Norks' New Strategy?

[Flash]

Clearly there is a difference being a nuclear armed country and being a nuclear power. North Korea simply doesn’t have a technical capacity to threaten anyone beyond Japan (still a terrible thought) but we are acting as if the allies in the region can then only sit back and watch that ICBM pass through the sky. There are robust defenses and an American response (even a conventional one) will make a second try far more difficult. If North Korea’s “new” strategy is to stop being North Korea, this is the way to do it.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that, spend all your money on cool missiles an nukes instead of food for your people and some of the stuff may actually work.

NK has a small arsenal and very limited I&W. Classic scenario for US/Allied first strike options.

It has wheels though! Which actually does make things a bit of a challenge...

 

[Griz882]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that, spend all your money on cool missiles an nukes instead of food for your people and some of the stuff may actually work.



It has wheels though! Which actually does make things a bit of a challenge...

They have yet to fly one very far.

 

[Flash]

They have yet to fly one very far.

They don't need to:

The missile reached an altitude of 6,518 km (4,050 miles), flying 1,002 km and accurately hitting the intended target, an empty patch of sea, state media said....South Korea and Japan said that based on Monday's flight data, the North had fired an ICBM with the range to hit anywhere in the United States....The ICBM's lofted trajectory and 74-minute flight time are compatible with an operational range of up to 15,000 km (9,300 miles) if launched at a flatter, standard trajectory, which puts all of the mainland United States within reach, Japanese defence officials said.

That is not a uniquely North Korean thing either, even our tests don't go to max range. Can't argue with the physics.

 

[Griz882]

Well, you're closer to the mark, as at least your new thesis hits in the realm of what is rational or not, but you're still way off. You're just taking a conclusion that you want to find, that these wars have been based on emotions, and framing the conflicts in those terms while ignoring everything else. Of course, all humans feel emotions like fear and hope, but that doesn't mean their decisions are solely or even primarily based on them. After all, is that how you live your life? You get angry so you punch someone, you feel fear so you refuse to push forward, or you feel hope so you take a blind leap of faith? Of course not! And doubly so if you were running a country.

You say the Confederates went to war knowing they couldn't win, solely because they were "frightened that they would lose their economic base". They absolutely thought they could win, but more importantly, they thought trying to win was their best path forward because without slavery they thought they were doomed. Yes, they feared a future without slavery, but it was their belief that their right to own slaves was so essential to their future that they had to fight for it that caused them to act, not fear alone. A rational decision that was well thought out, heavily debated, and decided soberly by many states' independent governments... not a conclusion that was rushed to in a panic of fear.

The German Empire didn't choose to go to war, they chose to back their ally Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary chose to go to war because they wanted to crush the Serbian nationalists who killed the heir to their thrown. Basically every other country who fought in the war did so because they had alliances that demanded they do so. All quite rational.

WW2, as you mentioned, was largely because Hitler wanted Lebensraum. That is as rational as it gets, as he thought (correctly) it was an achievable goal that would be the best path forward for the country. Later, the Germans overestimated their capability with respect to Russia, and that led to their demise, but as Brett mentioned, that is irrelevant to any discussion over who is acting as a "rational actor".

You cannot find a single serious academic study to support any of what you have written. I am especially entertained by your Civil War thesis…that puts a rational (or any) confederate government in place before South Carolina (alone) decided the issue by shelling Sumpter.

 

[Griz882]

They don't need to:



That is not a uniquely North Korean thing either, even our tests don't go to max range. Can't argue with the physics.

Physics be damned, I’ll remain unconcerned. North Korea can’t even keep the lights on at night. I’ve said it before with reference to China’s aircraft carrier…having a carrier is vastly different than knowing how to deploy a carrier. The same applies to NKs missile program.

 

[Flash]

Physics be damned, I’ll remain unconcerned. North Korea can’t even keep the lights on at night. I’ve said it before with reference to China’s aircraft carrier…having a carrier is vastly different than knowing how to deploy a carrier. The same applies to NKs missile program.

Wernher and J. Robert find your lack of faith...disturbing.

 

[Griz882]

Wernher and J. Robert find your lack of faith...disturbing.

Of course, the bishops are bound to dogma!

 

[Random8145]

Electrical power generation in North Korea has improved from what it used to be. Multiple cities have a nightlife now. Limited private enterprise is also permitted. Part of this is due to help from China. I don't know how electrical generation capability relates to nuclear weapon capability in that country, but remember that the Soviet Union couldn't manufacture a decent pair of jeans for its citizens, but yet had nuclear submarines, rockets, a space station, and nuclear missiles.

