Hacker News Reader

Comment by sephamorr | Hacker News Reader

DPRK certainly has strategic ICBM's that currently threaten the West Coast. Hwasong-14/KN20 tested in 2017 could do it, and more recent developments are adding payload (so you can mirv) and a bit more range to hit the rest of the US. Once you have enough payloads to overwhelm THAAD, which isn't too difficult considering the ~$1B/interceptor price tag, it's pretty clear that given reasonable numbers of existing DPRK capabilities, they could successfully certainly land a nuke in Anchorage, Seattle, perhaps LA. They're actually moving their focus from strategic missiles to tactical nuclear missiles now (despite ongoing strategic development). KJU has been discussing his desires for large numbers of tactical nuclear weapons as part of the DPRK strategy, and they're making lots of progress in that direction.

View on HN

This makes sense to me at first blush - DPRK’s primary defensive strategy seems to be “if you attack us, we’ll obliterate South Korea”.

Why try to seriously threaten the US mainland, when it’s significantly easier to hold millions of US-allied civilians hostage?

You're thinking in terms of US-centered politics.

North Korean politics are game-of-thrones style medieval kings and queens. Kim Jong un is the supreme-ruler of North Korea. At a relatively young age of 38-years-old, he barely commands respect of his political apparatus.

Kim Jong-un has killed his brother and uncle in a dramatic show of force to consolidate power. It seems like he's decided that annoying the USA is now to his own political gain.

Kim Jong-un's primary motivation is to perpetuate his myth and legend, to continue to prove to his people that he's a god-given King who deserves to rule over the nation. Much like his father. But any of Kim Jong Un's political rivals can capture the "mandate of heaven" if they prove themselves worthy on the public stage.

-----------

From the perspective of "proving that god / the heavens are on Kim Jong Un's side", pissing off the USA unnecessarily does a good job at that.

And even without the factional struggles and insane personality cults, the DPRK's position is that the US is the real enemy preventing unification with their southern neighbour. For both ideological and strategic reasons, any country wants the capacity be able to threaten their real enemy, not just their immediate neighbour, especially if that neighbour is - according to their political theory - a kindred nation under the yoke of the hated enemy.

Missile threats to the US probably irritate their tacit Chinese allies less than missile threats on the Korean peninsula too...

Because some day the supreme leader will be in a bad mood and finally decide to push that button.

Because "if you attack us, we'll obliterate San Francisco" is much better insurance policy. And SK has been pursuing missiles for NK decapitation strike for past few years with US blessing. So it's also message for US to keep SK on leash and that US ultimately is culpable for SK behavior.

> Why try to seriously threaten the US mainland, when it’s significantly easier to hold millions of US-allied civilians hostage?

Because if South Korea falls out of US favor for whatever reason (revolution, coup, geo-politics, Trump Jr. becoming god-king-for-life with an allergy to Korean food), the current defensive strategy stops working.

If you want to know how much help an allied civilian can expect in the long run, you could always ask the Kurds in Syria. You'll be betrayed whenever it is politically expedient.

Having ICBMs is much more effective defensive strategy, because it works against any non-insane adversary, in any set of circumstances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com