
CTBTO statement on the unusual seismic event detected in the DPRK - okket
https://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/press-releases/2017/ctbto-executive-secretary-lassina-zerbo-on-the-unusual-seismic-event-detected-in-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea/
======
jacquesm
NK has rightly concluded that treaties are meaningless without the global
cohesion required to enforce them and that being part of the Nuclear Club is
one way to get people to look the other way when it comes to violating human
rights and other despicable behavior.

The CTBTO is obviously well within their rights to write press releases which
amount mostly to hand wringing at this point in time, in the longer term every
tin pot dictator without nukes is going to look to NK as the example of how to
stay alive.

FWIW I have always considered the test ban treaty itself as a means by the
nuclear powers to attempt to kick the door closed behind them (because they
can use numerical simulation instead of real world tests) rather than an
honest attempt at reducing proliferation.

So, now we have crazy people with hydrogen bombs. It is a new chapter and one
that could have a pretty bad ending.

~~~
barrkel
NK hasn't signed a treaty preventing them from testing. If the test ban treaty
had teeth, it still wouldn't apply to NK.

Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to
countries elsewhere that don't do what the US tells them to. But it's not
clear to me why the US needs to control NK. It's the desire for control that
drove NK to get nukes.

I'm not apologizing for NK, I think the regime should be toppled tomorrow from
a moral perspective; but I don't think an invasion even in the absence of
nukes would lead to a good outcome, as we've seen elsewhere good outcomes from
moral invasions are scarce on the ground these days.

~~~
EliRivers
_Of course NK is acting perfectly rationally, having seen what the US does to
countries elsewhere that don 't do what the US tells them to._

Or perhaps having seen what happens to countries that _do_ what the US tells
them to. Iraq decommissioned its WMDs; got invaded. The lesson learned by many
countries is that doing what the US tells you to vis-a-vis weapons makes you
vulnerable; not safe.

~~~
jacquesm
Iraq was invaded because it is sitting on top of a bunch of oil, not because
of WMDs or lack thereof.

~~~
guildwriter
Good to see that old "Blood For Oil" canard being trotted out again.

[http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php](http://www.scottmanning.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php)

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-
the-i...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17/a-decade-later-and-the-iraq-
debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/)

It was a bad argument then and still a bad argument now.

~~~
jacquesm
That's an argument from utility, whether it worked or not is not important,
what matters is _why_ Iraq was invaded.

~~~
EliRivers
_what matters is why Iraq was invaded._

Not in this thread, perhaps.

------
tristram_shandy
If one studies history, even casually, one might note that nearly all wars in
history have _not_ started as a result of rational actors making optimal
decisions in accordance with game theory.

Why, then, do we continue to believe this fallacy -- the fallacy that peace is
guaranteed because nobody would be irrational enough to actually start a war?

Wars start through miscommunication, human error, the whims of (usually
despotic) leadership, internal crises, and unforeseen Black Swan events that
escape our (Gaussian) models. This can be summarized thus: wars frequently
start for no real reason at all.

We should be more pragmatic, and look at history instead of borrowing a theory
from the dismal science of economics to reassure ourselves, as there are now
millions of very real lives at stake. North Korea has become a problem worthy
of more rigorous analysis than the pithy comments about MAD.

~~~
drawkbox
Game theory backs heavily on self-interest though. Self-interest runs the
world and everything, including you.

If you can solve the self interest for most of the people, things usually work
out. If you attack others self interest, then yes, random things can happen
when self interest is compromised or when a player loses self interest in
favor of extremism or some flavor of "fuck the world, fuck everyone". The
solution to that is economics and comfort, people don't go extreme when they
have those.

~~~
tristram_shandy
I'd prefer not to gamble millions of lives on the theory that people or states
(especially states that are effectively just one person) are going to act
completely rationally.

Here's one example where "rational self interest" doesn't seem to have worked
out:

\- Kim Jong Un could rationally (in both his and his countrymen's self
interest) live the rest of his days in a gloriously well appointed Chinese
estate, albeit in exile, perhaps as part of a transition negotation that sees
his dynasty exchange their power in Korea for both their own safety and the
good of the country.

\- If rational action by people and states are as close to a physical law as
is so frequently assumed, why has this not happened? Why does he not act
rationally, and why do we imagine that he will act rationally in the future?

Here's the fundamental problem with the MAD / game theory / self interest /
rational actor tack: the model implies that there's a 0% chance of nuclear
weapons ever being used (because it wouldn't be in the self interest of the
state), and therefore, the appropriate policy response is effectively to
ignore continued accumulation of greater and greater stockpiles of nuclear
arms, as no conflict can ever be possible. The MAD theory leads to a political
calculus that promotes the proliferation of ever more nuclear weapons, and as
we're seeing, ever more nuclear weapons in the hands of ever more unstable
actors.

