The USA can't stop the world from nuking up

[Circe]

Reuters today 3/7:

North Korea warns of preemptive nuclear strike

By Jack Kim

SEOUL - North Korea threatened the United States with a preemptive nuclear strike, raising the level of rhetoric while the U.N. Security Council considers new sanctions against the reclusive country.
****************************************************

The sanctions are said to include financing issues -- the NK-associated banks have been involved in money laundering and counterfeiting (dollars), as well as a crackdown on illegal cargo shipments (weapons, as usual; many NK ships have been stopped on the seas and found to be carrying illegal weapons deliveries, including rockets and missiles).

What do people think of this?

 

[hoosier88]

Reuters today 3/7:

North Korea warns of preemptive nuclear strike

By Jack Kim

SEOUL - North Korea threatened the United States with a preemptive nuclear strike, raising the level of rhetoric while the U.N. Security Council considers new sanctions against the reclusive country.
****************************************************

The sanctions are said to include financing issues -- the NK-associated banks have been involved in money laundering and counterfeiting (dollars), as well as a crackdown on illegal cargo shipments (weapons, as usual; many NK ships have been stopped on the seas and found to be carrying illegal weapons deliveries, including rockets and missiles).

What do people think of this?

(My bold)

We - the West - can seize financial assets - the laundered money & counterfeits. We can also seize the illegal cargos - & the ships, if they're registered to NK. They have a pitiful amount of foreign trade as it is - even if we just tie up their ships in court, by the time the dust clears, NK will have gotten the message.

& if PRC has to subsidize NK's oil, power, grain, military supplies to higher & higher degrees, they'll eventually re-evaluate keeping the sock puppet in play. NK only has so much symbolic value, after all.

 

[Underhill]

Problem is, who is going to fall in this waiting game. North Korea, China or the US.

It can hardly be China or the US! We're both a lot bigger than North Korea. Even if NK somehow managed to nuke Los Angeles, God forbid, the USA would survive and at that point, the politicians do recognize the necessity of moving.

NK may or may not fall, but it's certainly not going to be us that falls, not because of little, impoverished NK.

Until they either bomb us or stop up important national interests such as oil, nothing has actually happened and we can afford to wait.

That's how the world really works.

Note WWII: we didn't go in till Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war. That was correct timing, IMO. Wait till something actually HAPPENS.

I'm not saying NK or even China would make us fall.

Only that we are quickly becoming a has been country. If things continue, we will be the worlds former last super power (assuming China doesn't take that position).

 

[Circe]

I'm not saying NK or even China would make us fall.

Only that we are quickly becoming a has been country. If things continue, we will be the worlds former last super power (assuming China doesn't take that position).

Oh, sure -- I agree with you.

Well, it was probably inevitable. China DOES have five times our population, and they are also very smart and able people, unlike those in some other parts of the world. China is going to rise as we rose.

I don't think that has much to do with the NK problem in the sense that there is no use our moving against them until something actually HAPPENS. The NKs want to stir everyone up here by talkie-talkie and cause problems for Obama, because he's clipping their wings.

But talk is not bombs.

One thing I really do think the world has got clear since 1941 is that when attacked America invariably strikes back with all four feet. And we win, or else we lose for ten years and they are very, very sorry to have us lose a war all those years on their home ground.

I am sure even the NKs aren't so crazy that they don't know that if bombed we'll totally destroy them.

China just deserted NK in the UN vote, too. That must be worrying to them.

 

[Billo_Really]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

We're making a very big mistake here and getting a little ahead of ourselves. First off, North Korea already has nukes. However secondly, no one has provided any smoking gun that Iran has weaponized its program. So, in light of the possible consequences of going down that road, I think we should refrain from talking in terms as though its a given they're building a nuke. When we have the proof that they are, then, at that time, we can start discussing what to do next.

 

[Billo_Really]

I believe that Iran's interest, at least what it is selling to the masses, is the concept of "The Last Day", "Armageddon". Think Abaddon, the Angel with the key to the bottomless pit.

Well, I never argue against someone's beliefs. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe.

