• SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    IMO, the key points for handling a nuclear power is two or three things:

    1: Identify potential replacement of leadership, who would be open to negotiation. They just need to see value in having dealings with other powers. It could be a gift, political legitimacy, or the threat of being removed from the census.

    2: Collaborate with “outside” powers to cushion the repercussions of removing the target country’s inconvenient leadership. For example, offering aid to civilians, moving military forces around to increase or ease tension, establishing narratives, ect.

    3: The actual removal of the existing leadership. Trump sent a special forces team into North Korea. That was stupid, but a carefully planned operation with a genuine goal, such as eliminating the Kim family, might work out. This assumes that China is participating, as the northern border is probably less secure against intrusion. At this point, China probably doesn’t want North Korea around, because Kim could point a missile at someplace unwanted, and unprompted.

    I am not saying it to be easy, it is more about leaders having enough guts and foresight to consider such measures. Putin’s Russia certainly does some of this, considering the shadow fleets, hacking, and influencer operations. Krasnov is an example of removing leadership without even involving blood, by influencing politics from afar.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yes, those things can be done, and they’re good ideas. One key difference between the U.S. and North Korea thing is that Russia can, or at least is believed to be able to, use a nuclear response anywhere in the world. North Korea couldn’t threaten the U.S. with nuclear reprisal. But, yes, removing the entrenched and uncompromising leader is the first step, and that is much harder against a nuclear power.

      • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Considering the horrid state of economics and corruption in Russia, it is doubtful that their nuclear stockpile and submarines are fit for the job. Honestly, I think North Korea might have more reliable nukes, even if it is less than a handful. With Russia, it would be a fusion roulette.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I honestly agree, and said as much shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. Based on the world’s assessment, they should have just steamrolled them, and didn’t. I also said it would behoove the world powers to reassess their nuclear capability and got a lot of downvotes. The facts as they stand now, though, is the NK can’t get a nuke to American territory, not even Alaska (let’s not talk about Guam and Samoa, even America barely acknowledges they’re part of America). Russia, on the other hand, might be able to, and we don’t know for sure they can’t. All they need is one good sub with working missiles. None of this really matters for Europe, and even 10% of their stockpile working would be devastating for the world, or at least the people living on it. I’d like to think that Putin put more effort into maintaining their status as a nuclear world power, but I would have thought the same of being a military world power, too.