16

North Korea threatens to start a war by working to develop nukes. These nukes, however, are tiny compared to larger nuclear powers. Their largest nuke is 10kT compared to 15,000 kT for the largest US nuke (they could probably beat that now). North Korea is also struggling to develop delivery systems. I understand how powerful an 10kT nuke is (bye bye whole city) but believe that its use would be minimal compared to the retaliation against them.

Why are they expending so much of their few resources to make weapons that, honestly, seem to only put them at risk? Are they gambling on US morality or Chinese intervention? Are they ignorant of our abilities? Are they really just stupid like the media tells me?

kaine
  • 434
  • 3
  • 12
  • 1
    Minimal sounds really bad here. I mean in pursuit of their goals they would see little benefit. One 10kT nuke couldn't win them any nuclear war. – kaine Sep 22 '16 at 17:15
  • 7
    Nobody "wins" a nuclear war. Nuclear war is about minimizing how much you lose. – Philipp Sep 22 '16 at 17:45
  • 1
    If nothing else, nuclear weapons are a good deterrent. You say it puts them at risk, but they may see it as alleviating certain risks. – Geobits Sep 22 '16 at 17:55
  • @Rathony apologies, I am US centric which is why I used the US example. I will edit soon. Doesn't matter though. I want to know "Why is North Korea developing nukes?". At their scale it is not a very effective deterrent is it? – kaine Sep 22 '16 at 18:27
  • Well, if you just say "are they really just stupid like the media tells me?", your question is primarily opinion-based. What media? Can you link the report? – Rathony Sep 22 '16 at 18:32
  • Chinese intervention won't affect the DPRK. Even back in the days the Soviet Union couldn't intervene too much of DPRK's policies, because the Kim family has been carrying out an isolatist foreign affairs strategy. – Dylan Czenski Sep 22 '16 at 19:35
  • Guy's this is simple. Many countries are pushing for North Korea to not develop nukes or get rid of their weapons. They are not only not complying but escalating. This is not skeptics.SE. There is no doubt the media in the US portrays NK as dumb/evil/corrupt; there is no doubt they are developing nukes. I am asking what their political motivation is to do something that they are getting sanctioned for. It is necessary to understand anything about current events in that country. – kaine Sep 22 '16 at 20:11
  • @Philipp Correct. +1. I completely agree with that though am not sure if they understand that. – kaine Sep 22 '16 at 20:19
  • I find it really difficult to understand why you can't understand the reasons NK is trying to develop nukes. You must understand why Israel and Pakistan have nukes? Then, you should understand why NK wants to have them. There are no other reasons than to defend it and get some money. The US is paying roughly 2 billion dollars as an economic aid to Pakistan. Any reason? Because Pakistan has nukes. NK wants to defend it like Israel and receive some money and aids like Pakistan That's all. Of course, they can use it for attack, but it is not very likely. – Rathony Sep 28 '16 at 17:03
  • @Rathony You have been acting inappropriately in multiple questions comments sections. If you have an answer write one. Even if the answer is obvious to you it apparently isn't to me and I want to understand it. Note I am half a world away. Also, I strongly disagree with you on why the US gives foreign aid to Pakistan; we give it to many countries who don't have nukes especially Egypt. Different subject though... if that is your claim write an answer. If you are rude I will downvote it. – kaine Sep 28 '16 at 17:27
  • The reason I can't answer your question is (1) it will take] too long a time for me to find supporting references, (2) even if I find them, my answer will not be different from the one I posted as a comment, (3) you listed potential answers yourself in the last paragraph. I don't think I can answer a question definitively that starts with "why"? I think at least you should cite some references as I commented above or show your prior research so that your question could be narrowed down. Please read the link, https://gowans.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/why-north-korea-needs-nuclear-weapons/. – Rathony Sep 28 '16 at 17:39
  • Let's say I ask this question here, "Why is the US not invading Syria?", "Why does Israel have nuclear weapons?", "Why does Pakistan have nuclear weapons?" "Why did Russia invade part of Ukraine?", "Why did the US leave Iraq?", "Why did US leave Afghanistan?" "Why did China build an artificial island in the disputed South China sea?" I mean, are they really answerable questions? If you had posted a link like I did above (since they are readily available on the internet) and said I don't understand this point specifically, your question would be more easily answerable. That's my opinion. – Rathony Sep 28 '16 at 17:55
  • 1
    Note: Not so tiny anymore – LateralTerminal Apr 06 '18 at 17:35

4 Answers4

19

In order to understand the North Korean policy one needs to understand that their enemy number one is not the United States. Their declared enemy is South Korea.

