Seven Sons

Edison MacGyver started the conversation with a reference to a NYT Op-Ed, and the commend that “This is the kind of op-ed piece that I love.”

An Arsenal We Can All Live With

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html

It is concise and well reasoned. While their premise (that we can reduce our nuclear arsenal from 5,113 to 311) sounds radical, once you read the article you have to wonder why we wouldn’t do it.

Anyone who thinks a unilateral cut this drastic is a sign of weakness is crazy. I would LOVE to see our country take such a positive leadership role in nuclear arms reduction.

One question they didn’t answer is how much money you save by not having to baby-sit all those extra warheads anymore.

The Lawyer said:

I agree.

I’ve also been musing about something today on a related note.  On the one hand, it is unfathomable for me to think of us actually using any of of our nuclear weapons.  On the other hand, I fathom.  It is entirely possible that the Korean Peninsula could go hot in the next hour, day, week or month. I’m wondering about 2 scenarios, both of which seem to have a plurality chance of being one of the likely outcomes (though not necessarily a US nuclear response).

#1- War starts out.  North Korea has a far larger army than South Korea, but US technology and a lack of strong will to fight on the part of NK foot soldiers cause NK to start losing (not sure about the latter assumption due to possible effects of propaganda).  NK leadership panics and uses one or more of their estimated 2-9 nuclear weapons.  Do we then say, “That’s it!  The world can tolerate brutal dictatorships, but not insane ones.” and then use limited nuclear strikes to take out their hardened suspected nuclear sites (doesn’t matter how deep they are if they are covered with fused radioactive glass) and their core leadership?

#2-NK’s giant army (only US, Russia and China are bigger) over-runs the SK army and the small (28,000) contingent of US troops. Would we really let Seoul fall to these nuts?  I figure if a nuclear response were used, it would be similar to that of Scenario #1.

I know it sounds crazy, but we are not dealing with worldly Politburo types where  nuclear deterrence not only deters nuclear attack but also conventional attack.  In reality, we are dealing with a near-suicidal cult (ala David Koresh), writ large.  How many SK (or US) navy ships does NK think it can sink before provoking a strong military response?  With most countries, I’d have faith that our superior weapons technology would keep the balance in our favor.  However, their military is so large (and local) and ours is spread so thin (and not-local) that I’m dubious of technology closing the gap.

The way I see it, the only way to avoid #1 or #2 is for China to directly intervene with NK.  I’m not sure they are willing to do that, even in the face of such a potential catastrophe.

I have to say, if #1 comes to pass, I can live with a nuclear response.  I would look at it as if the patient had a gangrenous leg and you had to amputate to save the patient.  If NK, which clearly has caused the current crisis, upped the ante, I’d look at the civilian deaths and resulting radioactivity to be the terrible, but necessary price of removing the NK threat.  I genuinely believe that due to the behavior of NK in provoking this crisis, they will have no moral compunction about one day selling a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.

#2 is a harder call, but I tend to lean towards the same opinion.  I think we might have to use a first strike on NK to end their threat once and for all.  It’s a harder call simply because I don’t like the idea of a nuclear first strike.

When I think about this, I keep coming back to the line of Fred Thompson’s U.S. admiral character in “The Hunt for the Red October”–”This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

China better goddamned step up to the plate.

Three Barrels said:

I don’t see NK doing anything other than continuing to act like pricks and pushing us and SK further but not far enough for war. Their use of a nuke would be a death sentence–no chance for negotiated settlement, only unconditional surrender. The Chinese wouldn’t even back them up if they went nuke. NK doesn’t want to fight, they are just extortionists.

Edison MacGyver said:

I’m guessing NK has more internal problems than external. I’m thinking that sinking the SK ship was somebody in Pyongyang acting tough for the benefit of his peers.

The Lawyer said:

I agree with you, MacGyver, but that acting tough bit is quite in danger of getting out of control.  Along that line, I disagree with 3Barrels that this is just “acting like pricks”.  They are flat out, bat-shit crazy.  I mean, during the entire 45 years of the Cold War, I don’t think even once either side willfully sank a warship of the other side, not even by proxy. Combine that with the sheer unnecessary-ness of it, I don’t think they are acting rationally in the least.  It’s not like we have any evidence that there are “progressive” factions within NK with strength to push a more restrained relationship with the world.

David Koresh with a whole country to play with.

