Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The military is bound by oath to obey the lawfully given orders of the Commander-In-Chief. That said, in extremis there exists both the possibility of the Cabinet declaring the President mentally unfit to govern and the possibility of military figures "falling on their swords", as Strife would put it.

[smjjames]

They're going to have to, otherwise they'd set up a precedent for disobeying the President. Well, if it's an illegal order, like if the President orders them to commit an obvious warcrime (which is a big grey area for the US ), they can disobey that, yes, or at least the brass resign in protest.

Depending on where the missile ends up detonating, it could be spun as NK firing the first shot in a hot war.

[martinuzz]

Detonating a nuke over the Pacific would probably involve a harsh response of more nations than just the US.
There's a reason everyone has agreed to stop doing aboveground tests.

[Antioch]

I wonder what would happen if trump actually ordered an attack. would the military actually listen to such an obviously idiotic order?

Is it idiotic?

Is the better tactic to just let NK develop more nuclear weapons and missiles and just "hope" the problem will go away?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

First striking a nuclear-armed state under the protection of another nuclear-armed state who is also your biggest trading partner is idiotic, yes. Geopolitics is not a simple game. You cannot just kill your problems and hope to live.

[GiglameshDespair]

Geopolitics is not a simple game. You cannot just kill your problems and hope to live.

Sure it is.

[Reelya]

Is the better tactic to just let NK develop more nuclear weapons and missiles and just "hope" the problem will go away?

The main "problem" is that North Korea will have increased bargaining power after having the nukes than before. Anyone who fires nukes at other people knows they will be nuked back instantly, killing their own families and loved ones. The point of having the nukes is exemplified by e.g. Ghandi from Civilization 1 "my words are backed by nuclear weapons!". Firing the nukes ensures your own destruction. It's not the goal.

Also ... North Korea consumes just 17,000 oil barrels a day in comparison to South Korea's 2.4 million barrels a day. And recently, China announced sanctions cutting that by 2/3rds. With so little fuel being consumed then you'd have to estimate that they in fact have a miniscule amount of operational conventional forces. Probably the reason they're going for a nuclear deterrent is because of that fact. A nuclear bomb sitting in a stockpile is a more credible threat and cheaper to maintain than a large conventional armed force. Just having the rockets and the warheads is a deterrent, even if you don't mount the warheads on the rockets. You just have to let people believe that it's possible that you do have some mounted.

[Strife26]

The military is bound by oath to obey the lawfully given orders of the Commander-In-Chief. That said, in extremis there exists both the possibility of the Cabinet declaring the President mentally unfit to govern and the possibility of military figures "falling on their swords", as Strife would put it.

That's exactly how'd I put it, in fact. In extremis, it wouldn't actually have to be the Cabinet declaring a 25th situation. There's basically no existing precedent, so exactly who could hunker down and wait for a 25th opinion is unknown.


Settling down to an unknown number of years of deterrence is certainly an attractive option, but remember that the butcher bill for the failure of deterrence increases with each technological improvement of North Korea.

[Quarque]

We (as in, humans) are not safe as long as one country has nuclear weapons. In the long run, the only way we can survive is step-by-step disarmament of all countries.

Given the huge pile of doomsday weapons that the USA are maintaining, it is more than a little bit hypocritical to point the finger at North Korea and claim that possession of the doomsday weapons is a threat. I mean, it is, but if anyone could lead us by giving the good example, it is the US.

Yes, I know we survived some 60 years under the threat of nuclear war and it did not happen. But sooner or later, it will. Weapons are not a credible threat if you never use them. A cold war is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game), and it is only a matter of time before tensions escalate and neither side wants to yield. That will result in a nuclear war, even no one wants it.

[smjjames]

Disarmament would require ALL of the countries to agree to that and also trust each other not to cheat. Sure, the US and Russia agreed to lower their stockpiles, but that was an agreement between two superpowers who had the vast majority of nukes.

And then there would have to be some sort of agency that can enforce with needle and razor sharp teeth a treaty to prevent countries from building nukes, even in secret.

Not saying that it's impossible, just that we have a long way to go before complete de-nuclearization and keeping it that way. Either that or someone develops a missile defense system that can shoot down ICBMs with 99% accuracy in a wartime scenario which would defuse the MAD from the nukes. Sort of like Iron Dome is for Israel, except for ICBMs.

[Quarque]

Disarmament would require ALL of the countries to agree to that and also trust each other not to cheat. Sure, the US and Russia agreed to lower their stockpiles, but that was an agreement between two superpowers who had the vast majority of nukes.

I know it is hard. I still think it is our only hope. Russia and the US still own the largest stockpiles, by far; arguably they are still the only nations that can literally kill off humanity (although it is hard to tell how bad a nuclear winter would be, exactly).

If those two nations at least continued their efforts to lower their stockpiles, that would be a start. It seems to me that Russia is the more cooperative side at this moment.

[Antioch]

We (as in, humans) are not safe as long as one country has nuclear weapons. In the long run, the only way we can survive is step-by-step disarmament of all countries.

Given the huge pile of doomsday weapons that the USA are maintaining, it is more than a little bit hypocritical to point the finger at North Korea and claim that possession of the doomsday weapons is a threat. I mean, it is, but if anyone could lead us by giving the good example, it is the US.

Yes, I know we survived some 60 years under the threat of nuclear war and it did not happen. But sooner or later, it will. Weapons are not a credible threat if you never use them. A cold war is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game), and it is only a matter of time before tensions escalate and neither side wants to yield. That will result in a nuclear war, even no one wants it.

Total disarmament is a horrible idea. It creates the incentive to develop the weapons in secret and hold the world hostage with them.

Limited proliferation is the only viable option.

[Strife26]

Disarmament would require ALL of the countries to agree to that and also trust each other not to cheat. Sure, the US and Russia agreed to lower their stockpiles, but that was an agreement between two superpowers who had the vast majority of nukes.

I know it is hard. I still think it is our only hope. Russia and the US still own the largest stockpiles, by far; arguably they are still the only nations that can literally kill off humanity (although it is hard to tell how bad a nuclear winter would be, exactly).

If those two nations at least continued their efforts to lower their stockpiles, that would be a start. It seems to me that Russia is the more cooperative side at this moment.

Nah, there's no reason to worry about it. After all, the Kellogg Brian Pact, war is banned as a tool of national policy.

[Culise]

Disarmament would require ALL of the countries to agree to that and also trust each other not to cheat. Sure, the US and Russia agreed to lower their stockpiles, but that was an agreement between two superpowers who had the vast majority of nukes.

I know it is hard. I still think it is our only hope. Russia and the US still own the largest stockpiles, by far; arguably they are still the only nations that can literally kill off humanity (although it is hard to tell how bad a nuclear winter would be, exactly).

If those two nations at least continued their efforts to lower their stockpiles, that would be a start. It seems to me that Russia is the more cooperative side at this moment.

Nah, there's no reason to worry about it. After all, the Kellogg Brian Pact, war is banned as a tool of national policy.

Ah, but that issue's easily solved.  We simply stopped declaring war.  After all, wasn't it Clausewitz who said, "Police actions are merely a continuation of politics by other means"?

[Strife26]

Depends on whose translation you're reading.