South Korea is not a nuclear power. But when North Korea is, that gives them quite an edge in the North-South Korean conflict. Yes, the United States have 28,500 soldiers stationed in South Korea, they supported South Korea in the last Korean War (60 years ago) and continuously side with South Korea diplomatically, but it is far from given that the United States would be willing to perform a nuclear strike on behalf of their South-Korean allies if push comes to shove.

The threat of incinerating Seoul (which is dangerously close to the inner-Korean border) is a very real one for South-Korea and it might force them to make concessions they would otherwise not be willing to make.

It is also a threat which is a very effective deterrent against a conventional invasion of North-Korea on behalf of South-Korea. NK is well aware that their existence after the Korean war is just thanks to Chinese intervention and that their chances of winning a conventional war on their own didn't increase much in the past 60 years. Should NK ever fall in disfavor with China, there is nothing which would stop the United States and South Korea from starting the Korean reunification by force. But having the bomb gives NK a second life insurance. It allows them to threaten that should someone put them into a situation where they have nothing to lose anymore, then Seoul and other South-Korean cities will be destroyed too.

Philipp
  • 76,766
  • 22
  • 234
  • 272
  • But isn't China for the denuclearization of North Korea. Doesn't their escalation risk them falling into disfavor with China? And the question is largely motivated by the fact that Japan is being threatened by North Korean nukes. If Japan is nuked I feel it seems almost guaranteed that Western countries would retaliate. (Note: this is a very good answer. I am struggling to put myself in their shoes though so this helps.) http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/asia/japan-north-korea-shinzo-abe/ – kaine Sep 22 '16 at 21:28
  • 8
    @kaine Of course China is against a NK nuclear program. It means that NK is no longer dependent on China to ensure their own safety which means that China loses control over NK. – Philipp Sep 22 '16 at 21:38
  • Wow... I never would have thought of that. And I am sure Japan would express concern over deployment systems reaching their water regardless of whether they were at any risk of being a target. I don't fully understand but this is a self consistent narrative that fits what I know. Thank you. – kaine Sep 22 '16 at 21:44
  • North Korea considers S. Korean government as a puppet under the control of the US government. Therefore, there is no point saying or arguing who is No. 1 enemy of N. Korea. The US B52 which can drop a nuke is stationed in Guam and it flies over K. Peninsular to show N. Korea that the U.S. and S. Korean government are willing to nuke them if they do something very stupid. So, your sentence "it is far from given... if push comes to shove" is not correct. S. Korea announced that they want a peaceful reunification (surrendering of NK), not by force. So, your "Should NK ever..." is not right. – Rathony Sep 28 '16 at 16:38
  • 1
    You should note that NK has far bigger conventional military forces than SK (+ US military). There is a big difference in the numbers of soldiers and reserves. It is wrong to assume that SK and the US will invade NK if NK is deserted by China. SK and the US have nothing to gain from engaging in the military campaign against NK. Also, I seriously doubt China will dump NK because China's arch rival in East Asia is Japan. Which is closer to Japan, a NK port in East Sea or a Chinese port in West Sea (of Korea)? So, why is NK developing nuclear weapons? The answer should be "Read the papers." – Rathony Sep 28 '16 at 16:44
16

  • The underlying ideology of North-Korea is Juche. It's North-Korea's own special flavour of communism which - among other things - heavily focuses on self-reliance.

  • North-Korea and South-Korea have remained enemies after the Korean War; and South-Korea was (and still is) heavily sponsored by the United States, and North-Korea feels threatened.

  • There was a reasonably constructive dialogue happening in the 90s, right up until George W. Bush stopped the talks, declared North-Korea to be a "rogue state" and part of the "axis of evils", and proceeded to invade Iraq under highly dubious pretext (which was later proven to be exactly that), which scared the bejesus out of North-Korea as they felt that they could be next.

Once you understand this things, having nuclear weapons makes perfect sense, from North-Korea's perspective it's very important for North Korea's self-reliant defence.

You're right that they can't pull off the "mutually assured destruction"-trick, but they don't really need to. The ability to nuke millions of people in South-Korea, Japan, and possibly even the United States in the future is scary enough.

And make no mistake, North-Korea's Nuclear program is effective. They've got enough nukes to protect their country, which is really all they want.

7

To cite North Koreans themselves:

The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programmes of their own accord. <...> Both had made the mistake of yielding to Western pressure led by a United States bent on regime change.

With US going on rampage around the world and leaving cesspools and terrorist-breeding grounds (just this week we had suicide bomber in Manchester, self-described in past as "fighter against Gaddafi" and later "against Assad") in place of orderly and even relatively prosperous countries you can't really blame NK for wanting to have a proper deterrent against same fate.

Oleg V. Volkov
  • 354
  • 2
  • 10
2

Because nuclear weapons are the only way that a country the size of North Korea can reliably deter an overwhelmingly larger and more powerful nation like the United States from attacking it.

klojj
  • 2,709
  • 11
  • 17