But don't you think believing that's Iran's interest is a little too convenient and just a shade to Jerry Bruckheimer or Oliver Stonish?

Here's what an Iranian citizen said to an Israeli citizen on the "Iran loves Israel" facebook page...

“We also love you. Your words are reaching us despite the censorship,” wrote one Facebook user from Iran. “The Iranian people, apart from the regime, do not hold a grudge nor animosity against anyone, especially not the Israelis… We never saw Israelis as our enemies. As such, the regime cannot gain public support for war.”

“The hatred was invented by the propaganda of the regime, which will die soon”, continued the Iranian Facebook user. “The ayatollah will die soon. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad will disappear. He is nothing more than an opportunist, and more than anything – an idiot. Everyone hates him. We love you, love, peace. And thanks for your message.”

70% of the population of Iran is under 30. And they probably think the same thing about their older generation as we did back in our 20's.

They're just waiting for the old mullah's to die off before they start making changes in that country like wearing Levi's in public.

 

[Billo_Really]

It can hardly be China or the US! We're both a lot bigger than North Korea. Even if NK somehow managed to nuke Los Angeles, God forbid, the USA would survive and at that point, the politicians do recognize the necessity of moving.

NK may or may not fall, but it's certainly not going to be us that falls, not because of little, impoverished NK.

Until they either bomb us or stop up important national interests such as oil, nothing has actually happened and we can afford to wait.

That's how the world really works.

Note WWII: we didn't go in till Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war. That was correct timing, IMO. Wait till something actually HAPPENS.

We got more nukes than any country on the planet. And we can hit any country on the planet with them in just 20 minutes or less. I think we're pretty safe.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

Does that apply to the dictatorial mullahs of Iran?

But the fact is, the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon is out there. And only the most naive among us should be foolish enough to think that total disarmament will ever happen or that unilateral disarmament will ever make us safe from the crazies of the world.

 

[Billo_Really]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

Does that apply to the dictatorial mullahs of Iran?

But the fact is, the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon is out there. And only the most naive among us should be foolish enough to think that total disarmament will ever happen or that unilateral disarmament will ever make us safe from the crazies of the world.

Did you ever think if we would stop threatening them and stop these inhuman sanctions, they'd be more cooperative with UN inspectors? At least they're working with UN inspectors. Israel won't let UN inspectors anywhere near their nuclear sites. I think that's a problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

Does that apply to the dictatorial mullahs of Iran?

But the fact is, the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon is out there. And only the most naive among us should be foolish enough to think that total disarmament will ever happen or that unilateral disarmament will ever make us safe from the crazies of the world.

Did you ever think if we would stop threatening them and stop these inhuman sanctions, they'd be more cooperative with UN inspectors? At least they're working with UN inspectors. Israel won't let UN inspectors anywhere near their nuclear sites. I think that's a problem.

I have not spoken in favor of sanctions. Just from casual observance over the last several decades, they don't seem to have much affect on national policy and only create hardships among the people who are more likely to blame those imposing the sanctions than they are likely to blame their own governments who deserved them. The sanctions didn't work in Iraq. They didn't work in North Korea. They aren't working in Iran.

But no, I don't think those who are denying building nuclear weapons would change their policies re resisting inspectors no matter how sweet, benevolent, or none threatening or nice we might be to them. And I am unaware of Israel threatening anybody with anything in the last sixty plus decades and has never officially admitted it had nuclear weapons though it is widely believed that it does. Israel is on the record, however, that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear warfare in the Middle East or anywhere else. Iran is on the record as having full intentions to obliterate Israel. North Korea has demonstrated its willingness to make war on its neighbors. And therein lies the difference.

 

[oldfart]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

I think we have to be very careful here. There are two problems that interact when we talk about deterrence. First is identifying the source of an attack. For the US vs Russia, this was a no-brainer. In today's world it's not so simple. Suppose a dirty bomb goes off in New York City. Who do we suspect? What if it's a false flag operation, conducted by an unlikely suspect who wants us to retaliate against a third party? The easiest way to survive retaliation is to make it look like someone else did it.

