North Korea’s Next Submarine May Make Nuclear Talks Even Harder

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ks-even-harder

im Jong Un has spent much of his time as North Korea’s leader developing bigger and more advanced nuclear weapons. This year, he may try to make them harder to find by putting them under the sea.

Recent North Korean reports touting a new submarine and its test of a ballistic missile designed to be launched from one have fueled speculation that a sub may be the “new strategic weapon” Kim promised to unveil this year. While such a vessel would probably be noisy and unable to stray far from the coast without being tracked, it may be enough to serve Kim’s needs.

[Rufus Shinra]

Why does anyone still believe North Korea is going to renounce its nuclear armament? For one thing, it's a pretty decent stabilizer for the region, since it makes their regime feel safer and thus less prone to idiotic behaviour. Plus, the past few decades have shown that diplomatically renouncing your deterrent is a fast way to a shallow grave, so they don't really have any incentive to do so.


As for a NK SSB, I suppose they'd try their version of a Bastion doctrine, which wouldn't be sufficient to protect that submarine from a determined effort but would make a pretty good tripwire for any attack attempt by the other side: can't start an offensive without killing the submarine first, and that will require some decent setup to do if it's in a well-protected area.

[Onkel Neal]

I never doubted for a minute that NK and Iran would eventually arm themselves with nukes. I've watched 4 presidents say that would never happen and do nothing to prevent it.

[Rufus Shinra]

Not that there is anything more than the JCPOA that could be done. Bombing DPRK would have led to Seoul being leveled with artillery while trying to attack Iran? Well, the US should first try to actually succeed in Afghanistan before trying to attack a much larger country which is a lot more prepared and has a terrain that gives nightmares to every military planner ever. We're coming close to twenty years of continual NATO failure in Afghanistan now, just like the Soviets and the Brits before, so I don't see why anyone would think Iran would go better, particularly considering that their nuclear program is homegrown, therefore cannot be destroyed for good without either genocide or half a century of occupation - and I hope you are not suggesting genocide is a correct option.

So, yeah, diplomacy was actually working decently with Iran until someone decided they wanted to threw the agreement to the garbage bin for childish reasons.

As for DPRK or Iran having nukes? Frankly, I'm not that much bothered considering who else has them - the UNSC P5 being made of the world's foremost coup enablers, terro... sorry, freedom fighters' supporters and outright invasion planners, for example. If they do? Congrats, the rules of the game are simple, and they're called MAD. We don't attack them, they don't attack us, and I can live very well with this ruleset. If anything, nukes make countries more polite to one another, which is something direly needed.

I long for the good old times of Westphalian diplomacy, when the concept of national sovereignty still had meaning rather than 'let's sent little green men to set up a civil war and annex part of the territory' or 'let's coup a democratically elected government because they wanted to nationalize our pals' oil company'.

Hell, if we're pissed that DPRK gets nukes, then let us allow SK to get their own nukes as a reminder that invasion is not an option.

[ikalugin]

ROK has a favourable military balance against DPRK even if we account for DPRK non strategic nuclear options as force multipliers. So in a sense ROK does not need nuclear weapons for warfighting or deterring an invasion.

[Rufus Shinra]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

ROK has a favourable military balance against DPRK even if we account for DPRK non strategic nuclear options as force multipliers. So in a sense ROK does not need nuclear weapons for warfighting or deterring an invasion.

It does not *need* them per se, but having a balance of terror makes relations much more polite and courteous altogether. I doubt many neighbours would protest much if SK acquired nuclear-tipped SRBM in a relatively transparent program (AKA if they allowed Chinese and Japanese inspections of the program to reassure both of them about the missiles' capabilities).

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Rufus Shinra

It does not *need* them per se, but having a balance of terror makes relations much more polite and courteous altogether. I doubt many neighbours would protest much if SK acquired nuclear-tipped SRBM in a relatively transparent program (AKA if they allowed Chinese and Japanese inspections of the program to reassure both of them about the missiles' capabilities).

There is a balance of terror. Nuclear weapons are, well, weapons - you can achieve similar effects through other means.

[Jeff-Groves]

I'd think they'd be better served to do cheap drones that projected a bigger threat.

[Rufus Shinra]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

There is a balance of terror. Nuclear weapons are, well, weapons - you can achieve similar effects through other means.

Not as effectively or cheaply.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Rufus Shinra

Not as effectively or cheaply.

Yet ROK is significantly stronger conventionally for such a balance to exist. And this is not the first time - think of 1940s (and to lesser extend in 1960s) when USSR either didn't have nuclear weapons or was at a significant disadvantage.


Yet through the conventional advantage in Europe the balance has been maintained.