Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.
Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.
However, so far the Japanese have not forgotten than nationalist government is what led them into WW2, and how that turned out for them.
The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.
Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.
However, so far the Japanese have not forgotten than nationalist government is what led them into WW2, and how that turned out for them.
The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.
In know this is sorta off-topic, but I find this interesting.
IN this connected age, I'm not convinced that Japan would revert to that nationalistic-fevor in WW2. They're not that isolated island nation anymore...
Kilkrazy wrote: The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.
Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.
However, so far the Japanese have not forgotten than nationalist government is what led them into WW2, and how that turned out for them.
The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.
In know this is sorta off-topic, but I find this interesting.
IN this connected age, I'm not convinced that Japan would revert to that nationalistic-fevor in WW2. They're not that isolated island nation anymore...
Right?
Never underestimate nationalistic fervor during time of crisis. Murica's never been an island nation, and haven't been isolate in over century, but the nationalistic fervor went through the roof after some idiiots flew some planes into a few buildings.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Japan may be not one to engage in a offensive conflict.
But if Kim starts chucking his toys over Japan and its people.
They will probbly increase calls for Japan to stand firm and protect its people.
The Duty of there leadership is to ensure Japans safety, it might not be popular on all fronts but ensuring your home defense and that of your citizens is not one you can ignore.
If i was in charge of AA defense in any of those countries id be making sure mt Patriot batteries, and other defensive missiles and radar where armed and at full readiness.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
IN this connected age, I'm not convinced that Japan would revert to that nationalistic-fevor in WW2. They're not that isolated island nation anymore...
Then consider the increase in nationalists, extremists and neo-nazis in Europe and North America.
Sadly, even in this connected age, a lot of people are quick to forget (or disregard) their history and the many lessons we should've learned by now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/10 23:33:13
Ketara wrote: If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.
So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.
And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....
Well, One, they're talking NUCLEAR missiles.
You may enjoy an increase in Radioactivity in England from vaporized bits of North Korea raining down.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
You may enjoy an increase in Radioactivity in England from vaporized bits of North Korea raining down.
You do know where NK is right?
the fall out from any nuclear strikes on NK or japan will head straight to the US. Just like when japans reactor blew up, the fallout headed through Alaska then down the west coast. I put in japan because that's a far easier target with a lot more US military in range of NK's missiles. Guam is a laughable target, smaller, and a greater distance than say Okinawa or Yokosuka. Plus I doubt most americans know guam is our territory so the emotional effect would be negligible. Kim probably just said guam to throw off trump who's busy trying to find guam on the map to try and defend it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/11 03:30:21
Grey Templar wrote: While I agree he personally has zero actual plans, in this instance that is probably not a problem. Given that we are actually still at war with North Korea, I'm sure the Pentagon has lots of plans on standby if and when the war gets resumed. Plans which have been constantly refined and updated since 1953.
Unlike Iraq which was probably largely a scratch built plan, there is almost certainly an existing playbook on North Korea. So for once all Trump would have to do is say "Go get em!".
Yes, as I said in my post there will be existing military plans, but I then went on to say that there is a lot more to it than the particulars of the military operation.
"There are a lot plans for open war against NK among the general staff of the US military. But those are military plans only and they still need prepping in order to ensure all necessary elements are in region at the same time. Beyond that it is up to the administration to secure a lot of political elements, securing Japanese and SK airfields for operations, calming China about the operation (which would likely need strong NATO efforts), securing domestic support for the subsequent peacekeeping operation, those things need months of planning and work to make sure they're done well.
None of that has even been discussed, let alone started to be planned for."
Having a plan approved by the Joint Chiefs is good, but it's a first step. A well planned operation needs a whole lot more lined up, and there's no indication that any of that is even realised by Trump, let alone enacted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemonhost Cherubael wrote: If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:
Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?
