Comments on: Between the Scylla of dictatorship and the Charybdis of anarchy, Part II: North Korea

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:58:14 +0000

I don’t know that Tatter is thinking, but it makes no sense for Russia to “nuke” the US for “nuking Iraq”, because they fear being nuked. Why would they fear being nuked when the US just wants Iraq? Unless Russia wants Iraq as well or documents in Iraq would make the US declare war on America?

It is very irrational for people to take one war in Iraq and extrapolate it as meaning their entire existence across the world is in jeopardy.

Use a nuke in Iraq, and China and Russia won’t do a thing. Except probably petition for a negotiation that says so long as we don’t use nukes on each other, we are free to intimidate the little countries. Everyone is satisfied then, except the little countries.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:11:06 +0000

Goesh, “China can significantly improve their southern trade routes and expand their strategic, military capability.”

Really? China’s got all the access to trade it could ever need. I don’t see how NorK is more valuable to them under their direct control. When Lil Kim was a good little puppet, it was useful, but now? Not so much. You’re pretty much right about the Chinese culture though, individual rights mean little next to the pragmatic requirements of the state, and they assimilate, and have been for 5000 years- but it’s typically been attempts at invading that have been assimilated. They haven’t been too terribly imperialistic historically. The ‘Middle Kingdom’ mentality. I suppose you could try to convince me that NorK is comperable to Tibet, but I’m not so sure- I still think they’d see it as a better buffer then frontier…

Sergey, I think you’re right, it was an only semi-successful nuke test- Chain reaction initiated but not sustained. It still doesn’t make me feel real good about things, though.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:17:55 +0000

Israel is known to test their nukes in Zair and Southern Africa. There also were underground tests in their center in Negev. Assessments indicate that they have around 100 nukes, not termonuclear type, but Hiroshima type bombs, and 3 diesel submarines in Mediterranian for retaliation potential. By US and Russian standarts, this is tactical, not strategical weaponry, but in ME situation it is enough for containment of potential Arab aggression, and it bought Israel peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and keeps Syria from direct assault.

By: armchair pessimist

armchair pessimist — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:39:12 +0000

and one never can be sure that some design is workable without multiple actual testing. No such testing obviously was performed until now

Sergey,

This would apply to Israel too, wouldn’t it? Does anybody know if they have ever actually tested their nuke weapons? Or, perhaps, the USA has done that for them, as, perhaps, China will for N. Korea. One way to circumvent MAD would be to have small proxy states, ones sufficiently desperate or insane to threaten, or even do, what the large nations dare not. But this is pure armchair speculation.
My own hope is that China’s pet pitbull scares Japan, Taiwan and others into acquiring their own nukes, so they can establish their own mini-MADs.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:46:48 +0000

As far I know, US have several dozen thousand nuckes. This is so great overkill, that only fraction of it can devastate the whole planet. And this fraction is virtually impossible to destroy because it is deployed at submarines in autonomous patrolling. This is basic requirement of MAD strategy. No comparable stockpile exists anywhere except Russia. So any third-world nuckes are no match to it and can be considered only as tool of blackmail.

By: Tatterdemalian

Tatterdemalian — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:45:50 +0000

By itself, it wouldn’t, Sergey. But what if it could rely on a coalition of terrified nuclear-armed nations, all firing at once? As impressive as the US’s nuclear arsenal still is, I don’t know if we could overwhelmingly retaliate against the entire rest of the world.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:26:23 +0000

Tatterdemalian, only Russia has now nuclear arsenal capable to inflict US any substantial damage. It still can not prevent overwhelming retaliation, so MAD is still in place. Russian liders are not suicidal-bent psychopats, they never would gamble “Russian roulette”.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:11:03 +0000

I still do not believe in real nuclear proliferation. India and Pakistan do perform nuclear tests, but can their weapons fly? I doubt it. It can be bluff. Stationary device is much easier to build than compact one, and technology needed for later hardly can be reproduced from the first principles. It involves some very intricate parts, like cryotrones, and one never can be sure that some design is workable without multiple actual testing. No such testing obviously was performed until now.

By: Tatterdemalian

Tatterdemalian — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:55:15 +0000

All-out war is symonymous with “nuclear armageddon” these days, even if the war is waged against an entirely unrelated foe. If the US had nuked Iraq, instead of practicing its limited war, Russia and China, and probably Europe and even Canada, would have nuked us back, not out of love for Saddam, but fear, however unreasonable, of meeting the same fate.

All-out reconstruction would be less likely to trigger such a response, but given the world’s reaction to the “excesses” of our limited reconstruction, I think there would be an unacceptable risk of it. Imagine if even our “secret torture facilities” had actually existed. Once the nukes start flying, it doesn’t really matter who’s right, who’s wrong, or even who shot first.

It’s a different world from 1945.

By: armchair pessimist

armchair pessimist — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:21:50 +0000

…but maybe a NOKO with nukes might be useful to our longterm interests? If it inspires our defenseless friends out there, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, to build their own, then it’s China (and Putin?) who must think twice, not us. Also, heaven forfend, should the trigger ever be pulled against some a**hole whack regime, it’s better that some fed-up neighbor do it, allowing the USA to publically roll its eyes heavenward, heave a melancholy sigh, and offer humanitarian relief. Too bad about non-proliferation; it was good while it lasted.