Fight the brits and be killed or do it another way and live. You say the latter is illogical and the former is logical?
The illogical part (for you) should be “there are other ways to solve problems than fighting”. Pretty much like “you can get the crap beaten out of you, but if you stick to your principles you still win” is totally inunderstandable for the current government of the US as it seems, they seem to prefer to fight back and sacrifice all their values that they were once honored for on the way.
I am not sure what you are saying on the mission statement and overkill. I guess you are equating on one side the US position of “If russia nukes us, we nuke them back and utterly destroy them”, the MAD doctrine.
Don’t forget the former indoctrination that “all commies are evil” and “the USSR is the empire of evil”. That sounds a lot to me like “Why do their leaders teach their citizens that S. Korea is controlled by the imperial US forces?”. It is the same rethorics, just used the other way round.
Yep, I can see how the two are the same pret’near.
The point was the question “why should NK attack first”. You made some points why they could. I compared that to the situation during the Cold War. During the Cold War, US citizens were taught that the USSR is evil and a danger, using vocabularies from the same “class struggle” word book as their “enemy”. Ronald Reagans “mission statement” was not at all “if they attack, we shall bomb them”. From the Soviet side, Stalin was the last “aggressive”, Chrustchev the first “cooperative” leader in terms of their mission statements.
Both sides possessed nuclear weapons and knew that if they should go to war against each other directly, it would mean the end of the world.
You might want to call the leaders of the USSR insane as well, so that then would fit as well.
Now we have a minor nuclear power, so it would not be the end of the world but devastation of an area.
Still, the words used are comparable, the threat is smaller for us far away, but as big for those close by.
So, noone started the war in a comparable situation for about 35 years. Why should one side start a war now? Why should the NK do that?
He knows a war would be lost with the US? Are you sure he beleives he couldn’t fight and win a war, by say inflicting a few 100 thousand casualties and force some sort of armistance at the end of his nuclear missles?
How many does he have?
One, two, or more?
He can go for an armistice only if he can use nuclear weapons and still have a few left in case his armistice efforts fail. But he also must take into account that if he fails, he is dead, his country gone from the world.
That for me is a position where i can lose or reach an expensive draw. I would not play that game unless someone forces me to do it. The other side in that game would be the US, so as long as the US don’t force me to play that game, i wouldn’t play it, as i can not win.