The stories of true belief are wildly misunderstood. There's a cult of personality, yes, but its far from absolute nor is it unwavering. And note how much of the belief in dear leader is about him being strong, and keeping the people safe and secure. NK leadership being wiped in hours would show that as being mostly bs.
Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?
It isn't negligent to give peace a chance. The Soviet Union was a murderous totalitarian state. South Africa was a racist apartheid state, and now its been so long that people have completely forgotten they had nukes. Both countries came through with peaceful conclusions. Both have had plenty of struggles since ending their awful regimes, but they show there is history for abhorrent regimes with nukes ending without carnage.
On the other hand, there is no history for pre-emptively attacking a nuclear power just to stop them getting more nukes. Doing that without an absolute, immediate need would be the negligent course of action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.
Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.
Just to clarify, the constitutional reform is opposed because they don't want aggressive warfare, but at the same time it is a mistake to assume Abe and his allies are pushing for reform in order to undertake aggressive warfare. They recognise that modern military operations, undertaken for domestic and international stability, often involve deploying forces to places when you haven't been personally attacked. Such operations are constitutionally problematic in Japan right now.
The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.
David Matsumoto's New Japan does a really good job of breaking apart the myth of Japan's as a deeply conformist society. He points to a range of studies that show people in the US being far more willing to follow the herd than in Japan in many areas.
I'm not saying Japan is less confomist, just that the issue is complicated, in part because of massive generational shifts in Japan, and because the very idea of conformity is extremely subjective. In Japan, very loosely speaking, it is more common to have an opinion but keep it yourself, while in the US it is more common to commit to saying what's on your mind, but look for cues as to what you should think.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/11 04:53:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?
Easy. But how do you stop them opening fire and wiping Seoul off the face of the planet?
A show of strength isn't the problem, stopping the MAD attack is.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?
North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?
North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.
Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?
North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.
Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.
Yeah but kims capacity to strike US and other nations is growing. Every day goes by he advances his missile and Nuclear programs.
His threats are slowly starting to be able to be carried out.
People are taking him more seriously now in that regard.
Before he had to hope to hit US. Now he can reach Alaska.
The next model he launch's might reach further. And further.
Every day they slowly creep to being more able to deploy a laong range nuclear strike.
Hmm..
China has said. Interesting articles.
If NK launches at Gaum, Us or SK first they will remain neutral.
There not protecting Kim from stupidity.
Theey will defend if attacked , ie not retaliation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/11 11:32:15
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but when NK specified firing missiles around Guam, the word 'nuclear' wasn't mentioned in any way by the NK command? Every report I've seen has just has the word 'missiles', with no nuclear prefix.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vraptor98 wrote: How about a healthy dose of colonisation? I'm just saying they'd be better off under foreign rule anyway.
...............I'm not touching that with a ten foot barge pole. I'd recommend no-one else does either.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/11 11:41:40
Yeah but kims capacity to strike US and other nations is growing. Every day goes by he advances his missile and Nuclear programs.
His threats are slowly starting to be able to be carried out.
North Korea is developing nuclear weaponry as a rational response to threats and pressure from the US. "We must invade this country because it keeps arming itself to defend against our plans for invasion" is really fething dumb.
I have to admit that I find Trump's megaphone diplomacy to be fascinating in a sort of watching a car crash in slow motion, kinda way.
What annoys me the most is that Guam was a possible tourist/retirement destination of mine. If it's an irradiated wasteland, then my retirement plans are up in smoke! Damn those North Koreans !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.
Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.
Yeah, good point. Totalitarian regimes tend to die very quickly when they collapse. I've witnessed a few go down the pan in my time: USSR, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia etc etc
Gordon Shumway wrote: So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?
North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.
The North Koreans are about to discover a universal truth: nuclear weapons are the most useless thing mankind ever invented.
If North Korea strikes first, it gets wiped out. If they keep them for defence, then nobody was going to invade them anyway.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/11 12:01:10
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Gordon Shumway wrote: So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?
North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.
Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.
