Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and NKorea, with some Asimov

Gents,

I was reading some ASIMOV yesterday (Second Foundation), and somehow got me thinking about the current situation in Korea.

Why do countries build a nuclear deterrent? The idea of having a nuclear arsenal as a “deterrent” is based on the idea of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that once a country launches a missile carrying a nuclear warhead (x 1000), the other one will do the same (x 1000), assuring both will be destroyed and most of their countries will be inhabitable. That is why the US and USSR didn’t got to destroying themselves (and the earth). Their presidents and generals were sane enough to stop once the chance of killing all their population got too close to be true. As a result, nuclear deterrence became a way of effectively assuring “peace”. This is the "Formula" we are based our thinking nowadays.

Lets move this idea to the current situation. Currently, the US and SKorea are doing a show of muscles with their military exercises, the US sent B2 bombers increasing the pressure, and now has moved interceptors to Guam. This is all a show of force.
NKorea is doing the same, putting their military on highest alert, making threats to US and SKorea and now moving a missile to their east coast. As the last example, this is all a show of force.

Now, once they reach the highest pressure possible before igniting nuclear war, is the idea of MAD still valid?

Now comes Asimov: On Second Fundation a new variable was introduced that challenged the “formula” in which a civilization could predict the future.
With NKorea, for me this is a new variable on the MAD formula: Are both US and NKorea sane enough to stop before pushing the red button?

This formula is based on every country wanting the best for their population. Doing everything possible to protect them and avoiding nuclear war. Is this the case of NKorea? Well… if you think about it, the answer should be no. NKorea is the most isolated country, forced labor camps with hundreds of thousands is said to be true, and they have been through very rough times and starvation of millions has already happened. This is very interesting, because nuclear deterrent depends on the lack of willingness to accept the killing of millions on your own population!

North Korea is a very different variable.

Is nuclear deterrent really applicable in this case? Is war really a possibility?
What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Jechu

Even if a War doesnt break - There will be too much pressure on either sides of the global scale.. What im trying too say - it will be a cold war again, if nothing happens...

But Behind all the acts of this ... Amarica- Of all policing ... When NK was addmitting too there program and testing... A year ago....

USA should have done something before this escalated this far....

Originally posted by Jechu
Gents,

I was reading some ASIMOV yesterday (Second Foundation), and somehow got me thinking about the current situation in Korea.

Why do countries build a nuclear deterrent? The idea of having a nuclear arsenal as a “deterrent” is based on the idea of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which means that once a country launches a missile carrying a nuclear warhead (x 1000), the other one will do the same (x 1000), assuring both will be destroyed and most of their countries will be inhabitable. That is why the US and USSR didn’t got to destroying themselves (and the earth). Their presidents and generals were sane enough to stop once the chance of killing all their population got too close to be true. As a result, nuclear deterrence became a way of effectively assuring “peace”. This is the "Formula" we are based our thinking nowadays.

Lets move this idea to the current situation. Currently, the US and SKorea are doing a show of muscles with their military exercises, the US sent B2 bombers increasing the pressure, and now has moved interceptors to Guam. This is all a show of force.
NKorea is doing the same, putting their military on highest alert, making threats to US and SKorea and now moving a missile to their east coast. As the last example, this is all a show of force.

Now, once they reach the highest pressure possible before igniting nuclear war, is the idea of MAD still valid?

Now comes Asimov: On Second Fundation a new variable was introduced that challenged the “formula” in which a civilization could predict the future.
With NKorea, for me this is a new variable on the MAD formula: Are both US and NKorea sane enough to stop before pushing the red button?

This formula is based on every country wanting the best for their population. Doing everything possible to protect them and avoiding nuclear war. Is this the case of NKorea? Well… if you think about it, the answer should be no. NKorea is the most isolated country, forced labor camps with hundreds of thousands is said to be true, and they have been through very rough times and starvation of millions has already happened. This is very interesting, because nuclear deterrent depends on the lack of willingness to accept the killing of millions on your own population!

North Korea is a very different variable.

Is nuclear deterrent really applicable in this case? Is war really a possibility?
What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Jechu

Well, then the immediate questions becomes does the leadership of North Korea see their personal destruction (as opposed to the destruction of their citizens) worthy of a nuclear armed engagement. My intuitive hunch is no. Mainly because the NK leadership has been acting on their own benefit and personal survival for the last few decades. They have made it clear that their continuance is paramount, even over their own citizens. And I doubt they see a nuclear engagement as being amenable to that desire. Of course, assuming the NK elite are rational actors (as I believe they are, for the most part).


On a side note: I really think this latest situation is a non-issue. The NK establishment is just buying their most valuable asset with this latest stunt: time.Ultimately, even that will cease to be an asset. The world community should just keep on ignoring/giving them scraps as we have been for the last few decades.

Psychohistory its usin the past to predict the future and given it took 1000's of years for a positronic brain to be developed that could help harry seldon get started on his work i don';t think we're anywhere near working out human behaviour to such a fine detail as in the foundation series

reply to post by Maxatoria


Yeah, I know we are thousand of years away of that (and I love those books).

