LGBT community which was a huge wedge issue (probably with massive help from Russian astro-turing). NATO will not allow a country to join that is currently involved in a border dispute. So they are in a bit of a pickle, though not one that should have been too hard to see coming.
This situation has shaken Japan's faith that the USA is willing to honor the agreement with them.