Charlie Croker said:

I think the participants of the cold war were playing at a different level. More sophisticated if you will—which is a good thing since the stakes were much, much higher.

Not down playing the the devastation of NK’s dozen nukes, but do the math.

The Lawyer said:

True, Croker.

I think what has happened inside NK is that 60-70 years of continual propaganda and no contact with the outside world to speak of, even their leadership  believes the hyped-paranoia.

In the Cold War, everyone hated each other, but they liked the life they lived and had a basic faith that as long as they didn’t do anything directly provocative, the other side wouldn’t either.  Thus, no spirals out of control.  I don’t think NK has that basic faith and because of that, I don’t have that basic faith in them.  Obviously, they DO directly provocative stuff all the time.  It’s one thing to say “Yo mama wears combat boots!”  It’s another for you to punch someone right in the jaw.  Sinking ships is a punch to the jaw.  It directly challenges your sovreignty (the “manhood” of nations) and has to be answered, else another punch will soon follow.

Charlie Croker said:

Sure, they’ll over step to the point where something happens. But a tactical nuclear strike as either provocation or response? Too many Bruckheimer movies.

I will say this though, that the kind of crazy that NK represents seems a bit saner than the sort that fundamentalist Islam or Christianity seems to foster. Without the religious argument it seems less lasting. Like once those NK soldier storm the DMZ and hit the all you can eat BBQ buffet set up by the South/US/UN I don’t see them charging past the plate warming station.

But what the hell do I know, I got most of my international politics theory from Team America: World Police.

Blue Crab said:

I think they are fairly rational.  Not quite to the level of the USSR, closer to the Chinese who are hard realists but can still get their panties twisted up over issues like Taiwan or Tibet.  Their behavior makes sense to me, preserve the regime.

The Lawyer said:

Rational?  How do you explain the fact every time relations calm down and are quiet for a while, they deliberately do something to provoke a response?  If you want to be left alone, you have to leave others alone.

Blue Crab said:

Act crazy, and China & the West will keep giving you stuff to calm you down.  What other lesson could they draw from the past 15 years?  They don’t want to be left alone, they want stuff.

Charlie Croker said:

Some times it’s just attention.

Three Barrels said:

NK are like little kids seeking to manipulate the adults. Their behavior is entirely rational, you just have to adjust the viewing angle to see it. And provocations like this happened all the time in the Cold War–airliners and spy planes shot down, harbors mined, ships torpedoed, etc. It just usually happened thru intermediaries of the super powers and therefore rarely were two nuke-owning nations head to head.

The Lawyer said:

I don’t think the Cold War stuff happened like that. Airliner shot down? It likely WAS over Soviet airspace. Inhumane to be sure, but we couldn’t really complain too much. Spy plane shot down? Definitely over Soviet airspace–entirely within their rights. Harbors mined? We mined the harbors of their proxies, but never of an actual Soviet port; nor did they ever mine a US or NATO port. We both knew that that would be way too dangerous. I tried to find reports of US and Soviet ships suspected to be sunk by the other country from 1950 to 1990. Couldn’t find any. That doesn’t mean there weren’t, but you’ll need to point them out. I don’t remember them, if there were.

NK may be like little children maneuvering for attention. But that is exactly the problem. Whether you call them crazy or children, the end result is the same. They show no sign of knowing where to safely draw the line. It’s one thing to harmlessly launch missiles into the ocean to scare the Japanese or to conduct a nuclear test. Those get plenty of attention but aren’t likely to bring physical wrath down on you. It’s another to sink a ship. You force a response.

Fortunately, this afternoon, it looks like the Chinese backing of NK is beginning to slowly melt.

Three Barrels said

This is just something we are not going to be able to see eye to eye on, largely because you are wrong.

I didn’t make the Cold War analogy first. The Cold War doesn’t really fit, for a host of reasons I don’t have the energy, patience or sobriety to delve into right now. One word though–proxies. NK is not China’s and most of the CW acts to which I referred took place through them. And not just 747s over Asia–think Africa, Latin America, etc. Think CIA, KGB, Warren Zevon songs.

NK is playing a game. It may be a dangerous one perhaps but I can’t really see us attacking them. Also, while NK probably sunk that boat, it has not been proven definitively nor was it witnessed. SK waited to confirm as best as possible before accusing NK but that doesn’t really help their case either.

All that said, next time they move to test fire a rocket, I would be all for shooting the damn thing on the pad.