Hacker News Reader

Comment by Qem | Hacker News Reader

One can argue they are faring better than Iraq, Libya, Ukraine or Lebanon.

Is that due to fear of an atomic bomb or more because of the artillery pieces aimed at Seoul as well as surrounding countries being unwilling to take in large amounts of North Korean refugees?

NK sold a lot of its artillery supplies to Russia, probably because they aren't that important anymore, after they got nukes. See https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/nkorean-artillery-...

SK probably wouldn't mind receiving some NK refugees, to make for their ~0.7 fertility rates.

No one could possibly say for sure. But undoubtedly if the west was apprehensive about war with North Korea then, they are more so now.

The Kim clan is definitely doing ok, could you present the argument for the rest of the population?

How can you know, when every single piece of information about North Korea that you have comes from western media ?

Good point. Has Russian media acknowledged the presence of North Korean combatants in the Ukraine theatre? I've only heard that from Western sources.

I don't see why they wouldn't. They signed a mutual defense hacked with North Korea last year and the Korean army is fighting to expel the Ukrainian army from it's counter offensive incursion into Russia

Seems safe to say they're doing better than Gaddafi

The regime in NK persists because a great power (namely, Beijing) does not want an ally of the West on its border and is willing to spend the lives of 100s of 1000s of its soldiers to prevent that from happening (as illustrated by Beijing's choices during the Korean War).

Iraq, Libya or Lebanon don't have that advantage (and Kiev would get that advantage only if switches to being pro-Russian).

I don't think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if it still had nuclear weapons.

This episode of Arms Control Wonk is worth a listen if you think this true: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i....

The episode starts with a strawman (that Ukraine never had nukes) and proceeds to beat it up. It's a strawman for reasons I will not go into for long, but ones that should be obvious to a fourth grader: physical possession of an object as well as of factories used to make it (which Ukraine also had) are far more important than electronic systems of control. This now classic 1993 paper by Mearsheimer is a much more clear-eyed take, his recent positions notwithstanding. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears...

Aside from either, how many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Apart from Ukraine's incursion into Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero. Finally (and this also applies to my post), social media is the worst place for any foreign policy discussion because it offers asymmetric returns to a foreign actor attempting to subvert a country's policy who happens to speak the country's language, and English is a very popular international language spoken by many people abroad at this point in history.

How many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years? Aside from Ukraine invading Russia's Kursk oblast last summer, the answer is a big fat zero.

The answer is Israel was subject to a full-scale invasion in 1973, despite having nuclear weapons since 1966. There have been regular border skirmishes between India and Pakistan since long after they both went nuclear. We also have Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Israel didn't, and still hasn't, claimed to possess nuclear weapons. While it now is widely believed they do, that is far less of a deterrent. It's also worth noting that the US, one of Israel's closest allies and possessing arguably the best intelligence apparatus in the world, was not aware that Israel had the bomb until 1975, it's extremely doubtful the surrounding arab states knew earlier.

None of the conflicts between India and Pakistan since either of the powers got Nuclear weapons (1974 and 1998, respectively) could be reasonably characterized as invasions.

The Falkland islands are a British overseas territory. They are self governing, but the UK is responsible for their defense and foreing affairs. Classic protectorate. Obviously invading the Falklands is very different from invading the UK.

There has not been much of a question surrounding Israel's nuclear capability since the Apollo Affair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair

I guess you could look at their non-admission as evidence to the contrary, but it's not like they're selling enriched uranium as a souvenir to tourists at Ben Gurion international.

The apollo affair was reported in 1976.

Further, while it was widely suspected Israel had a nuclear weapons program, that's a very different thing than having a bomb. Iran is believed to have had a nuclear weapons program. So have many countries.

What matters is that the Falkland islands are considered to be a part of UK's sovereign territory.

That's very much not what matters. If you wanted to travel to the UK and your plane took you to the Falkland Islands, you'd be very pissed off and say "you didn't take me to the UK!" If someone says "where is the UK?" the correct answer is not "the south Atlantic." There is the United Kingdom the nation and United Kingdom the place. An invasion means troops in the place.

You are being childish.

You're being obtuse. We all know what parent comment meant, what any reasonable person means when they use the term invade.

> (physical possession of an object as well as of factories used to produce are far more important than electronic systems of control).

Sure, but I don't think you understand what goes into keeping nuclear weapons ready. Even assuming Ukraine can manufacture the complete supply chain required for ICBMs, they still have to make and maintain their own warheads. That means either refining nuclear material domestically (where it will get destroyed at any cost by Russia) or importing it from an ally a-la the United States who has no desire to deal with the consequences of that. Ukraine is a strong country, but they cannot sabre-rattle the way Russia can.

Also, I don't think you can cherry-pick Mearsheimer so easily. Even in Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent we see him discounting NATO as an impotent defense, an assumption that that very much isn't true today and one that he (somehow) still seems to believe in. I think his essay is showing it's age, and then some.

Read Mearsheimer's paper again. Nuclear deterrent is far cheaper than equivalent conventional deterrent. A country under existential threat will find means, one way or another, to fund it.

European countries practically begged the US to place nuclear weapons after the Berlin blockade.

>Aside from either, how many nuclear states have been invaded in the past 80 years?

Great Britain was, in 1982 (the Falklands War). It that such a fat zero?

Today it wouldn't. Because it would have invaded them sooner as they tried to acquire those nuclear weapons.

I tend to agree (without having thought about the question much) but I hope you don't think that contradicts or supports anything I wrote.

> One can argue they are faring better than Iraq, Libya, Ukraine or Lebanon

How? Are you saying the median person in any of those making an informed decision would swap places with a random person in North Korea?

I assume they are speaking from the perspective of the regime. Is the regime that makes decisions such as prioritizing nuclear development over food and commerce and international relations

Reply on news.ycombinator.com