The MAD theory is unsound and fundamentally dangerous. Clearly, the chance of
nuclear war is not 0% (a truly absurd idea), and so the policy response that
MAD implies (perpetual deadlock) leads us down an even more dangerous road:
perpetual stockpiling and proliferation, without any measured guarantees to
stability.

We're placing very, very large bets (right now our civilization, soon the
human race, one day the entire planet, even the rocks and stones) on an idea
that we can't falsify and have never tested.

------
csomar
It says

> It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against
> nuclear testing; a norm that has been respected by all countries but one
> since 1996.

But

> The Treaty will enter into force once signed and ratified by the remaining
> eight nuclear technology holder countries: China, Egypt, the DPRK, India,
> Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States.

So, somehow, the US wants North Korea to respect a treaty that it is, itself,
not accepting (though it has "respected" it).

This is exactly what is wrong with our world: The US is playing the police but
not the "model". In fact, they are playing a bad model while playing the
police in the same time.

Why, the DPRK, (a sovereign country) has to respect this treaty or any other
treaty? They are a sovereign country and they have the right to develop
whatever technology they please.

~~~
thiagooffm
The US is a country full of shit, they've got a shitty healthcare system, good
universities which only the very riches can afford, TRUMP and is a country
with its history written in blood etc. They've always managed to succeed in
history by those moves. Today it'll be no different. Recap:

WW1: they've joined to make money, then imposed HUGE debts on who lost it

WW2: they've caused it, they've fucked with Europe with the debt from WW2 so
much, then outright lied to find a reason to fight. Then finally at least
brought some peace to the world for a while(?).

Cold war: just wanna display that they are the fucking best, ofc.

Vietnam: they've done with the people there the same thing hitler used to do
with their enemies in WW2, and still lost so badly... No soldier wanted to
fight there, but the politicians wanted. So sad.

Iraq 1990: omg, so much failure

Afghanistan: shame, no words

Iraq second try: so much failure, the country nowadays is a mess, tons of
people died, congratulations USA.

If the UN or whoever is responsible for peace for diplomacy actually worked by
themselves and weren't just the USA, they wouldn't allow the USA to fight
almost every decade huge wars for causes which is never their own problem, but
their money-making machine.

Note that I don't support this crazy north korean dictator, he definitely
doesn't give a fuck about his people, but he's no different than other leaders
we've got globally, it's just that his country was already in a bad position.
I hope he goes away soon.

~~~
antientropic
The US _caused_ WW2? I'm genuinely intrigued to know what reading of history
can justify that statement.

~~~
boreas
Presumably it's related to the first point, imposing debts on Germany. I guess
he thinks that WWII was caused indirectly by the reparations Germany was
supposed to pay. It's a fairly common viewpoint.

Of course, as might be clear from his polemic tone, he is being facetious. The
US shouldn't be blamed for the reparations. And the view that the reparations
caused WWII is simplistic and misguided.

------
tryingagainbro
If I was the boy King I would do the same. Nothing gives you security like
nukes. Of course now that USA and the big countries have them they are against
new nuclear club members, but that's self-serving.

I am also certain they will negotiate--but after showing their perfected
arsenal, and from a different position. Ships with grains will be just the
cherry on the cake.

------
imaginenore
_" It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against
nuclear testing"_

The norm is toothless though. If a country wants nukes, they just have to
suffer through the economic sanctions by a few countries.

NK government has every incentive to continue with the research and
development. They don't give a damn about their starving population, and they
get the ultimate terror card that they can milk for decades.

We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity.

~~~
alacombe
> We really need to develop anti-ICBM tech to save the humanity

If I'm not mistaken, to some extend, both the Russian and the US already have
this tech operational.

Though, this would not protect with the obvious "first blood" intent of NK, in
which case, Kim better pray for cover (rightfully so).

~~~
enraged_camel
Nah, we have anti-ICBM technology but it's hilariously inadequate, as in, rate
of successful interception is very low. And when you have nukes attached to
the ICBMs, your can't tolerate even a single one going through.

~~~
gambiting
And then US and Russia both have MIRV systems which carry 15-20 warheads on
one rocket, so if you don't intercept it in the first stage of flight it's
game over anyway. And Russia recently finished developing the System-6 nuclear
torpedo which can destroy possibly more land than large megaton warheads
anyway, since it creates a 500m tsunami wave which travels hundreds of miles
in-land destroying everything in its path. And if it's salted with cobalt then
that land becomes unusable for decades.

~~~
imaginenore
It's Status-6, and it's not necessarily real.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyon)

------
zkms
> It constitutes yet another breach of the universally accepted norm against
> nuclear testing; a norm that has been respected by all countries but one
> since 1996.

I'm chronically heartbroken that I was born too late to attend a nuclear test
explosion. No knowledge about the deleterious effects of nuclear testing
erases the existential depression that it's a phenomenon I'll never witness.

~~~
infinite8s
You will probably witness it in your lifetime, although from the relative
safety of a nuclear test.