Second is that players other than governments don't necessarily have a population or resources to protect. I personally think that no matter how crazy Iran or North Korean leadership might be, they still have a strong impulse for personal survival. What if the attack comes from the Chechen's hoping we will retaliate against the Russians? Even if we figure out that it's not the Russians, what assets would this particular group want to protect?

Aren't there some movies with exactly this plot?

 

[Circe]

We got more nukes than any country on the planet. And we can hit any country on the planet with them in just 20 minutes or less. I think we're pretty safe.

Good, works for me. As long as NK and Iran are constantly talking of nuking us, I think we'd better keep all ours.

 

[Circe]

At least they're working with UN inspectors. Israel won't let UN inspectors anywhere near their nuclear sites. I think that's a problem.

It's not a problem for us. Israel isn't our enemy: Iran is.

Israel doesn't constantly threaten to nuke us and destroy every American, men, women, and children: the Iranian leadership explicitly says that.

My experience shows that people usually mean what they say. That's why they say it. They would certainly nuke us if they could, and so it might be best if they can't.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

I think we have to be very careful here. There are two problems that interact when we talk about deterrence. First is identifying the source of an attack. For the US vs Russia, this was a no-brainer. In today's world it's not so simple. Suppose a dirty bomb goes off in New York City. Who do we suspect? What if it's a false flag operation, conducted by an unlikely suspect who wants us to retaliate against a third party? The easiest way to survive retaliation is to make it look like someone else did it.

Second is that players other than governments don't necessarily have a population or resources to protect. I personally think that no matter how crazy Iran or North Korean leadership might be, they still have a strong impulse for personal survival. What if the attack comes from the Chechen's hoping we will retaliate against the Russians? Even if we figure out that it's not the Russians, what assets would this particular group want to protect?

Aren't there some movies with exactly this plot?

The stability of countries with small arsenals, facing other countries with small arsenals is less than you think. Without the assurance of a mutually destructive counterstrike, a country might risk a first strike and hope it could live through any residual retailiation.

The US and USSR never got to the point where one thought it could attack and survive the response. that kept the fingers off the trigger (though the guns were still drawn).

With Israel you have a democracy, with leaders accountable to the people. they also know that any nuclear strike of more than 20 or so warheads could wipe out thier country. They also know a first strike by themIF an adversary was nuclear would not have 100% assurance of success. given their population density this is unacceptable.

On the side of iran, you have leaders only accountable to themselves. They also have a large territorial size advantage and a more disperse population. With enough warheads they may think they could strike and decapitate the Israeli leadership quickly enough to prevent a massive counterstrike. With the majority of the Israeli population dead, they would "win".

 

[martybegan]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

Does that apply to the dictatorial mullahs of Iran?

But the fact is, the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon is out there. And only the most naive among us should be foolish enough to think that total disarmament will ever happen or that unilateral disarmament will ever make us safe from the crazies of the world.

Did you ever think if we would stop threatening them and stop these inhuman sanctions, they'd be more cooperative with UN inspectors? At least they're working with UN inspectors. Israel won't let UN inspectors anywhere near their nuclear sites. I think that's a problem.

Do you notice anyone worrying about Israel's nuclear aresenal?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not with countries that have nukes for deterrence purposes; i.e. self protection. It is unlikely that any people who want to live are going to lob a nuke into Israel knowing that Israel has the capability to return the favor tenfold. Would Russia at the height of the Soviet Empire have attacked the U.S. had the U.S. not had the capability of obliterating most of Russia? That is anybody's guess. Would anybody have wanted to take the risk to find out?

My worry is with people who see death in religious or political martyrdom as something noble; something to aspire to. The crazies who don't care if they live but who are intent on inflicting as much pain, suffering, and misery on their enemies as possible. A nuke in the hands of somebody like that is a very very dangerous thing.

I think we have to be very careful here. There are two problems that interact when we talk about deterrence. First is identifying the source of an attack. For the US vs Russia, this was a no-brainer. In today's world it's not so simple. Suppose a dirty bomb goes off in New York City. Who do we suspect? What if it's a false flag operation, conducted by an unlikely suspect who wants us to retaliate against a third party? The easiest way to survive retaliation is to make it look like someone else did it.

