Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihuman | Hacker News Reader

I agree. What I don't understand is why they are doing this. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

A rational North Korean state would not engage in nuclear war in just about any scenario as it would mean almost certain destruction for itself in response. To help persuade their enemies not to invade they try to appear as irrational as possible.

There's an interesting segment in this psychology lecture about irrationality that seems related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5IrSEIPdwk#t=44m36s

    There is some advantage to being irrational, to having a temper.
    Because if you have a temper and you're known to be irrational, people
    are forced, by dint of your irrationality, to treat you better. Who am
    I going to take from? The person who's extremely reasonable or the
    person who has a hair-trigger temper? Well, I'm going to pick on a
    reasonable person because the unreasonable person might do unreasonable
    things. And this is faintly paradoxical, but often to be irrational, or
    at least to have a reputation for mild irrationality, gives you an
    edge.

I don't believe there's any advantage to being irrational or having a temper. Sooner or later someone is going to call your bluff. If you initiate violence, you might get your ass kicked by someone stronger. If you flip out irrationally, they can simply laugh at you as you flail about, or begin ignoring you / avoiding you.

When someone calls your bluff, it's game over. Everything changes from that point forward. Either you can never act that way again, because people will know it's a bluff, or you freak out and do something terrible and then one way or another will be dealt with (police called, go to jail, get put on ignore, get an ass kicking, get nuked to complete annihilation, whatever).

The tragedy here is that America has subsidized North Korea's behavior and ability to exist. We're partially responsible for their regime thinking it can keep doing this, and naturally their threats have to escalate. Their bluff should have been called a very long time ago. It's like taking in someone bullying you, clothing him, feeding him, etc.

How do you figure that America is subsidizing them? We've tried invading them, ignoring them, and buying them off, and none of them worked very well.

The key point is that this is really a proxy war between China and the US. North Korea exists only as a proxy of China - they cannot be defeated in war until China allows it, they will continue to exist as they do as long as China allows it, and the regime will collapse about 10 minutes after China stops supporting them. The current state of affairs exists because China likes having a thorn in our side and very much does not like having a close US ally on their border.

The only plausible end that I can see is them doing something so provocative that China gets fed up with them and afraid that they'll be drawn into a shooting war, and forces the Kim dynasty out and somebody who is reasonable and favors Chinese-style reforms in.

Do you or any of your family members live in Seoul?

I'm not connecting the point between that question and my position on whether being irrational or having a temper is advantageous.

If you were just asking to be nice, I have a few old friends in South Korea (in the military, teaching, and local) but no family.

Much like Nixon's Madman theory when it came to US foreign policy in the early 70's.

"His administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile. Fearing an unpredictable American response, leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations would avoid provoking the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

I like better sources that poorly sourced Wikipedia articles for controversial statements like this. I'm not sure I have enough evidence to believe the statement in your kind comment. (I'm a Wikipedian, which is why I'm deeply dubious about politically tendentious statements cited to Wikipedia.)

I have read other accounts of that "strategy" being used by Nixon - would take me a while to find the exact references so I used that Wikipedia article.

If North Korea ever decides to uses their nuclear weapons, South Korea will be just as badly off. Actual use of nuclear weapons is a lose-lose scenario for all parties involved (and, indeed, all parties not involved). Threatening use of nuclear weapons is another matter altogether.

It is probably also worth noting that every single western nuclear power reserves the right to first use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the only countries who have ever adopted a no first use policy are the USSR/Russia (for 2 decades, but not any more), India (this is apparently more ambiguous now) and China (who continue to hold to it).

Wikipedia briefly mentions a North Korean pledge to the same effect, but I think this latest news shows that we should probably not take that too seriously.

The Soviets actually considered a first strike in November 1983 during the epic mix up that was the NATO Able Archer 83 exercise.

The Soviets had always believed that the Americans wanted to attack them, perhaps understandably given that in the 1950s and early 1960s there were senior US military leaders who actually wanted to initiate a full nuclear war with the Soviets while the latter were still strategically weak.

The Soviets thought that the Americans were preparing a first strike during Able Archer and were preparing to preempt it - thankfully the exercise ended and everyone on the Soviet side calmed down and took their fingers off the button.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Not quite. Due to the tensions and an error in a Soviet early-warning system, it looked like the US had indeed launched a couple of rockets in a first strike. If not for Petrov's level-headed reaction, nuclear war might have started by error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm...

That was a separate incident - just happened to be right before Able Archer.

I see, my bad.

Nice to know that we came that close to annihilation twice in 1983.

I can recommend watching Threads to get some idea of just how grim things would probably have been in the UK had there been a war at that time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

NB Threads, although it depicts an absolutely devastating attack on the UK (~90% dead within a few years), actually uses a rather optimistic attack plan - a real attack would actually have been far worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg

Nothing to gain? For North Korea threatening with war is a time-proven way to get aid, both economic and food.

Yet this threat is unprecedented. Ending a 70-year-old truce, promising(!) a preemptive nuclear strike! These threats cannot be ignored or pacified in the same way as a gunboat firing at a fishing boat.

To be honest, dismantling their military regime, opening their borders and requesting help would be more effective.

Not if the aim is retaining permanent power for Kim Jong-un and the military junta that actually runs North Korea.

There is probably a Pareto improvement that could be made by agreeing to hand Kim and the other leaders almost any amount of material wealth in exchange for them stepping down and allowing South Korea to govern North Korea. It would have to be better to live in a first world nation with hundreds of millions / billions of dollars than to be the Great Leader of North Korea. I guess the fact that this doesn't happen just goes to show how much better sovereign power is than money.

Absolutely, if you could figure out a way to make that deal without Kim executing the 'traitors' first. Those plots, like valkyrie, are always exceptionally risky. There's no doubt plenty of the Hitler style demigod fear is present (not necessarily with the top of the junta, they know Kim is just a puppet, but everybody else).

Would South Korea want to govern North Korea?

For everyone except the people in power.

Might have as much to do with internal politics. Keeping the populace on edge, loyalty tests to the new regime: no one would dare oppose the Leader when we are on the brink of war.

Dictator theatre is as much for the population being dominated as it is for the outside world.

Unfortunately I think the opposite is true and history is on their side. When haven't we or the rest of the world not caved? I remember back when Clinton was in office and Jimmy Carter did an end run on him and gave the North Koreans what they wanted.

Their economy is in the dumps, their people are starving, and they have gulags or worse throughout their country, so its not like the value other human life. Then back this attitude up with a large military which has access to conventional and other weapons, being next door to a rich and vibrant nation. Its not a good situation.

Until China decides North Korea is a danger to China and makes North Korea very aware they will take action to neutralize them North Korea will act with impunity.

The real threat to the US is that we cannot be one hundred percent sure what China will do if North Korea acts and we rush in to help South Korea.

One theory is that KJU is proving his mettle to honor his grandfather and father, and to build support against and avoid a coup or assassination by a family member or military.

The more horrifying idea is that some higher ups in NK actually believe in the standard propaganda.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com