Matthew on 9/10/2006 at 21:17
Quote Posted by Paz
I was trying to think of any wacky dictators in history who, when cornered or faced with imminent defeat, have actually RELEASED THE FUCKING FURY. I've not managed to come up with any. So that's quite encouraging, probably.
Apart from the two obvious WW2 culprits, you mean? ;) Or are you specifically referring to the glow-in-the-dark bombs?
Paz on 9/10/2006 at 21:37
No, I was including WW2 antics.
When everything went tits up, Mussolini tried to flee to Switzerland and Hitler shot himself in a bunker. Neither of them had developed "bwuhaha, my final revenge!" masterplans involving the complete detonation of their own cities or masses of poisoned gas, or anything. It's all about self-preservation. And if self-preservation isn't an option, the next plan seems to be "avoid being held to account". Suicide time.
I don't know if that's unique to dictators or whether we'd all act the same way, given similar circumstances. PSYCHOLOGY, EH?
Joseph Stalin is probably the most paranoid motherfucker in history and even he managed not to use any nuclear weapons (I realise he wasn't "defeated" as such, but he probably felt under some kind of outside threat every damn day).
This is all a bit speculation-schmeculation though. And generalised to death, obviously. None of it necessarily relates to North Korea either. Just joining the rest of the online community in putting forth my halfbaked ideas.
Just to be clear about the BBC thing, since those hilarious Afghan mountain hideaways have appeared - I didn't think the BBC were making stuff up out of thin air (nor did they claim their version of events was anything but advanced guesswork), it was just a funny graphic.
SD on 10/10/2006 at 00:11
Quote Posted by Paz
Posing around on the world stage and saying "LOOK OUT DUDES!", however, seems to be a fantastic way to make sure you stay in power.
You're right; thinking on it, it's actually a superb piece of brinksmanship from the North Korean government.
As I understand it, NK has made it clear that it wants security guarantees and economic engagement in return for which it would freeze its nuclear programme and dismantle its missiles. Clinton was negotiating this, but Bush has abandoned this line, and has made it quite clear he wants to see the North Korean government overthrown.
In which case, if you're the North Korean government, getting nukes is
exactly the right thing to do. The case of Iraq shows that if you can't get security guarantees from a country as bellicose as the United States, you need to preserve your existence through other means.
Let's not forget that the US flattened North Korea between 1950 and 1953, killing 3 million people in what was basically genocide (admittedly, if your only frame of reference for the Korean War is Alan Alda flouncing around in khaki acting all moral and concerned, this is going to be news to you). I don't blame NK for wanting to avoid a repeat.
Agent Monkeysee on 10/10/2006 at 00:21
Quote Posted by Paz
Are they likely to do this though, really?
No. But to claim they have no means of delivery is erroneous.
Pyrian on 10/10/2006 at 00:34
My understanding is they didn't exactly bargain in good faith with Clinton, either. It's hard to know for sure if they can package a device small enough to use in one of their missiles, but it's probably only a matter of time. Heck, they might even get their ICBM's working eventually - I have more faith in that program than in our own ABM's (which rarely work even with the target literally emitting a homing beacon, for chrissakes).
So, as a casual wargamer, here's my guess: They'll use this to try and get tribute (and face it, that's what it is) to keep their people from getting desperate enough to kill them. Bush seems unlikely to concede in that regard (conceding anything is not really his style). However, with an umbrella of nuclear retaliation and the U.S. quagmired in Iraq, NK might very well take an opportunity to invade South Korea. (It's what I'd do. ;) ) Everyone will condemn them roundly, but will anybody nuke them to prevent it, knowing they can nuke back? I doubt it.
paloalto on 10/10/2006 at 00:41
By the time North Korea gets an adequate delivery system,high powerd lasers on converted 747s will knock them down.Technology your friend and foe.
(
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/jan98/story13.htm)
(
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/abl_usa.html)
Putting them on 747s has several advantages over satellites.Recharging time for one since a satellite would obviously have less space to store energy.
The 747 can cruise at 40,000 ft and wait for the missile to reach a height where there is less atmosphere that would disperse the laser.
SD on 10/10/2006 at 00:42
@ Pyrian: I hardly think NK is in a position to invade SK, even if it wanted to. Every signal from their side has suggested that they want to resolve their differences with the world community through negotiations, and test-firing a nuclear missile is nothing more than sabre-rattling on their part.
@ paloalto: Lasers on 747s? Well I guess it's no crazier than the SDI...
Shug on 10/10/2006 at 01:46
747s with fricken laser beams
Pyrian on 10/10/2006 at 02:04
Quote Posted by paloalto
By the time North Korea gets an adequate delivery system,high powerd lasers on converted 747s will knock them down.
I repeat: I have more confidence in NK's ability to eventually replicate a long-proven technology which they're clearly well along in producing than in the U.S.'s ability to finally create it's long-fabled ABM system. Your links are amusing, though - apparently after spending 10 billion dollars someone finally realized that aircraft vibrate. Morons.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
@ Pyrian: I hardly think NK is in a position to invade SK, even if it wanted to.
Don't be ridiculous. NK has a huge military concentrated almost solely on that border. They've been positioning themselves for decades.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Every signal from their side has suggested that they want to resolve their differences with the world community through negotiations...
Well, duh. They're not so powerful that they're going to announce it ahead of time, nor influential enough to ask for support from other countries, nor honest enough to be straightforward about such a step.