North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/11 12:54:18
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.
Actually, it was Japan we bombed with atomic weapons, not NK.
But aside from that, NK has done a lot more and I agree with the rest of what you said.
Yeah I have seen some of Rosebuddy's posts, and was going to rip his logic into two, but I have zero faith the mods will see he's the one antagonizing and not give me the warning.
Frazzled wrote: North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.
None of those things happened outside of the context of the Korean war and US intervention in the region.
Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR. Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.
Then consider the increase in nationalists, extremists and neo-nazis in Europe and North America.
Sadly, even in this connected age, a lot of people are quick to forget (or disregard) their history and the many lessons we should've learned by now.
So according to you, good patriots who love the country they live in, nationalists, are the same as neo nazis ? Nazis who killed millions ?
I don't remember having killed anyone, maybe who can remind me how I'm a nazi extremist ?
Pacifists have always been the ones unintentionally promoting wars, as tyrants are eager to expand, invade and to kill if they know that noone is coming to stop them.
Vraptor98 wrote: How about a healthy dose of colonisation? I'm just saying they'd be better off under foreign rule anyway.
I have to agree. Every country under american domination / influence is doing better than before.
Look at your allies: South Korea and Japan.
Your ennemies: North Korea and communist china.
Two beautiful modern countries for the former, and two backwards countries with dictatorship for the later.
Some may disagree, and I know everything isn't fair or nice in our world, but where the USA and the free world stand, it is better.
There are lots of Neville Chamberlain here.
Haven't you read how WW2 started ? Because european were afraid of war, and so let the Reich develop its armies.
It is all the same here.
We tried diplomatics solutions for decades, and now they are more powerful than ever. It was the good thing to do, to wait until they eventually change, until a new leader arise and decide that Nk has to stop being crazy. But it failed. The new, leader is as crazy as the others before him.
What are you waiting for, that they nuke the whole world ?
War is never good, however, sometimes it is necessary, because some people can only be dealt with war.
So let fix NK once and for all.
Tens of millions already suffered from this dictatorship, do not let tens of millions more suffer, year after year.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/11 13:54:58
Japan is collapsing under its demographic shift because all the young people are too miserable to have children and China is set to rival and overtake the US as world economic power.
"Fixing" North Korea, IE turning it into a Western slave state, would mean a massive land invasion killing who knows how many North Koreans as well as risking the deaths of millions of South Koreans. China likely wouldn't be very happy about the massive influx of refugees and neither China nor Russia would be able to distinguish where exactly nukes are landing if that where to happen so have fun guessing what would happen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/11 14:03:25
Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR. Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.
No, the use of atomic weapons was to bring the war to a quicker end and spare the lives in the US forces. Displaying that power to the USSR was a side benefit.
But while you are at it, bring up the bombing of Tokyo, which without the use of atomic weapons, killed far more people and cause far greater devastation. Oh, I see that doesn't fit into your argument.
Its easy to play hindsight 20-20 but given the tenacity the Japanese fought as the US drove closer to their homelands, their conduct all over Asia during the war, and the preparations they were making with their civilian population, if I was presented with the choice of using those weapons, or telling American mothers and fathers that I could have spared their sons lives from an invasion of the Japanese islands AND DIDN'T, I would choose the atomic weapons every time.
Its amazing how quick we are to slam Truman's decision (I am 100% sure Roosevelt would have done the same), when the US (1) didn't start the war and (2) bullets and bombs killed far more civilians yet that rarely seems to be brought up.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/11 14:09:32
Japan was starved for resources with the blockade and with nearly all its major cities being 50-90% burned to the ground. The atomic bombs were used after Imperial Japan had already offered to surrender. The idea that every last of them would fight to the death is a myth.
Had offered to surrender conditionally, which wouldn't have done what the USA wanted in showing them that they were crushed, defeated, etc. No one was taking conditional surrenders after the failure of the treaty of Versailles.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR. Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.
