America & North Korea - Page 31 - Politics and Economics

It doesn't matter because it would still be enough destruction to effectively be a MAD scenario. Like what, do you think any US administration would consider the destruction of 'only' eight nor nine cities and their outlying areas a victory? You'd be talking about long-term losses approaching a third of the US population and potentially even more once the full effects of fallout are considered. Even a single nuke striking a US city would be unacceptable.

The US could first strike effectively enough that NK can't fire nukes. That's winning and not MAD. Because the US winning is a threat, NK has to strike first when there's a probability of a US first strike. Not because they are crazy but because it's the rational play.

08-10-2017 , 10:35 AM

#753

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Just to clear up my last post: The Kim payoff here is to stay in power. Massive early strikes that guarantee North Korea's annihilation via retaliation cannot be described as the rational dominant strategy.

08-10-2017 , 10:37 AM

#754

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

But why? Why is this the strategy that outperforms all others? Seems specious. The sentences seem to contradict each other. I understand the point and I am not a game theory expert but this sounds wrong to call this the dominant strategy.

I agree fwiw MAD doesn't apply.

You make a good point. Let's look at the payouts from the NK point of view:

US first strike -> NK crushed, US not damaged
NK first strike -> US harmed, NK crushed
nobody shoots -> NK not crushed, US not damaged

NK first strike outperforms US first strike. If you give them different negative weights and assign 0 to nobody shoots you can solve for the probability of US first strike where NK is indifferent to shooting. Above that probability of US first strike, NK first strike is the winning move.

08-10-2017 , 10:42 AM

#755

campfirewest

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,962

Seems like If Kim's small nuclear arsenal is inviting attack and he can't do MAD, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of the arsenal? He doesn't have to worry about convential attack because he can just shell Seoul.

08-10-2017 , 10:44 AM

#756

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Right. I think we agree then. Let's look at the payouts from the NK point of view:

US first strike -> NK crushed, US not damaged
NK first strike -> US harmed, NK crushed
nobody shoots -> NK not crushed, US not damaged

The bolded is key. Kim's ultimate payoff is to not be crushed AND stay in power. I think the game theory calculation here is how many threats (e.g., Trump tweets) and salami tactics (e.g., sanctions that punish NK but don't necessarily trigger an NK first strike) can the NK regime absorb before Kim calculates that NK first strike is > nobody shoots.

I think that's the Trump miscalculation, which is what the article you cited pointed out. Every Trump threat, etc. is presumably pushing Kim to a place where he cannot survive "nobody shoots" outcomes. Someone else pointed it out, but the way out of this is to give Kim an ability not to shoot AND to save face so that he gets his payoff from nobody shoots scenarios.

08-10-2017 , 10:59 AM

#757

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy

As for those NK citizens, there's not a lot the rest of the world can do. Sovereignty is a barrier.

Except insofar as NK's regime is not a legitimate sovereign.

Action is not the problem. Unilateral action is.

08-10-2017 , 11:05 AM

#758

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

Kim has no victory on this Earth.

How convinced he is of his own mysticism is another question.

Game theory assumes rational action, and as I'm so fond of saying elsewhere - rationality is goal-dependent.

If Kim has a different win-con, he is playing a different game.

08-10-2017 , 11:09 AM

#759

Wooders0n

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 24,820

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachii

I don't like Trump either but I do think the guy is easy to underestimate. I think the guy really has something that's hard to describe but very real. I don't know if you call it instinct, animal cunning, whatever, but he has it. Combine that with balls, very capable generals, and the best military in the world and it's a strong combination. He may not be particularly smart in the classical sense or understand the nuances of something like the healthcare system, but I think something like the NK situation is a lot more suited to his talents.

Rofl

08-10-2017 , 11:12 AM

#760

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

I'm sure there are Euro's itt

what are your leaders saying? is there any plan other than to quiver beneath the orange shadow?

08-10-2017 , 11:26 AM

#761

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooders0n

Rofl

He missed a few other intangible Trump achievements, like consumer confidence and good feels have been killing it lately.

08-10-2017 , 11:31 AM

#762

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeImBetter

I'd like to see the evidence that he's a maniac. I mean that as an honest request, not sarcasm.

Think determining how rational he is would be an extremely useful consideration when weighing response options. If he's rational and reasonable then what NK is saying / doing could be considered sound from a game theory perspective; need to appear fully capable and willing to use the weapons you're developing for deterrence to work, right?

The man has watched what happened to Hussein and Qadaffi WRT US led military interventions when WMDs were suspected, one might argue Kim's insistence on being willing & trigger happy with his nukes is sound strategy.

KJU? Of course he's a maniac. He might be using sound reasoning for survival instinct, but his threats/rhetoric/propaganda, treatment of citizens, allocation of government funds, etc. are all out of whack.

08-10-2017 , 11:33 AM

#763

grizy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,611

Kim spent enough time in Europe to know his payoff is zero if he shoots a nuclear weapon.

If Kim had a way to engage with the West and stay in power, he'd do it. My guess is he sees nuclear arsenal as that way (see Pakistan.)

