Nuclear Deterrence Theory and North Korea

>>35101196
>There seems to be a serious lack of confidence in the concept of nuclear deterrence.
Many people find problems with deterrence. This is nothing new.

>>35101214
>Many people find problems with deterrence. This is nothing new.

It's not, but we previously have not been in a situation where a "rogue state" possesses advanced nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We've crossed outside of the realm of purely hypothetical situations.

Deterrence only works when both parties aren't clinically retarded. Russia was dumb back in the day, but not retarded. Lil Kim is fucking retarded

>>35101234
All nuclear war is hypothetical.

>>35101244
Thinking Kim is stupid or crazy is a mistake.

>>35101234
>>35101244

Why do you think that the DPRK is not deterrable?

File: Dont laugh.gif (3MB, 286x258px)

3MB, 286x258px

>>35101267
>Thinking Kim is stupid or crazy is a mistake.

>>35101267
>All nuclear war is hypothetical.

So is the idea that deterrence will prevent all nuclear strikes because none have happened yet. Right now we have a situation where we're not sure that the Kims can be effectively deterred in a crisis.

Turn their entire country into a parking lot.

>>35101300
>Right now we have a situation where we're not sure that the Kims can be effectively deterred in a crisis.
Why is that?

>>35101371
>Why is that?
In detail? http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/ten-serious-flaws-in-nuclear-deterrence-theory/32886

tl;dr, we have no reason to expect it to work when a power structure finds itself at grave risk and has nothing to lose.

>>35101300
>So is the idea that deterrence will prevent all nuclear strikes because none have happened yet.
Actually, that isn't hypothetical. Deterrence has deterred all nuclear war so far.
Deterrence can break down, due to errors, miscommunications and flawed assumptions, but it works.

>>35101384
>we have no reason to expect it to work when a power structure finds itself at grave risk and has nothing to lose.
Yes. Thats the entire point of deterrence. If there is a situation where one side sees no preferable option, deterrence stops working.

If the guy that wrote that is shocked by that, then I question is knowledge in this subject.

>>35101385
It works as long as people have confidence it works. There's nothing else to actually back up the concept.

>>35101410
You mean a guy that desires to see the world with no nuclear weapons doesn't think that deterrence works?
The hell you say.

>>35101295
Running Best Korea is probably one of the most stressful executive positions in the world today, and he's doing it. He's definitely not stupid. And people in those kind of positions are crazy by default. If they weren't when they got there they go crazy.

>>35101196
Why do people near fat boy always have pens/paper at the ready? What possible insight could this blob possibly give them on anything?

>>35102803
>Why do people near fat boy always have pens/paper at the ready? What possible insight could this blob possibly give them on anything?

It makes them look like they take Dear Leader very seriously and care a lot about what he has to say. It's insurance against being Purged.

>>35102090
Tells me not to think he's crazy
Calls him crazy

>>35101196
It works fine for rational nations. Norks aren't.

>>35101196
>Is the construct of nuclear deterrence fundamentally flawed?
short answer is yes, terribly so. because humans arent rational actors

for a proper long answer you would have to do your own extensive research

>>35101267
>Thinking Kim is stupid or crazy is a mistake.
western states are forced to assume he is, because if he is it invalidates mad

File: 1493804989870.jpg (109KB, 540x625px)

109KB, 540x625px

>>35101196
What do you think Kim will do come the 9th?

http://www.strawpoll.me/13880317

>>35101384
> Nothing to lose
Except you know... the extermination of the entire NK leadership structure and political class. They'd prefer not to die.

>>35105091
This is a dumb fucking post and if you have any sense of shame, you will feel bad about yourself.

>>35101385
Maybe not so well against Islamic nations though.

>>35105796
Its working well against Pakistan.

>>35101196
>There seems to be a serious lack of confidence in the concept of nuclear deterrence. Is the construct of nuclear deterrence fundamentally flawed?

this is all just another facet of the "get the world scared of NK so it's easier to invade" agenda

This is an interesting podcast detailing what would likely happen if the NK war kicks off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

Basically shit's fucked.

>>35101234
>rogue state

Israel.
South Africa.
Arguably Ukraine before disarmament.

All had domestic and capable nuclear programs.

NK is just a media explosion because they finally realised that any nation could have a nuke now since NK isn't remotely modern and basic nuclear engineering is laughably easy once you can refine the materials.

>>35106603
None of those are rogue states.

>>35101234
>rogue state
There is no such thing anon.
Its what makes the NK situation so good. Its basically a signal that if you are past 1950s in tech, you too could have ICBMs with some stolen tech and 20-30 years of hard industrial research.