 

[number9]

Electrical power generation in North Korea has improved from what it used to be. Multiple cities have a nightlife now. Limited private enterprise is also permitted. Part of this is due to help from China. I don't know how electrical generation capability relates to nuclear weapon capability in that country, but remember that the Soviet Union couldn't manufacture a decent pair of jeans for its citizens, but yet had nuclear submarines, rockets, a space station, and nuclear missiles.

I'm not an economic historian, but I would say it's more that the Soviet Union didn't want to manufacture a decent pair of jeans for its citizens. It's not something that their economy prioritized, because planned economies don't respond to demand signals in the same way that ours did.

 

[Mirage]

You cannot find a single serious academic study to support any of what you have written. I am especially entertained by your Civil War thesis…that puts a rational (or any) confederate government in place before South Carolina (alone) decided the issue by shelling Sumpter.

You cannot be serious... What I wrote is the mainstream interpretation of history written about in great depth by a vast number of academics and taught on campuses all over. Regarding the Civil War, you are just completely factually wrong. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana all seceded in January 1861, after South Carolina did in December 1860. The Constitution of the Confederate States was signed in March, 1861. SC attacked Fort Sumter in April 1861. All of these governments, independently and together, debated over months and decided on what they believed their best course of action was. There is absolutely zero evidence they rushed to war because of fear, and certainly not because of a future event that was still months away (the attack on Fort Sumter) as you claim. Let alone the absurdity of the claim that SC attacking the fort could possibly "decide the issue" for Texas, or any other state. Give it a rest.

 

[Griz882]

You cannot be serious... What I wrote is the mainstream interpretation of history written about in great depth by a vast number of academics and taught on campuses all over. Regarding the Civil War, you are just completely factually wrong. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana all seceded in January 1861, after South Carolina did in December 1860. The Constitution of the Confederate States was signed in March, 1861. SC attacked Fort Sumter in April 1861. All of these governments, independently and together, debated over months and decided on what they believed their best course of action was. There is absolutely zero evidence they rushed to war because of fear, and certainly not because of a future event that was still months away (the attack on Fort Sumter) as you claim. Let alone the absurdity of the claim that SC attacking the fort could possibly "decide the issue" for Texas, or any other state. Give it a rest.

I’ll simplify this for you…name the books and or articles.

In the meantime, to further deflate your thesis, look up these two things.

Definition of “provisional,” which the initial confederate “constitution” was until 1862…and…

Star of the West, January 9, 1861.

 

[Griz882]

Electrical power generation in North Korea has improved from what it used to be. Multiple cities have a nightlife now. Limited private enterprise is also permitted. Part of this is due to help from China. I don't know how electrical generation capability relates to nuclear weapon capability in that country, but remember that the Soviet Union couldn't manufacture a decent pair of jeans for its citizens, but yet had nuclear submarines, rockets, a space station, and nuclear missiles.

Still not scared…and all that Soviet military crap was just that…crap.

 

[Mirage]

I’ll simplify this for you…name the books and or articles.

In the meantime, to further deflate your thesis, look up these two things.

Definition of “provisional,” which the initial confederate “constitution” was until 1862…and…

Star of the West, January 9, 1861.

So what is your contention, exactly? That the SC govt rushed to war, driven solely by fear, knowing they would lose, without considering it rationally, and then their attack somehow forced half the states to also secede without considering it in any detail? What does your strange point about the Constitution (which apparently they wrote in a fear fueled haze) have to do with your thesis?

Do you have any books or articles to back this up, like you're requesting from me?

Pick any respected book you like on the matter, open it up, read it, and I promise you it doesn't contain your ridiculously simplified description of events.

 

[Griz882]

So what is your contention, exactly? That the SC govt rushed to war, driven solely by fear, knowing they would lose, without considering it rationally, and then their attack somehow forced half the states to also secede without considering it in any detail? What does your strange point about the Constitution (which apparently they wrote in a fear fueled haze) have to do with your thesis?

Do you have any books or articles to back this up, like you're requesting from me?

Pick any respected book you like on the matter, open it up, read it, and I promise you it doesn't contain your ridiculously simplified description of events.

OK, OK…I won’t be so rude to imply you are uneducated, it is clear you’ve been to school. That said, you clearly aren’t well read especially in history. With that in mind I’ll end my discussion with you here and wish you a fine day.

 

[taxi1]

Pick any respected book you like on the matter, open it up, read it

I know I'm taking your quote out of context, springboarding on the topic of rationality and humans not being so good at it all the time, some good reads...

Thinking Fast & Slow by Kahneman. The fast brain and slow brain, and making decisions with limited resources and info to do so.

Choice and Consequence by Schelling. He talks a lot about bounded rationality, and settling for good enough.

The Mind is Flat by Chater. This book is mind-blowing. Also, a short read. Worth taking a look at someone's summary of it.