We have no idea how North Korea will utilize the nuclear developments, but one thing we know for sure is that they are walking the path of self-destruction. Did the Soviet Union collapse because they had less nukes than the US? No. The Soviet Union was a superpower that sent satellites into space before the US. Although I cannot say why the Soviet Union collapsed, I can say that the nuclear weapons are not the answer to all problems. The nuclear weapons may seem to protect North Korea, but it will be the cause of its demise. So far, North Korea has received foreign aid by threatening to develop nuclear weapons, but now, the tide has changed. The international community will no longer tolerate North Korea.

Let me guess..you're South Korean??

Both China and South Korea have a strong incentive to avoid North Korea's self-destructing. South Korea has a population of about 50 million and per capita GDP of USD32,000. North Korea has a population of 25 million and per capita GDP of USD1,800 (although both the latter figures are pretty rubbery).

South Korea watched the problems that occurred during unification of Germany, where the financial disparity between the two parts was far, far less. Imagine the chaos if fortifications guarding the 38th parallel suddenly vanished, and the two political and economic societies suddenly became one.

China, with per capita GDP of USD9,000 does not want 24 milliion starving North Koreans let loose in its country either, and has an additional concern about unification: that this could bring US military installations right next to its eastern border.

The recent nuclear device that the North Koreans tested was estimated to be around 6-7 kilotons TNT equivalent (the Hiroshima device was around 15 kt). Even if Kim & his merry men managed to pack such a device into a rocket that could reach the US (a big "if") and were able to guide it to a high value destination such as Beverley Hills (an enormous "if"), its impact would not be an existential threat to the US. Such a feat would be followed extremely swiftly by the vapourising of Pyong Yang and sundry other North Korean spots.

It would be a spectacular way of committing suicide, but little else.

So the logical thing is to keep North Korea cooped up until eventually some future leader adopts the Burmese solution - even if it's for generations.

Who cares if the DPRK has nuclear weapons? If anything it practically guarantees the Korean peninsula is going to be a relatively peaceful place.

See, the upside to having nuclear weapons is your enemies effectively cannot invade your country because you might destroy their armies in the process. The downside is that the only real military option for dealing with a nuclear armed nation is the complete and total destruction of that country via nuclear weapons. This is the central premise of nuclear deterrent, the strategic paralysis that comes from knowing first hand that all that is your civilization can be obliterated in less than a day.

Kim Jong Jr is a pudgy rat bastard of a dictator, but the fat prick is sane enough to understand that being emperor of an irradiated crater is no fun at all.

Peter Freedman wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:24pm:



Thank you for sharing the violence and contempt for human life that sits beneath the surface of a supposed 'egalitarian.'