
North Korea Learned from Libya War to Never Give Up Nukes - user982
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/
======
arcanus
And they are correct. We encouraged quddafi to give up his program, lifted
sanctions, and then pushed him into a corner at the first opportunity. He had
no viable way to abdicate without being tried for war crimes.

The same policy has occurred in Syria. We need to encourage dictators to leave
office, not indicate that they will be tried and imprisoned.

This isn't a humanitarian argument, it is game theory. But it will save lives
and reduce conflicts. The outcome is superior. I'll take a horrible person
escaping justice over thousands of human casualties any day.

~~~
Kenji
I always say, just like revolvers are equalizers for humans, nukes are
equalizers for countries. I think nuclear proliferation is a good thing.

~~~
lwansbrough
Do you also always wear a suicide vest in case anyone wants fight you?

~~~
jameslk
Nice strawman, but in reality you can punch back at someone who wants to fight
or run away. When all you have is one planet and there exists a few cunning
and belligerent actors with immense resources and oversized military budgets,
you don't have the same options when you're cornered.

------
rmason
Actually the Ukraine is a much better example. When they gave up their nukes
they got promises from other nations to come to their defense if Russia
attacked. When it happened not only didn't they get help the other nations
refused to even sell them weapons!

~~~
miles
Sadly, there was no such promise of defense if the treaty was breached:

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)

According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in
recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its
nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

1\. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and
the existing borders.

2\. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and
Ukraine.

3\. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in
order to influence its politics.

4\. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide
assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, "if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine
should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of
aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

5\. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and
Ukraine.

6\. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

~~~
gcb0
by your (flawed) logic, US and UK should return all (or 1/3 to be extra fair
in your twisted analysis) nukes to Ukraine after the russian invasion.

the more sane interpretation is that they should help them against the party
gone rogue on the treaty. otherwise all their other treaties will be assumed
to be void by other nations. which is what is happening, and every state in
those areas are already siding up with either russia or china, who they fell
have more skin in the game to uphold their word later on. dependable terms are
better than good terms on those things.

~~~
mikeash
What do you mean, "by your logic"? The agreement clearly lays out the
obligations of all the parties involved, and nothing says they have to help
Ukraine defend itself against a non-nuclear attack. That's not logic, just
reading.

~~~
gcb0
if we agree to sell my house for you and another party, and the other party
fails to come up with their 50%, then you can't expect to live in the house.
and that's exactly what US and UK just did.

either they help uphold the sovereignty over russia actions, or return the
nukes. it's also basic reading.

your flawed logic is thinking that two other parties can benefit fully from a
contract where one of the parties failed to uphold the agreements.

~~~
mikeash
"Return the nukes"? Like, somehow convince Russia to give them back?

~~~
gcb0
exactly. since that outcome B (well actually the other parties returning the
nukes), is batshit insane and completely crazy to even think about. that's why
everyone assumed the other option was implied (the protection against the
rogue Party).

option C, not doing anything, is equivalent to stealing.

~~~
mikeash
So wait, if I agree not to invade you, and then later on you get invaded by
someone else and I do nothing, that's equivalent to stealing? What did I
steal?

------
farseer
Libya, Iraq and Ukraine are all good examples of places where possession of
WMD would have kept wolves at bay.

~~~
mschuster91
Yeah if keeping a dictator in power is what you desire, then by all means let
dictators have nuclear weapons. If not, it should be of global interest to
crush the dictators.

The problem with Libya and Iraq (as well as Afghanistan!) is that there never
has been a coherent post-war plan. Which means: what is to be done after the
troops are finished?

There has been no plan about

\- how to disarm the various militias enlisted to fight

\- how to transition countries to democracy without kleptocrats and other
opportunists abusing and hijacking the system

\- how to actually _rebuild_ all the destroyed infrastructure (roads, bridges,
water, electricity, communication)

\- how to actually unite and pacify the various ethnic/religious communities
and prevent them from fighting each other: this is what fucked up former
Yugoslavia, and now Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, and will likely drag out the
Syria conflict.

