With Lil' Kim in the jolly old DPRK about set it seems to light off another test nuke, it's time again to ask: are we really just gonna continue on with the obviously failing diplomacy game until these wackos perfect the most lethal of technologies? What if the yield of this bomb is significantly greater than the last? What if it becomes clear that they are getting close to miniaturizing a warhead that'll fit on a ballistic missile? Are we really just gonna continue to let them test missile technology until they've got one that could reach the US? Since a missile test is sure to follow a bomb test, is it really so crazy to think about shooting the thing down - I mean, if we don't let them test it, how can they perfect it? Can we not get China to sign off on something like that, to even join in since the fear of taking out one of NK's missiles would be them going all bat shit crazy against Seoul? Is there really no way for us to pressure China into doing something constructive here since they're the ones essentially enabling this madness? I mean, if something truly awful happens they can't want to look like the enabler - or are they stuck between a fear of a destabilized NK and what that might mean and the political disaster of a seemingly unlikely but still possible reunification with the south? [or is it possible China figures NK with a viable nuke is a 'containable' least bad outcome here for them? There are some experts even speculating that China's helping NK's nuke program, even to the point of supplying tech on how to militarize a nuclear warhead - hard to believe, but again, they may see this as the least bad outcome for them - they definitely don't want to a see a unified democracy allied to the US crouching on their border]
A lot of difficult questions - and I think difficult questions have a tendency of making people vulnerable to embracing fallacies - the dangerous fallacy hanging over all this is that the status quo is fine, problematic but still workable - the thing is, it's always easier to picture the negative consequences of acting aggressively as compared to 'playing it safe' - but in no way is that proof of the safe route being best when it comes to real outcomes - just as surely as there's a time and place for well reasoned caution there's also a time and place for coming to terms with fact that caution is working against you. I think we're getting to that point with North Korea [well, actually, I think we got there a while back, but there ya go] - and, unfortunately, the way things are going and with a president in the White House who is clearly either not a fan of, big believer in or well suited to the use of American power, it won't be long before we're stuck asking the same questions viz Iran.
A lot of difficult questions - and I think difficult questions have a tendency of making people vulnerable to embracing fallacies - the dangerous fallacy hanging over all this is that the status quo is fine, problematic but still workable - the thing is, it's always easier to picture the negative consequences of acting aggressively as compared to 'playing it safe' - but in no way is that proof of the safe route being best when it comes to real outcomes - just as surely as there's a time and place for well reasoned caution there's also a time and place for coming to terms with fact that caution is working against you. I think we're getting to that point with North Korea [well, actually, I think we got there a while back, but there ya go] - and, unfortunately, the way things are going and with a president in the White House who is clearly either not a fan of, big believer in or well suited to the use of American power, it won't be long before we're stuck asking the same questions viz Iran.