What I mean is that our current way of thinking, that MAD stops anyone of starting a nuclear war, couldn't be applied once you introduce the variable of only a few in NK controlling the missiles, and not worrying about the killing of millions of its citizens.

Cheers,
Jechu

reply to post by Jechu

Why do countries build a nuclear deterrent?

MAD is NOT the goal of NK's nuclear program. NK develops nukes to use as a bargaining chip, for extortion really. Give us food, we take a few steps back in our nuke development. Plus, they see it as the only way they can make the US pause should we ever decide on a unified Korea, but similar to SK.

Lil' Kim, and his father before him, saw what happened to other, non-nuclear dictators who defied the US (see Iraq and Libya), and doesn't want to end up the same way. He sees nukes as a way to deter this.

What WE do, the US, is far more of a danger to MAD. Our missile defense system (not Star Wars, by the way), if it works even half as good as I've heard, basically negates MAD with most other nuclear nations (Russia being the sole exception). My suspicion is that this is the REAL reason we really don't want a confrontation with NK, is because we'll have to reveal just how good it is, to defend our assets in the region. You can bet, after a demonstration like that, publicly, there'd be a LOT of new talks going on in the UN Security Council....

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Jechu

 

Why do countries build a nuclear deterrent?

MAD is NOT the goal of NK's nuclear program. NK develops nukes to use as a bargaining chip, for extortion really. Give us food, we take a few steps back in our nuke development. Plus, they see it as the only way they can make the US pause should we ever decide on a unified Korea, but similar to SK.

Lil' Kim, and his father before him, saw what happened to other, non-nuclear dictators who defied the US (see Iraq and Libya), and doesn't want to end up the same way. He sees nukes as a way to deter this.

Exactly, it is the most rational strategy that NK (well, Kim and his elite cohorts, really) could make in their geopolitical position. And guess what? They are doing that exactly--which indicates to me that they are indeed "rational" actors. Which, suggest to me that nuclear engagement isn't really what they want. Which further suggests to me that this latest foolishness is just that--threats signifying nothing more than an unspoken agreement to the status quo between NK and the U.S.

Side note: Isn't it funny how in the human culture,a nuclear threat is really a signifier for an agreement to not rock the boat (so to speak)? No wonder aliens don't land on the front line of the White House, they wouldn't even begin to know how to communicate with us in any intelligent manner when what we signify has nothing to do with were signaling. Truly, we are must be the backwater of the Universe.

Originally posted by Jechu
reply to post by Maxatoria

 

Yeah, I know we are thousand of years away of that (and I love those books).

What I mean is that our current way of thinking, that MAD stops anyone of starting a nuclear war, couldn't be applied once you introduce the variable of only a few in NK controlling the missiles, and not worrying about the killing of millions of its citizens.

Cheers,
Jechu

There is no MAD between NK and the US.

North Korea by itself does not have the capability to destroy the US at this time.

MAD exists between super powers that have a multitude of nuclear arms and the actual means to deliver them. Instead, NK has a possible handful of low yield nuclear weapons, and no large scale, reliable means of delivering them to the US, where as the US on the other hand does have more than enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to completely destroy North Korea.

On the other hand, the US has more than enough conventional weapons to do the same thing to North Korea. As it has been pointed out in several threads here on ATS, and by our own government statements, the US will never use any nuclear weapons against North Korea.

Even if NK were able to hit the US with one.

The reason for this should be clear: the after effects of nuclear weapons do not obey geopolitical borders.
Allied countries such as SK and even Japan might suffer from those after effects. And China, while not exactly an ally, is a economic partner with the US (they make lots of crap that we buy and they love getting that money from us), and the US would not want China to suffer any after effects (and also because China could strike back).

So there is no MAD with North Korea. Only AD to North Korea if they were to start something.

reply to post by eriktheawful

MAD exists between super powers that have a multitude of nuclear arms and the actual means to deliver them.

MAD only exists between the US and Russia. No other nation even comes close to having enough missiles to threaten MAD with the US. Nope, not even China. Oh sure, even if we assume the worst case scenario with missile defense, the US would have multiple detonations, but not the total decimation that China would see. It's a numbers game.

Of course, WarGames' fictional "Joshua" said it best...."The only winning move, is not to play."

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

MAD exists between super powers that have a multitude of nuclear arms and the actual means to deliver them.

MAD only exists between the US and Russia. No other nation even comes close to having enough missiles to threaten MAD with the US. Nope, not even China. Oh sure, even if we assume the worst case scenario with missile defense, the US would have multiple detonations, but not the total decimation that China would see. It's a numbers game.

Of course, WarGames' fictional "Joshua" said it best...."The only winning move, is not to play."

Meh, depends on what you define as "destruction"

Having at least a few EMPS over each nation that's enough to take out your entire infrastruction is good enough for me. Even if it does not directly kill people, you can agree that having to live like it's the 1800's again, even if only for half a year would be a good kick in the nuts for anyone.

Discussing nuclear warfare with Asimov is a bit of a problem as he does state that people have been punished for even mentioning the use of nuclear warfare onboard ships