~~~
nowarninglabel
>how to actually unite and pacify the various ethnic/religious communities and
prevent them from fighting each other

That is exactly what dictators do! Not perfectly, but a lot better than what
has happened in the countries you've noted where the dictators were ousted or
attempted to be ousted. So, I'd disagree that it should be a global interest
to crush dictators. So far, this has caused much greater harm than good.

~~~
mschuster91
> So, I'd disagree that it should be a global interest to crush dictators.

Dictators usually enrich themselves and defraud incoming money (and food aid)
by pocketing it in their personal or their families' coffers, also most
dictators resort to brutal violence to maintain their rule; as a result people
will attempt to flee these countries. And this causes harm - first of all for
the fleeing people who are often enough abused as slaves or prostitutes, but
also by funding criminal networks (e.g. the Mafia, which has discovered that
people-smuggling and involvement in refugee operations is way more profitable
and riskless than drug trading).

Also, when we as the Western world fail to provide basic human rights to any
person on this planet, when we fail to even TRY and instead make "deals" with
those violating human rights, what are the human rights then worth?

I agree that the last few ousted dictators went badly, but more because the
Western countries failed to provide an exit strategy, not because they
attempted to oust the dictators.

~~~
yongjik
Perhaps the best refutation of your argument is none other than South Korea,
once a pathetic half-country saved by America, at the cost of many American
lives.

The first South Korean leader, propped up by America, wasn't your average
local warlord: Rhee Syngman was a prominent figure in the independence
movement, and had a PhD in International Politics from Princeton.

He went on to kill some 200 thousand Koreans for being communist, terrorized
the country for twelve years, and finally ousted by Koreans and fled to
Hawaii, where he died later. His reign is remembered by corruption, blanket
pardon to national traitors, and mass execution of people accused of being
communists.

If you think you "only" need an exit strategy to liberate a country from bad
dictators, you don't understand how much luck you need.

~~~
mschuster91
> If you think you "only" need an exit strategy to liberate a country from bad
> dictators, you don't understand how much luck you need.

I'm German. Germany is only at it's current position as European power house
and "leader of the free world" (at least many people name Angela Merkel als
such, since Trump became president) due to the incredible efforts of the US,
UK and France (and to a lesser extent the Soviets) after WW2. And Germany was
bombed to shreds basically.

You don't need "luck" to succeed. You need political will, power and the
ability to look further in the future than $time_until_next_election. Not very
many politicians (no matter if in the US or in the EU) seem to possess these
traits any more.

> He went on to kill some 200 thousand Koreans for being communist

Then, he IS a typical result of US intervention: everyone who is against
"communists" is good.

------
spodek
The artillery that can reach Seoul and the buffer the nation offers China from
the U.S. military there is all they need to prevent invasion. Then they can do
what they want.

------
geoka9
Also quite possibly from the Russian aggression against Ukraine (see Budapest
Memorandum).

------
pasbesoin
And from Ukraine, as a prominent Ukrainian was saying just the other day, on
WBEZ's "Worldview" radio show.

P.S. I took a quick glance at their programming list, and I'm guessing it was
this interview. I was listening a bit out of one ear while about other stuff:

[https://www.wbez.org/shows/worldview/legislating-peace-
and-r...](https://www.wbez.org/shows/worldview/legislating-peace-and-reform-
in-ukraine/8d68ba61-3dcb-4247-a0ac-8e58ffd7f1ea)

 _Legislating Peace And Reform In Ukraine

July 24, 2017

20 min

To discuss how Ukraine is inspired by Western Europe to reform, and how the
war in Eastern Ukraine is holding, Worldview joined by Ostap Kryvdyk, a senior
foreign policy advisor to the Speaker of Ukraine’s parliament._

------
free_everybody
Crazy how humanity's "advancement" involves a world-wide practice of game
theory with nuclear bombs. We're all complicit...

~~~
lostmsu
Only as long as all actors in play are rational.

------
justonepost
Not exactly. NK is protectorate of China and has zillions of conventional
weapons aimed directly at Seoul. Nuclear wasn't necessary.

~~~
boomboomsubban
They don't want to rely on China to secure their regime, they know how
precarious that position can be.

------
Giorgi
yeah, Ukraine learned that hard way too, you know... after Russian invasion