08-10-2017 , 11:36 AM

#764

cuserounder

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8,218

It seems like North Korea thinks there is potentially a fourth play, which is a strike (perhaps conventional, perhaps nuclear) on a military target in a US territory, in this case Guam. Is there some path to North Korea not crushed and Kim Jong Un staying in power through that play?

It seems like it only serves to provoke the US into all-out war, further strengthen global resolve against Pyongyang, further entice China to be against KJU, and thus lead to bad outcomes for KJU.

Unless he believes that destroying the US military bases on Guam can be so detrimental to the US ability to launch a first-strike attack that it takes it off the table, in which case the US may come up with some proportional retaliation and then stop to see what happens... at which point if North Korea "blinks," he has created a world in which he is no longer at risk of a first strike but is not under all-out assault.

Is there any one base so critical to a US first strike? If so, is it in Guam? It seems unlikely that the ability of the US to carry out a large-scale attack on North Korea to wipe out it's nuclear capabilities would be so reliant on one base, given the massive scale of such an operation.

Also, this would have to be a base with capabilities that our allies couldn't give us through access to one of their bases. Japan has no military, so what we have there is what we have. We already cooperate so fully with South Korea I doubt that would fit. Duterte was blustering about kicking us out of the Philippines, so that seems unlikely... So perhaps our options to replace the capabilities lost from the base in Guam would be limited.

08-10-2017 , 11:36 AM

#765

MicroPimpin

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 590

I think Trump and Kim are just playing to their base. 2 patriotic giants among men. Doing what's right for their country.

08-10-2017 , 11:39 AM

#766

ANONN123

Guest

Posts: n/a

There is no one base critical to a US first strike, and he would have to be pretty poorly informed to believe that
With SSBNs we don't even need a base

08-10-2017 , 11:40 AM

#767

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy

Focusing on what NK should do is a loser mentality. The US has control of what the US does. That is the decision to identify.

The best move for the US is to let NK 'win'. If the US takes some action that backs down then NK can reasonably declare victory. When you win the crisis ends.

NK almost never acts outside of NK so there isn't a huge downside to appeasement. The upside is it results in far less death than all other paths.

In fact appeasement is a great long term strategy. Stop doing military exercises in the area. Gradually bring home the 35000 soldiers stationed in South Korea. Have politicians stop talking about North Korea. It should be mentioned as often as Uzbekistan - a country with more people and a terrible government we know nothing about. Each of these steps will be great wins for NK. They'll celebrate loudly. What they won't do is launch nukes because nukes are launched when a country losing, cornered, and out of options; nukes don't get launched when a country is winning.

What can NK do if the US leaves the area? They can't beat SK in a war. The artillery points both ways. SK has a huge army and economic superiority. NK attacking China is impossible. NK is a threat to its own citizens, not to its neighbors. NK is only a threat to the rest of the world if attacked. We escalate attacks for over 60 years. Brilliant. The Korean war will be eligible for Social Security soon (it never officially ended). As for those NK citizens, there's not a lot the rest of the world can do. Sovereignty is a barrier.

Appeasement is a winning strategy. It's also one the US will not consider. The best model for predicting US foreign policy is 'face based'. NK (and China) embarrassed the US at Chosin Reservoir and we will hold that grudge forever. See also: Cuba (bay of pigs), Iran (hostages). Embarrass the US and you go on the list. Don't and your country can do anything without interference.

Good luck teaching Trump how to sandbag or how to lose modestly.

He only knows one style: cheat as much as possible to win the game, humiliatingly bury the opponent you just cheated, then dance & toss cigarette butts onto their grave.

08-10-2017 , 11:52 AM

#768

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicroPimpin

I think Trump and Kim are just playing to their base. 2 patriotic giants among men. Doing what's right for their country.

Trump could be playing to the base, but KJU? Doubtful. Unless his base is made up of military officials and citizens who haven't starved to death yet.

08-10-2017 , 12:00 PM

#769

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 57,028

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachii

What do balls have to do with it? Sending other people to kill and die doesn't require bravery.

08-10-2017 , 12:07 PM

#770

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klingbard

lol america

Look at this Radical Cleric calling for Holy War

08-10-2017 , 12:12 PM

#771

MicroPimpin

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 590

Quote:

Originally Posted by Our House

Trump could be playing to the base, but KJU? Doubtful. Unless his base is made up of military officials and citizens who haven't starved to death yet.

Keep them scared. He's protecting them. helps the grass go down.

08-10-2017 , 01:07 PM

#772

raradevils

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by Namath12

Look at this Radical Cleric calling for Holy War

That's disgusting

08-10-2017 , 01:38 PM

#773

cuserounder

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8,218

Quote:

Originally Posted by bware

There is no one base critical to a US first strike, and he would have to be pretty poorly informed to believe that
With SSBNs we don't even need a base

Right, but I'm not just talking about launching the missiles, I'm talking about wiping out his ability to retaliate, minimizing his ability to hit Seoul, and securing any nuclear materials that are unguarded. I have to imagine that the type of all-out attack that would stand any chance (low as it may be) of preventing retaliation on Seoul would require several bases in the region.