[ekianjo]

> 4. The citizens and possibly government are (not totally unreasonably) terrified that the US is going to invade and crush them like ants at any given moment.

Are you joking ? The US would never do that since China wants North Korea to keep acting as a buffer state against America's influence. Plus, the US has never hinted of any operation in the region.

[easong]

The North Koreans are totally obsessed with the Korean War, and seem to think that the entire world is too. They've convinced themselves that the US started the first Korean war because controlling the Korean peninsula is vitally important for some reason that I can't remember (the propaganda drones on a bit too much). It's a bit silly, but it seems to be what they believe. As an American I obviously don't think we have an all-consuming desire to invade and subjugate the Korean peoples or that it's a major goal of our government.

That said, it wasn't that long ago that North Korea was on Bush's hit list ("axis of evil"), we regularly organize large military exercises preparing for a new Korean war, and we've got all sorts of belligerent rhetoric that a paranoid DPRK intelligence officer would definitely take as a threat. Even confirmed war hawks like Bernie Sanders name them as the biggest threat to the US on the world stage (which is ridiculous, IMO).

[Ripsaw]

It's ridiculous to think of the DPRK as a threat at it's current level but allowing such an antagonistic state to research ICBMs is a long-term threat. Personally I would rather us a take them down now then let them fall apart in 50 years when they have the capability to nuke Seoul.

[easong]

Right, but imagine that you're the head of the DPRK military and you're reading this comment as the general attitude of America. Now you think that you have to get nukes ASAP, and you're risking US invasion at any time until you do (look what happened to Saddam!).

Once you have nukes, you think, you'll have a shred of leverage over the US since you'll have the capability to nuke Seoul. With that leverage, you can ensure that your glorious people's republic will continue to prosper without another devastating war. Who cares if you throw the economy under the bus until you're nuclear-armed - that's just the price you have to pay for security.

I personally don't think that the DPRK has any real intention of starting a war - they know that there's about five minutes between hostilities being declared and Pyongyang turning into a radioactive parking lot.

[kobayashi]

Pyongyang will almost certainly never be nuked by the US, even if the DPRK used nukes first. The reasons are manifold, and include the political costs (domestic + international) of using nuclear weapons against a captive and largely innocent people, as well as the actual nuclear fallout that would effect nearby neighbours.

Tom Nichols delves deeper into the topic in both article [0] and book [1] forms.

[0] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/if-america-could-rebuild...

[1] http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15090.html

[ekianjo]

> Pyongyang will almost certainly never be nuked by the US, even if the DPRK used nukes first. The reasons are manifold, and include the political costs (domestic + international) of using nuclear weapons against a captive and largely innocent people, as well as the actual nuclear fallout that would effect nearby neighbours.

On second thought, if the DPRK were to nuke New York or something, I can't see how the US could afford not to nuke back without looking weak. At the same time, that would probably trigger a nuclear apocalypse scenario pretty quickly with retaliation from China and the like.

[kobayashi]

A strong response would definitely be necessary, but that response is unlikely to be nuclear in kind. The USA and its allies have enough conventional firepower to permanently end the DPRK regime without needing to resort to nukes. Nichols spells it out in more detail.

[iSnow]

One would hope that in this case, the US had enough restraint and humanity to not nuke a city in retaliation but launch a decapitation strike against the leadership and the military - perhaps nuking a couple of the larger bases and military ports.

But I am not holding my breath either.

[ekianjo]

You don't need to nuke Pyongyang to put them on their knees in no time. Intensive bombardments with B52 are pretty effective as well.

[jessaustin]

Or we could just stop sending food aid.

[PhasmaFelis]

As I understand it, the main reason that we and/or South Korea haven't moshed all over NK like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is that they've got enough ancient, obsolete, but still quite explosive artillery aimed at Seoul to do at least Hiroshima levels of damage to it.

It'll only get worse once they've got actual nuclear capability, but it's not like you can just declare that you've decided to sacrifice SK's capital and largest city because bad stuff might happen in the future.

[Grishnakh]

Well the big reason the US hasn't "moshed" all over NK is because they have nothing we want. They don't have any really significant resources that I'm aware of, and certainly don't have any oil. They're also right next to China, and China likes to keep them there as a buffer from American-aligned nations like SK and Japan.

Basically, both China and the US are probably rather worried about the situation there, because the NK leadership is so wacky and volatile; neither side actually wants to take over NK because that'd mean having to deal with their internal problems and a giant, starving population that's been fed crazy propaganda from birth about the divinity of their leaders. No one wants to deal with that problem.

[kobayashi]

They already have the capability to nuke Seoul. Don't need an ICBM for a few dozen KM.

[ekianjo]

Seoul is next door, you don't need an ICBM for something that's as close as that. ICBM stands for inter-continental ballistic missiles and they are made to be able to strike anywhere on Earth.

[mmmBacon]

The DPRK are a real threat. They have long range conventional artillery aimed at Seoul that could cause large loss of life there. We are talking WW2 type loss of life.

[SixSigma]

> Even confirmed war hawks like Bernie Sanders

I hope you mean "doves" not "hawks"

[easong]

No sarcasm tag on HN, sorry.

[fennecfoxen]

> we regularly organize large military exercises preparing for a new Korean war

And as long as we have a military that organizes exercises to keep itself prepared, that's one of the exercises that makes a lot of sense (whereas we can presumably keep preparations for invasion of (say) Belgium on paper only for the time being).

[easong]

Definitely! But imagine you're North Korea, looking at the world's most powerful military by a huge margin, practicing the invasion of your country a few miles from your border, on a regular basis. Makes you feel pretty nervous, right?

[jacquesm]

You are mistaken about the audience of that message. The audience is the people of North Korea, not the outside world, that it has no basis in reality doesn't change that because the people of NK for the most part do not have access to information that will confirm to them that it is not real.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Plus, the US has never hinted of any operation in the region.

I agree that we're not at all likely to invade NK any time soon, but GWB declared Iran, Iraq, and NK to be "the Axis of Evil" and then promptly invaded Iraq. To an outside observer, that's a hell of a lot more than a hint.