No, the use of atomic weapons was to bring the war to a quicker end and spare the lives in the US forces. Displaying that power to the USSR was a side benefit.
Hrm, Japan was already willing to talk and ready to end the war by that point, and was incapable of meaningful resistance on a nationally organized level (for example, the entirety of Japanese fuel reserves by the end was less than a single US carrier battle group's monthly usage). The use of Nuclear weapons was there to end the war in exactly the way the US administration wanted it ended (including sending a message to the USSR), which is not necessarily the same thing as wanting to bring an end to the war quicker and to spare lives, though the totality of events of august 1945 could be argued to certainly have done so.
What probably had a far more real practical effect on ending the war than any bombing was the fact that the USSR was Japan's hoped-for intermediary for US peace talks (that Japan had been attempting to work with for months while the USSR strung them along until they could shift forces from Europe) and they declared war in between the two bombs and obliterated the one major good military force Japan had left (the Kwangtung army in Manchuria) in an embarrassingly short time period. This cut off their one hope of a negotiated peace, destroyed their last military reserves in a manner that showed they were incapable of fighting modern mechanized war, and destroyed the bulk of the remained of their colonial empire and resource base, which resulted in making immediate surrender to the US the most positive outcome.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Rosebuddy wrote: Japan was starved for resources with the blockade and with nearly all its major cities being 50-90% burned to the ground. The atomic bombs were used after Imperial Japan had already offered to surrender. The idea that every last of them would fight to the death is a myth.
No, the idea that they wouldn't have is a myth.
Have you read any books on WWII? Are you familiar at all with what Japan did in China, the Philippines, Burma, and so on? How they treated POWs and civilians across all parts of Asia? And you want to talk about what happened to their people? Give me a break. Japan got what it asked for. The condition for surrendering was the same as it was for Germany: unconditional. It wanted to debate. Wasn't going to happen.
Obviously Germany was starving for resources when the Soviet Union and Western Allies lined up on its boarders. That didn't stop the amount of destruction that followed. More people died in the Battle of Berlin than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Would you have preferred to see the US do the same to Tokyo? To fit your argument, you actually think that would be the better option, which its not. The deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima spared lives in the the rest of Japan, because had they not happened, a lot more death would have followed.
Easy E wrote: Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?
MAD only works when leaders have some leeway to back down, to de-escalate. If a US president backs down, or even a Russian or Pakistani president, they don't get killed. They'll lose face, lose political power, and get booted from office. Then they retire to the quiet life. They may not like being away from the center of power but it's preferable to starting a nuclear war that will end up get themselves killed, along with their loved ones and hundreds of millions of other people.
That isn't true for Kim. If he loses his appearance of strength, they don't just boot him from office, they kill him. And they'll kill or imprison his family, including his infant daughter. It is 'win or die' for Kim. So he simply cannot back down, show weakness.
It is interesting to look back at Kruschev, his back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis led pretty directly to his removal from power. But it wasn't a lethal or even an overtly military process. Breznhev took pains to ensure there was no appearance of a coup, and Kruschev himself offered little resistance. He was allowed to give a pretend retirement speach, then given a pension and his old house. Quite civil really (although USSR being what it was he was moved in to a smaller home and given a reduced pension in latter years). What's interesting is that it had been barely more than a decade since Stalin had passed, when, like North Korea today, where falling out of favour with power was a death sentence - a backdown like Kruschev's would have been much more difficult.
MAD only became genuine once Russia transitioned to a fairly normal kind of authoritarian state, is what I'm saying. Even then it requires leaders who are willing to face the political costs of de-escalation, rather than hope the politicians on the other side blink first.
Interesting you talk about Kruschev. I was wondering why NK was so different from the USSR, but then you backed it up with a well-reasoned argument. Kudos.
How about this question for the group if MAD is not in effect fully.
"Why has Containment suddenly stopped being a viable strategy towards NK?"
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
! 