Second is that players other than governments don't necessarily have a population or resources to protect. I personally think that no matter how crazy Iran or North Korean leadership might be, they still have a strong impulse for personal survival. What if the attack comes from the Chechen's hoping we will retaliate against the Russians? Even if we figure out that it's not the Russians, what assets would this particular group want to protect?

Aren't there some movies with exactly this plot?

It depends on what point of view you come from, I think.

Is it more important to identify and punish the culprits who detonate a dirty bomb on Times Square? Or is it more important to prevent such a thing happening? I see attempts to deter 'crazy people' from getting and detonating such a bomb as the rationale behind sanctions and demanded inspections.

It is also important to accept that the whole world does not think like the average American. The whole world does not value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we do. Islam now controls 1/5th of the world population and is rapidly gaining on Christianity as the No. 1 religion. There are many sects and degrees of extremism within Islam, but all preach a doctrine of bringing the whole world under the authority of Allah. And there are some who believe Allah rewards those who punishes the enemies or resisters to Islam. And some who are willing to commit suicide based on that belief.

Is Ahmadinejad one of the crazies who would gamble everything to please Allah? Or is his rhetoric, bluster, and fury all an act to fool us into thinking he is crazy enough to do that? Who wants to bet the farm on which way it is?

Koreans probably are more self serving and less fanatical in that regard than are radical Muslims, but nevertheless the Asian culture is far more likely to engage in cultural group think than are freedom loving Americans. To wit the Japanese Kamikazi pilots willing to give their life for the Emperor. Americans won't do that so easily. Yes, they are willing to risk all for their country and know they probably will lose their lives, but in the back of their minds is always the chance they'll find a way to survive or a miracle will save them.

Those who try to fit everybody into the exact same mold are liikely to put us at higher risk than those who see things as they are.

 

[PaulS1950]

North Korea whould not have to target a city to cause tremendous damage to the USA. The best use of their limited nuclear ability would be to detonate a nuclear explosive in space - above the USA. The EMP would knock out entire electrical grids and cause damage that could take decades to recover from. We would have no idea it wasn't just another sattelite launch until it was too late.
You say, "so what" who cares about some minor electrical grids but without power you have no fuel, no travel, no groceries and no law. What happens to the country then?

 

[freedombecki]

Has it occured to anyone that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal simply because having nukes at your disposal is the only way that you're taken seriously on the international stage?

Either way, they're probably more interested in giving any potential invaders - like the U.S. and the UK - serious pause for thought if they considered repeating what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan in Iran than provoking Israel.

I used to think that Swagger, but with Iran's president Ahmadinejad going around the world and not saying he would like to wipe Israel and the USA off the face of the map, and not saying it at least ten times a month for the last 8 years, I'm thinking he wants more than being "taken seriously."

 

[Intense]

Has it occured to anyone that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal simply because having nukes at your disposal is the only way that you're taken seriously on the international stage?

Either way, they're probably more interested in giving any potential invaders - like the U.S. and the UK - serious pause for thought if they considered repeating what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan in Iran than provoking Israel.

Or, like Abaddon, the Angel with the key to the bottomless pit, Iran wants to light the fuse that triggers Armageddon. I can watch the local Iranian shows on public TV in NYC, and that is what they are selling.

 

[Circe]

Or, like Abaddon, the Angel with the key to the bottomless pit, Iran wants to light the fuse that triggers Armageddon. I can watch the local Iranian shows on public TV in NYC, and that is what they are selling.

Good heavens. They are really saying they want to blow up the world starting with us so the end of the world comes, saying this on public TV? This is not good.

They may be doing the same kind of negotiation style as North Korea has adopted --- "I'm crazy and I've got The Bomb!!" This actually works very well and I expect it to spread. Crazies with The Bomb DO get taken seriously, as we see.

On the other hand, they may actually be crazy. The miscalculations of crazy people do start a lot of wars.