Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoodoof | Hacker News Reader

This guy seems to have his cards flat out on the table, open to all, that he wants nuclear war and he will start it as soon as his weapon systems can deliver it.

Hard to see how to avoid such an outcome when that's all he wants and all he's planned and planning for.

And when it comes of course then the U.S. will be blamed and it will be on for all.

And NK has spent many many years preparing for conventional war with SK so all the artillery and weapon systems are going to be dug underground and hidden. U.S. style bombing won't have much of on outcome and we've seen from Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam that boots on the ground wars don't go anywhere good.

Great. Just great. As if the world wasn't already sufficiently fucked from global warming.

View on HN

Always assume the worst reason someone is doing something. It might work in Game of Thrones. It is unlikely to be the best way to do world politics.

Other reasons:

+ Kim Jong-un needs to stay in power and look strong to his people.

+ Kim needs negotiation material to lift sanctions.

+ Kim feels threatened by Trump and plays defense as best as he can: playing the nuclear display card.

+ Kim is controlled/manipulated by (foreign) actors we don't know.

Etcetera.

This has been escalating for decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/...

I imagine that in the 21st century it’ll be easier for many more to build nuclear weapons.

He doesn't want nuclear war, he wants to go legitimate like Mao and the Chinese did. He wants NK to be treated like a legitimate world power, even if it's at the butt of a gun.

It would be true if it was his father. The Nuke program was always a bluff to get more economic aid. For Un? We don't know...we do know he has attempted to purge those critical of him in his own inner circle.

Unfortunately, I don't think our leader is that sane either.

It seems pretty straight forward to me - Un needs nuclear weapons to ensure NK remains an independent state that can defend itself.

> we do know he has attempted to purge those critical of him in his own inner circle.

Similarly, when your hold on power isn't through any kind of legitimacy except a fading family legacy you need to be strong and eliminate the competition.

He's not insane, he's just playing a very brutal game with higher stakes than you or I will know in our lifetimes.

Whether Un's motives are rational is bikeshedding.. for now, the world has to answer to his bluffs.

It's incredibly amusing to watch the commentariat re-discover Realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio...

Mao was never legitimate. Even today's communist Chinese regime recognize the cultural revolution was a bloodbath (ie. 30 to 50 millions DEATH).

Generally speaking NK will never be treated legitimately if they keep behaving like the worst left-wing dictator the world has known in the last centuries. Kim's assassination of his brother in Kuala Lumpur or the regular purges are abject. You can criticize Trump [ed. without being deported to concentration camps!], but Kim is worse by a thousand order of magnitude.

Legitimate is as legitimate does. Mao was terrible, but Nixon shook hands with him and paved the way for US recognition of the PRC under Carter. There are some nasty people in charge of nations, and it's not clear to me that not acknowledging them as the de facto leaders of their countries makes the world a safer place.

Constantine killed his own wife and son, yet he's been venerated for over 2000 years, and was even canonized.

> Mao was never legitimate. Even today's communist Chinese regime recognize the cultural revolution was a bloodbath

Have you been to Tien An Men? Mao's portrait is still there, proudly displayed at the entrance of the Forbidden City. He's still very much legitimate in China (sadly), and if you criticize him a bit too openly you'll get in trouble.

I honestly don't believe he actually wants nuclear war - but he wants to perceived as someone who has, and is willing to use, nuclear weapons. History here is simple - no country that has nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. They will sanction North Korea, call it out on international forum - but no one will actually attack a country willing to launch nukes at US/SK. If US one day decides they had enough of the posturing and attacks NK - that's 100% on them.

Why would he or anyone in NK want a nuclear war? Do they think that anyone of them will come out alive if they try to attack South Korea or Japan?

I really don't think Kim gives a shit what happens. He is probably literally living a kilometre under ground in a palace with as much food and women and luxury as he wants.

He wants the big one - the war - and he doesn't care what happens to his people or anyone else.

Kim is the head of a brainwashed cult of "Dear Leader" and his actions are not rational.

If this is so obvious, why don't any of the people who know the DPRK well think this is what's going on? The majority of them believe the purpose is deterrence. Literally no-one outside of blogs and newspaper comment sections believes its intention is war. What information do you have that they don't?

Sorry, the missile launched over Japan is not deterrence.

Along with the many explicit statements that he intends to use his weapons.

> Sorry, the missile launched over Japan is not deterrence.

You say that as if it's a known fact. But deterrence seems like by far the most likely hypothesis to most observers. What's the alternative?

> Along with the many explicit statements that he intends to use his weapons

KCTV is a State TV station, issuing propaganda. It often claims it is on the brink of invading South Korea, destroying Seoul and raining fire upon New York, Guam, and sundry other targets. Perhaps a small proportion of the less critical part of the DPRK population, having been force-fed State propaganda since childhood, believes what it is told. No-one else does.

Yeah, because Fallout style life would be great every one would want to live rest of his life underground

It's a bit more complicated than that. May I recommend Mr Lindley-French strategy blog?

The point is that NK gov't is trying to ensure that they have a seat at the table, and so far, all evidence they have points to the fact that having nuclear weapons gives them a seat to negotiate.

There is no need for them to use nuclear power to attack SK. Conventional shelling would immediately kill over a million people in Seoul at any point. One of the reasons nobody can touch them right now. (And historically while we knew they're continuing the nuclear tests / missile research)

So it is probably for display and power at this point. Being dangerous to Japan and SK is only slightly worse than just SK.

I wonder how plausible a decapitation strike would be. The Chinese apparently had a coup lined up until Kim killed his uncle. Would the US and China be able to assassinate Kim and install a pliant regime from the existing elites in exchange for economic and security guarantees? Assassination of foreign leaders is an extreme step that is rightly shunned, but it might be the best of a host of really bad options.

The problem is, after Ukraine, the elites know that all such "economic and security" guarantees are completely worthless. The only thing that counts is nukes.

You're not wrong. The failure of the West to honour its agreement with Ukraine is a serious impediment to future disarmament.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com