no military calculus that gives North Korea a victory

I don’t think there will be an attack by the North until perhaps it begins to collapse, but I think people forget that we live in a world where the irrational has influence and can make things happen.

In fact, there is no real rational reason or series of reasons why the North is as it is. The regime might have elaborate descriptions explaining itself, but it won’t hold.

So, I don’t have as much faith as is generally given to the idea that an attack by the North is pretty much impossible because the North knows it would be suicide. I think that ultimately depends on how desperate the regime feels during a time of increased crisis.

Also, the quote from Perry predicates the use of force on the idea that the ultimate goal used to calculate the decision to attack or not is – victory. That – if the North knows it can’t achieve victory, it will refrain from attacking.

That didn’t hold true for Japan at the start of WWII: They tried to stage a first attack to destroy the Pacific fleet to such an extent it would cripple the US options of military response for a couple of years — during which time, Japan could advance into Southeast Asia and the Pacific and solidify its position to the point it would be too costly for the US to roll them back all the way — and eventually the US would cut a peace deal.

But Japan didn’t destroy the aircraft carriers + it misunderstood the psychological impact on American society the sneak attack would have.

Also, they didn’t know that one of the first things Churchill and Roosevelt would agree to and announce in public was a policy of “unconditional surrender.” If I remember correctly, that was somewhat of an unusual stipulation about warfare at the time: that there would be no “negotiated settlement” short of total surrender….

…So, is there no way NK would ever attack or wage a (limited) engagement against South Korea with no thought of trying to achieve total victory? Or, it might get it into its twisted head that it can strike at the South and US forces on the DMZ with the goal being to gain a negotiated settlement that basically returns to the status quo on the land but with gains in aid to hopefully pay the North off not to stage such limited attacks again?

I’ve also had doubts about whether the two American reporters were taken as part of a plan. I’ve been sitting on the fence there — 50/50%. This 2nd nuke test, however, pushes it up to maybe 75% that it was planned in part to add chips the North could play after it carried out a test.

This actually scared me. Iran is working on the bomb. We have to be patient. North Korea has the bomb, apparently. We have to be patient. For how long? Waiting for what? That Obama will suddenly “enlighten” them with “hope and change”? There are two countries that spit on everything the free world stands for and we have to be patient. For how long? Until mushroom clouds grow in New York, Tel Aviv, Seoul and Tokyo?

Call me a pessimist, but what I expect to happen is more appeasement (plus endless banter in the totally castrated “Security Council” and useless “Obamaism”.) And we wll know how well appeasement worked with this little corporal from Austria who went by the name of Adolf Hitler.

I think North Korea is doing the same as Iran: they’re testing Obama, trying to see how far they can do. And right now it seems they can do whatever they want. With the useless UN watching helplessly (as usual).

….I thought people used to consider that the ultimate red-line that couldn’t be crossed.

But, NK helps speed up the potential development of nukes to one of the biggest threats (Syria) to one of our key allies (Israel) — not to mention it bordering Iraq — and the US and world community hardly yawns…

…the world is making less sense than usual…

I certainly don’t have any hope reasonably effective action will be taken after this 2nd nuke test.