This is just something that has been floating in my mind for a while and I think has been discussed at some length in the mainstream media. Does anyone agree that Kim Jong Il, after suffering a stroke (supposedly anyway, who really knows what goes on in that country anyway, besides starvation and oppressive brainwashing) is simply trying to show power to his own regime by reacting so violently to the recent things said about North Korea in the international community? Any thoughts?
It doesn't take long to realize that MAD does not work, in theory. Assume Russia launches a couple ICBMs at the USA. We are supposed to fire back, but we have no incentive to do so. In the end, we're still doomed. If we fire nukes back, the Russians die too. If we don't, not everything is destroyed and our chance of survival is much greater. Therefor, it would actually be to our advantage to allow the Russians to win.
How does this pertain to the topic at hand? Wait and see.
I am not the first to notice this. Back in the '70s, the KGB pretended to leak information that Stalin was suffering from mental illness and was prone to irrational behavior, i.e. nuking us even if we nuke him first. The Americans had similar 'leaks' in an attempt to restore balance (albeit tenuous) between the two nations, rather than having the one that shoots first win.
I think the same thing is happening with North Korea and Kim's "stroke". They want everyone to be scared of their big, bad nuke.
It doesn't take long to realize that MAD does not work, in theory. Assume Russia launches a couple ICBMs at the USA. We are supposed to fire back, but we have no incentive to do so. In the end, we're still doomed. If we fire nukes back, the Russians die too. If we don't, not everything is destroyed and our chance of survival is much greater. Therefor, it would actually be to our advantage to allow the Russians to win.
MAD does work. If someone fires nukes at you, firstly missile defence systms would easily take down just a few nukes. Secondly it depends what you aim at. Retaliationary strikes on nuclear missile silos would cripple the Russian's ability to fire back. In short MAD does work. It also prevents conventional warfare from occuring on a world wide scale as seen in the early 20th century.
No, his grip on power is still very much firm. I have a book written a few years back by a North Korean boy who escaped. His recollection shows how fanatically people still are to their leader.
Plus, even if he dies, his family still can rule. The way the ministers vote for their next leader North Korea is quite funny actually. They all walk past a counter with a sheet of paper with the names of candidates written. And there has only been one candidate. Kim's son. And what the ministers do is to give a nod as approval, or write down someone's name whom they feel as a better choice. The whole thing takes place in front of the Cabinet,is captured by their cameras and shown in public.
anyway, I think Kim Jong, is trying to retain his power by reacting violently, so it seems like he gives a crap about his country in the people's eyes. Not that it matters because a lot of people still hate him, but you'd think he were doing it for popularity poles back in North korea.
No, his grip on power is still very much firm. I have a book written a few years back by a North Korean boy who escaped. His recollection shows how fanatically people still are to their leader.
I was refering to hwo the rest of the world treat him.
Aside from that, North Korea just seems like a big plot of land owned by one man, with many mindless zombies pledging their loyalty while he spends it on luxury. Apparently, he has every grain of rice he eats inspected.
His grip is still firm, looking from an international viewpoint. His main strength comes from the fact that he posseses nuclear weapons and technology, just that the world doesn't know to what extent.
I don't know that much about North Korea and its history, but in my World History class we've been studying China, and I think it's kind of similar to what you're talking about in North Korea. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, I realized that about 30 seconds after posting...
On MAD: What if country A fires nukes at country B? Country B could easily fire nukes back before A's nukes hit, but why should they? They are still doomed. If country A survives the brief nuclear war, survivors in country B have somewhere to go. If Country B is destroyed (as in MAD) country A is certainly doomed.
MAD only works on normal human beings. Kim Jong-Il is not normal in any way, shape, or form.
That's what I'm getting at, except... completely different. A sane individual would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked in the same manner. A mad one, however, might be inclined to respond with violence, no matter how disadvantageous. This is the reason for pretending mental instability. If America is convinced that the N. Koreans are, in fact, "crazy enough to do it", they would be less inclined to start nuclear hostilities in the first place.
On MAD: What if country A fires nukes at country B? Country B could easily fire nukes back before A's nukes hit, but why should they? They are still doomed. If country A survives the brief nuclear war, survivors in country B have somewhere to go. If Country B is destroyed (as in MAD) country A is certainly doomed.
The point of MAD isn't what would happen if two nations armed with nuclear weapons would do to each other, but to prevent nations with nuclear arms from obliterating nations without nuclear arms. In addition, the people From Country B aren't that merciful. The whole point of MAD is to stop attacks being launched in the first place. Country A, in firing their nukes. should be expected to be fired upon, therefore be deterred from doing so.
