Kim Jong Un: I'm glad you're still with us

North Korea fires two 'ballistic missiles' into Sea of Japan/East ...

As I noted yesterday, one of many matters that worry me when I put on my "geopolitical strategist" cap is that the passing of Kim will leave a power vacuum that the Kim family itself can not fill, and that there will be a grab for power by some of the officers in North Korea's military. A junta seeking to secure its power could well do desperate things, like (say for example) lob a nuclear missile in the direction of Seoul, or Tokyo, or (depending on how confident they are in their technology) Honolulu.

By the way: that geopol strategists' cap? It is metaphorical, but if it were real it would probably look a lot like a traditional dunce's cap. I have no knowledge in these matters. But, on the specific questions that bother me, neither it seems does anyone else.

Imagine this simple scenario. Junta fires missile in the direction of Hawaii. The missile, it transpires, is poorly made and falls harmlessly into the Pacific without detonating. Rather optimistic a notion that: but let's go with it. Latenight television is full of jokes about North Korea incompetence: can't even handle 1940s tech. Doesn't take a country of rocket scientists....

But two things immediately follow if this happens. First, it will show the world that the US "Star Wars" system has always been a big bluff. (I'm assuming it is in fact a bluff but that some decision makers somewhere on the globe are as yet unsure on that point.) The uncertainties are removed. There has now been a real-world experiment in which such a system would have been applied if it had existed: it was not applied. No laser zapped the missile in its path. Thus (all would conclude) the system does not exist.

More important: the child in the Oval Office will feel a need for massive retaliation. In his own "fire and fury." I don't want to imagine any further -- the follow-ups cannot possibly be non-disastrous.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog