|
fishmech posted:There's all sorts of areas where they don't behave as a rational actor now or haven't in the past. But things that actually risk invasion/restarting the war are a place they've studiously behaved in a rational manner for decades. Yeah, true enough, but we are talking about a dumbshit "Kim nukes things because [reasons]" scenario.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:But these are all ridiculous assumptions. People like to imagine "what if they're not rational actors!?" But they are. They have to be because people willing to throw everything they've worked for away for nothing don't climb that high. The human condition does not vary too radically from place to place. The men who surround KJU aren't there coincidentally. The country gets exposure to the outside world, especially the governing classes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Tias posted:Why is it hard to believe that someone whose job is literally fearmongering about nuke use would, uh, monger fear about the possibility of nukes? quote:I seriously doubt any researcher who knows the first thing about North Korea, "international nonproliferation expert" or not, would consider their government a rogue actor. So, you know, source your bullshit or stop being a dumb. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/heres-what-makes-rogue-nuclear-states-really-dangerous-12899 https://www.brookings.edu/articles/north-korea-a-rogue-state-outside-the-npt-fold/ http://foreignpolicyconcepts.com/are-north-koreas-nuclear-and-missile-threats-real-part-one/
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Does anyone disagree that, putting Tom Clancy fanfiction aside, ultimately the US will need to attempt to do a deal with North Korea? The problem is that neither side trusts the other. Neither side kept to the 1994 agreed framework - North Korea did shut down its plutonium programme for the duration but probably did start smallscale uranium projects, and the US certainly never provided the Light Water reactors that it had agreed to. The six party talks never went anywhere, and really it was clear North Korea wasn't interested in those talks - China had to keep strongarming them to come. Its a common trope that North Korea is only building nukes in order to get a deal, get food aid or whatever, but really it would be a lot easier if that was the case. North Korea just really wants the nukes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
I suspect that the US administration has also fallen into believing the trope that NK is only doing this for food aid. That could explain the strategic patience strategy - the administration have been ignoring NK, presumably expecting them to come to them for a deal. Meanwhile NK has been happily building and testing its missiles and nukes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
There will either be war or a negotiated solution in which North Korea preserves its nuclear capabilities. Both of those have an incredible array of reasons stacked up against them so who knows when something will actually happen but a denuclearized peninsula is no longer in the cards. Seems most likely to me that the status quo of pretending everything is more or less OK will continue until there is another random escalation that doesn't de-escalate - the end will be blundered into, not planned out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is some dumb poo poo right here. Do you think the same thing about climate change researchers? Tell me more about things you 'just googled'  (try checking your sources rather than clicking the first thing that comes to mind)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Does anyone disagree that, putting Tom Clancy fanfiction aside, ultimately the US will need to attempt to do a deal with North Korea? The problem is that neither side trusts the other. Neither side kept to the 1994 agreed framework - North Korea did shut down its plutonium programme for the duration but probably did start smallscale uranium projects, and the US certainly never provided the Light Water reactors that it had agreed to. The six party talks never went anywhere, and really it was clear North Korea wasn't interested in those talks - China had to keep strongarming them to come. This was the point of my post which no one really addressed. It almost has to be for domestic reasons going forward from here. What does NK leadership do now? Or even if they make ICBM warhead capable nukes. There isn't any tangible benefits due to amount of capital invested in so many different economies due to globalization. For example, everyone loves to (reasonably) bitch about Chinese real estate and other major major investment in the Americas but do you think at the levels it's occurring it wouldn't have an effect on China's response if a US-NK dick swinging contest starts making markets super volatile?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Tias posted:Tell me more about things you 'just googled' Why don't you share the "proliferation fears are for pussies" research which informs your views. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Does anyone disagree that, putting Tom Clancy fanfiction aside, ultimately the US will need to attempt to do a deal with North Korea? The problem is that neither side trusts the other. Neither side kept to the 1994 agreed framework - North Korea did shut down its plutonium programme for the duration but probably did start smallscale uranium projects, and the US certainly never provided the Light Water reactors that it had agreed to. The six party talks never went anywhere, and really it was clear North Korea wasn't interested in those talks - China had to keep strongarming them to come. Part of the problem is that the US is in an extremely poor negotiating position, with very limited stick options and heavy domestic opposition to giving away any carrots - to the point where it's arguable that the US shouldn't be leading the talks at all. We have a much more powerful military than them, and have a very poor relationship with them, so when we ask them to get rid of their most powerful weapon because we would greatly prefer that they not use it, they're naturally not going to find that an attractive proposal unless we make them a really, really good deal. To make it even better, there isn't any domestic support for making North Korea a deal that's good for them; the Republicans have the carrots under lock and key, and we've already used pretty much every stick we're seriously willing to wave at the DPRK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
And THAAD seems to have ticked off the Chinese enough to have them accepting a nuclear North Korea. So who is left to do the negotiations? Russia? Europe? I'd consider it unlikely - the former because why would they help us, and the latter because they're overwhelmed by the problems they currently have (not a unique case.) If Russia were really freaked out by nuclear proliferation that might be the only angle. More likely is that things continue as they have - but the next time North Korea shells a South Korean island, or sinks a South Korean ship, any response will need to take into consideration that North Korea has nukes and has pretty clearly stated their plan on using them. When push comes to shove, are we willing to bet that they're bluffing? If they sunk a ship with 20 souls, is that enough? 100 souls? Do you send some mortars back? How do you judge the risk? If you see information that says they're preparing a launch, do you strike preemptively, knowing the consequences? This is exactly the situation North Korea aimed to create and the rest of us got clowned. Mozi fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
China may not like THAAD but I bet they would like a nuclear-armed South Korea a whole lot less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Assuming that US forces leave the Korean peninsula in the event of reunification, I don't think they'll be too upset; especially if South Korea is too busy trying to rebuild/reintegrate the North.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
sincx posted:I think China still prefers a South Korea with THAAD/nukes over an unified Korea that's an US treaty ally right on the Tumen river. The reality is the Chinese would probably be fine with setting up a fully or partially demilitarized zone along the border, possibly with some sort of multinational coast guard entity taking care of any necessary issues on the Tumen and Yalu.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Does anyone disagree that, putting Tom Clancy fanfiction aside, ultimately the US will need to attempt to do a deal with North Korea? The problem is that neither side trusts the other. Neither side kept to the 1994 agreed framework - North Korea did shut down its plutonium programme for the duration but probably did start smallscale uranium projects, and the US certainly never provided the Light Water reactors that it had agreed to. The six party talks never went anywhere, and really it was clear North Korea wasn't interested in those talks - China had to keep strongarming them to come. The US shouldn't pursue any unilateral deals with North Korea, and I suspect neither China or South Korea would be particularly happy if we did, anyway. A deal that is good for us isn't necessarily going to be good for either of the mentioned nations, particularly if we're not in a position to be hit by the blowback of it being ignored or failing to be upheld. I would contend that North Korea doesn't have easier ways of getting food aid. Their posturing has always been that they need the food aid, or else the country will collapse or they'll be forced to start marching for the DMZ or a million other humanitarian and military nightmares. But it's never really been about "We need food aid to tide us over so we can reform and not need food aid", so far as I can recall. At a certain point, the aid providers will say "no more" or want some concessions and change because the recipient's current governance and policies obviously aren't working. That's probably unacceptable to the North Korean elite - hence the military posturing and sabre-waving to strongarm everyone into giving them aid. But as South Korea and China have become richer, their military hardware gets more advanced, and a war with North Korea seems more manageable and concretely winnable, the conventional North Korean military bluff doesn't work so well. Hence the nukes; they re-up North Korea's threat ante, force everyone to seriously acknowledge the North Korean government again (since their old jets, tanks, and artillery stopped doing that so easily), and they provide an additional fear element that those nukes might slip out to rogue actors (even if Kim Jong-un doesn't approve it). It creates a whole new ladder of threat levels that the regime can climb to extort money and aid with. North Korea wants the nukes, but I think I've laid out a theory that they want them for fairly rational reasons, even if they are still for unpleasant and troublesome. It's mafia-style extortion at a national level, and it's wrong, but that doesn't mean it's crazy. Mozi posted:And THAAD seems to have ticked off the Chinese enough to have them accepting a nuclear North Korea. I think any countries that are likely to experience severe effects from North Korea's actions should be the ones to negotiate (so China and South Korea, and maybe Japan to a lesser extent), though they're free to bring as many amigos as they want with them for extra pressure or support. But so long as North Korea remains otherwise stable, and South Korea's economy continues to keep the country developed and wealthy, then South Korea will probably absorb the odd losses from North Korea's displays of force for the time being. If the occasional loss of a naval vessel and its crew or some remote village houses and a few inhabitants is the price to pay for a society that has lattes, K-Pop groups, and economic vibrance instead of agricultural misery and mud huts, then it sucks for the dead, but it's likely a worthwhile tradeoff in the government's eyes. Especially since, last I checked anyway, the Korean War is still technically going on. But that ties in to what I said in response to mediadave; if South Korea is willing to absorb those occasional losses and not engage in a retaliation, then North Korea really loses a lot of its military bargaining power, which is why they're going for nukes now. I think that a harder line does need to be taken with North Korea now, if they're officially going to be part of the nuclear club, and it should be emphasized that the nuclear powers involved in discussions won't do a first strike of their nuclear weapons. But any offensive nuclear launch or out-of-country detonation that can be concretely attributed to North Korea will have nuclear consequences for the regime, regardless of how many North Koreans (government or civilian) it might kill. That sounds hawkish and Clancy-ish, I guess, but if the alternative is that a nuclear detonation can be done without consequence, it removes too many treaty gloves from other global nuclear powers that shouldn't be removed. But that said, I don't think the ruling elite in North Korea are particularly interested in actually using their nukes willy-nilly; so long as they can wave them around and make threats with them to continue having other countries prop them up, then they will have done their job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:But that ties in to what I said in response to mediadave; if South Korea is willing to absorb those occasional losses and not engage in a retaliation, then North Korea really loses a lot of its military bargaining power, which is why they're going for nukes now. Didn't they start going for them the early sixties? I guess they saw their own gear becoming obsolete well ahead of the time, if what you're saying is true. JeffersonClay posted:Why don't you share the "proliferation fears are for pussies" research which informs your views. I won't hold my breath. Yeah, that's not what I said at all. Keep sucking your own farts 
Tias fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Tias posted:Yeah, that's not what I said at all. Keep sucking your own farts Oh sorry you phrased it "pearl-clutching over North Korea pressing the button", which is completely different and not something nonproliferation groups fret about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Tias posted:Didn't they start going for them the early sixties? I guess they saw their own gear becoming obsolete well ahead of the time, if what you're saying is true. Wikipedia says they tried to get help from the Soviets and Chinese during the 1960s, but were rebuffed. Their own program didn't really get going until the 1980s, apparently. That said, one doesn't need a sense of military inferiority to pursue nuclear weapons; look at the Soviet Union and the US, neither of which was necessarily hurting for military strength post-WWII, to say nothing of today. More conventionally lethal than ever, but still maintaining nuclear arsenals. In that vein, I don't think it really matters how Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il felt about their military strength; if their isolated dictatorships could develop nuclear weapons and gain the prestige of being part of the global nuclear club, that alone is fine enough reason to do it. And that goes double if the official justification for the Kim regime(s) has been to lead the North Korean nation and its people and defend them from aggressors (so any excessive action on the part of the military to achieve that goal is justifiable and necessary, including nukes); never mind that the nation really resembles a medieval fiefdom crossed with a crime family enterprise from the outside. North Korea probably would have developed nuclear weapons no matter what happened in the 1990s, but I think the strain of the nation's economic and resource woes on its military capabilities (amplified by North Korea being essentially isolated and alienated, China aside, though that's probably not the most stable relationship at this point) has really driven home to the Kim regime that they need a new card in the deck ASAP. This is because the South's advances in military capability and international influence, both politically and economically, have basically broken any semblance of parity leverage that the two Koreas had. The possibility of stalemate has gone away, and the odds of victory are probably quite strong in South Korea's favor. The North could still cause turmoil on the peninsula with their conventional military, have no doubt, but they would probably be hamstrung by equipment failures, logistics and supply issues, and a general outgunning. They probably wouldn't be able to bring things to a stalemate again, and once South Korea and its allies retaliate, that's the end for the Kim regime and whatever crony families benefit from its existence. So absent being able to develop their own advanced conventional weaponry in order to catch up, nuclear weapons become the logical gap-filler. Not to actually defend North Korea, but to help uphold the Kim regime and strengthen its hand politically in order to get the outside world to continue propping it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:North Korea probably would have developed nuclear weapons no matter what happened in the 1990s, but I think the strain of the nation's economic and resource woes on its military capabilities (amplified by North Korea being essentially isolated and alienated, China aside, though that's probably not the most stable relationship at this point) has really driven home to the Kim regime that they need a new card in the deck ASAP. This is because the South's advances in military capability and international influence, both politically and economically, have basically broken any semblance of parity leverage that the two Koreas had. The possibility of stalemate has gone away, and the odds of victory are probably quite strong in South Korea's favor. Agreed. Hell, a large number of draftees are declared unfit because of cognitive impairment as a result of malnutrition. With soldiers barely bright enough to fight because of chronic starvation, lack of fuel and with unservicable armour, I doubt the People's Army can make more than a dent in opposing forces at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Could one reason for North Korea's particularly frantic efforts the past 18 months to gain and prove their missile and nuclear prowess be so they could 'achieve' their defence related goals, tick that box and move on to, or at least to cover slow but consistent developments in the other half of the 'byungjin' line, the economy? Perhaps...certainly, Kim Jong Un has made no attempts to roll back marketisation, like Jong il periodically did. Byungjin in Play? North Korea's Top Economic Officials Meet for First Time Since 2006 http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/byungjin-in-play-north-koreas-top-economic-officials-meet-for-first-time-since-2006/ quote:While North Korea’s recent spate of ballistic missile testing has understandably grabbed international headlines (along with dubious reports of another execution-by-anti-aircraft fire), other developments are underway in the country that may be suggestive of longer term internal change. For the first time in a decade, North Korea convened a meeting of senior officials in charge of economic and policy planning. Deciphering North Korean Economic Policy Intentions http://38north.org/2016/07/gtoloraya072616/ quote:some signs suggest Pyongyang has begun to implement limited reforms beneath a guise of continuity, a gambit intended to obscure the structural changes now occurring throughout North Korean society. Despite sanctions, North Korea prices steady as Kim leaves markets alone http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-prices-idUSKCN10I126 quote:Food and fuel prices in North Korea have remained largely stable under leader Kim Jong Un, despite tightening international sanctions to punish the North for its nuclear and ballistic missile tests, rare data from inside the isolated country shows. mediadave fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, that's not actually what happens. Their posturing means less aid. And the North Korean elite seem ok with that - they're going for the nukes, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
mediadave posted:As was pointed out earlier in the thread, that's not actually what happens. Their posturing means less aid. And the North Korean elite seem ok with that - they're going for the nukes, regardless. Well, when starvation and a destitute populace is the uncomfortable norm, less aid doesn't seem that big a deal to the higher ups. http://gizmodo.com/north-korea-asks...dium=socialflow quote:In a rare admission that life isn’t paradise within its borders, North Korea is asking for international aid in wake of devastating floods that state media claims to have impacted tens of thousands. Information released Sunday by the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs confirms that North Korea is dealing with a big natural disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:The US shouldn't pursue any unilateral deals with North Korea, and I suspect neither China or South Korea would be particularly happy if we did, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Mozi posted:And THAAD seems to have ticked off the Chinese enough to have them accepting a nuclear North Korea. If the only country concerned enough about nuclear weapons to try to do something about North Korea's program is North Korea's greatest enemy, which also happens to have the second-largest and most advanced nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet, then it's going to be rather hard to convince North Korea that nuclear non-proliferation is a serious global concern. If there's one thing we learned from the Cold War, it's this: if you see information that they're preparing a launch, it's time to start checking your computer for glitches, rather than preparing a massive first strike that will all but guarantee that the target will order a nuclear launch. Tias posted:Didn't they start going for them the early sixties? I guess they saw their own gear becoming obsolete well ahead of the time, if what you're saying is true. In the early sixties, the US had nuclear weapons on South Korean soil, and that plus very heavy US pressure was the only thing preventing South Korea from starting up a nuclear weapons program of their own. North Korea had legitimate reason to fear military invasion, just as South Korea did, and both Koreas badly wanted nuclear weapons as a way to assure their security without having to rely entirely on the support of major powers. Kthulhu5000 posted:That said, one doesn't need a sense of military inferiority to pursue nuclear weapons; look at the Soviet Union and the US, neither of which was necessarily hurting for military strength post-WWII, to say nothing of today. More conventionally lethal than ever, but still maintaining nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union and the US both had a tremendous sense of military inferiority after WWII, combined with poor intelligence and a deep conviction that they had to be overwhelmingly stronger than their rival in order to ward off invasion from the greedy warmongering bloodthirsty capitalists/communists. This was taken to a particular extent in the US, where the military-industrial complex made up bullshit numbers showing a massive inferiority in order to spur enormous building programs. A perception of military inferiority was absolutely the impetus behind building up such ridiculous arsenals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:Assuming that US forces leave the Korean peninsula in the event of reunification This is a loving huge assumption.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
I wonder if China is really against THAAD because it would be good at shooting down the carrier killer ballistic missile they're developing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21 The site they chose in South Korea could give significant coverage of the Tsushima strait depending on the maximum range of the system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
mediadave posted:As was pointed out earlier in the thread, that's not actually what happens. Their posturing means less aid. And the North Korean elite seem ok with that - they're going for the nukes, regardless. CommieGIR posted:Well, when starvation and a destitute populace is the uncomfortable norm, less aid doesn't seem that big a deal to the higher ups. As CommieGIR notes above, less aid doesn't particularly mean a whole lot to the ruling elite, because the elite have the resources to take care of themselves. Any aid they can get is just "gravy" for their own use, that of the military, or as a palliative measure to maintain a semblance of stability in the country. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the North Korean ruling elite are a bunch of cackling, inhuman monsters who don't give two shits about what happens to the greater North Korean population, but I don't think it's out-to-bounds to state that they do not prioritize the needs of that population as much as they do consolidating their own power, status, wealth, and privilege. And that's also why they'll be hesitant to actually use nuclear weapons; the elite is probably made up of very cautious, danger-shy people who have survived purging, dismissal, and falling out of favor with the Kim regimes over the decades. They're not likely to engage in rash moves that endanger their positions. Main Paineframe posted:The Soviet Union and the US both had a tremendous sense of military inferiority after WWII, combined with poor intelligence and a deep conviction that they had to be overwhelmingly stronger than their rival in order to ward off invasion from the greedy warmongering bloodthirsty capitalists/communists. This was taken to a particular extent in the US, where the military-industrial complex made up bullshit numbers showing a massive inferiority in order to spur enormous building programs. A perception of military inferiority was absolutely the impetus behind building up such ridiculous arsenals. I wouldn't doubt it, especially when there is sweet defense budget money to pig out on, but I also don't think it particularly matters either way in the case of North Korea. If we're talking about a heavily militarized society like North Korea is, with a constant militaristic outlook and justification for its governing style, ostensibly run by what is a essentially a warlord-done-good family dynasty, I don't think it's far-fetched for them to want nuclear weapons "just because". They're a display of ultimate military capability and force, after all, even if they're essentially useless for all but the remotest actual military use - but they're good for making the sweat beads pop out on the foreheads of their perceived enemies, and that's enough right there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:I wouldn't doubt it, especially when there is sweet defense budget money to pig out on, but I also don't think it particularly matters either way in the case of North Korea. If we're talking about a heavily militarized society like North Korea is, with a constant militaristic outlook and justification for its governing style, ostensibly run by what is a essentially a warlord-done-good family dynasty, I don't think it's far-fetched for them to want nuclear weapons "just because". They're a display of ultimate military capability and force, after all, even if they're essentially useless for all but the remotest actual military use - but they're good for making the sweat beads pop out on the foreheads of their perceived enemies, and that's enough right there. I'm not sure how you get from "able to scare their strongest and most powerful enemies" to "just because", because that sounds like a pretty good reason. North Korea perceives itself as being under threat from the US, is well aware that it is not a serious military threat to the US, and Iraq was a big wake-up call to regimes like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm not sure how you get from "able to scare their strongest and most powerful enemies" to "just because", because that sounds like a pretty good reason. North Korea perceives itself as being under threat from the US, is well aware that it is not a serious military threat to the US, and Iraq was a big wake-up call to regimes like that. That's assuming that North Korea has any actual ideological or existential sincerity in its belief of itself as a nation these days (that is, the government really truly believes it needs nukes to protect the nation), rather than it just cynically saying and doing anything to preserve the Kim regime. Which gets into the can of worms about how much the Kim regime is or is not representative of the North Korean nation, but suffice it to say, I wouldn't hold my breath that the North Korean government is particularly zealous about anything except to maintain its own existence, the North Korean population be damned. It's easy to say "Well, the US invasion of Iraq signaled an urgent need for security and nukes to all the similar despotic regimes of the world" and have everyone nod sagely. Because it could be a partial factor, certainly, but one could say the same thing about South Korean K-Pop and soap operas being as much of a threat, since North Korea also sees most outside media and communications as a threat to the regime. Maybe the US won't ever invade, but if the lower "sticks" that make up the structure of North Korean society stop supporting those sticks above them (because the average North Korean becomes angry and frustrated at the lies and material deprivation), that's a problem, and it's one that could maybe happen over a week of uninterrupted broadcasting from South Korea or Japan. Not saying that North Koreans are wholly ignorant of this already; it's more that if everyone knows that everyone else openly knows, and individual punishment due to official censure can no longer apply, then the impetus is there to start demanding change. That said, North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons could be for a myriad of reasons, simultaneously overlapping and changing in prominence depending on the situation. It doesn't really matter (outside of them being the gap-filler for North Korea's decline in conventional military strength compared to everyone else). The big issue I'm arguing against in this thread, with regards to North Korea and its nuclear weapons, is that lots of people jump to fears that the north will totally use their nukes, or allow them to be diverted to rogue actors, or whatever. And while those are always possibilities (since anything is, to varying degrees of likelihood), I'm arguing the view that it's unlikely to happen. Their nukes are a bluff, a political scheme more than any concrete military necessity, because I don't see North Korea gearing up for any kind of confrontation that tips everyone else into "enough is enough" mode, especially with nuclear weapons in the mix. It just buys the regime time to plan its next moves, without risking being boxed in and forced to capitulate and come to the negotiating table from a position of weakness. Though it could also signal the beginning of the end for the regime because, at this point, what else would be left to do? Intentionally create a humanitarian crisis that everyone fears will happen regardless?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
I don't think they're going to demand change very soon, since life in NK has been improving steadily since the mid 90s famine. Yeah it is nowhere near SK but I don't think it really matters. Like cell phones became legal in 2010 and now there are at least 4 mil subscribers, about 1/6th the country in 6 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:I don't think they're going to demand change very soon, since life in NK has been improving steadily since the mid 90s famine. Yeah it is nowhere near SK but I don't think it really matters. Like cell phones became legal in 2010 and now there are at least 4 mil subscribers, about 1/6th the country in 6 years. Aren't the vast majority of those subscribers in Pyongyang though? Personally I don't think NK's heading towards revolution next week or anything (although I do think that when it does happen, it'll be almost completely unforeseen and sudden), but I do think that the spread of information is having a huge effect on attitudes, especially when combined with a generation more cynical and mistrustful after the Arduous March and collapse of distribution. Interviews with defectors and sources within NK suggest that the Party is losing control and influence in some areas faster than others (Hamgyong vs Pyongyang), and who the hell knows how they're going to deal with it, especially if the recent flooding is as bad as it sounds leading to more shortages and displacement. Another source I read suggested that they've lost a shitload of almost ready to harvest crops, which we've seen before, in addition to all the housing, and that's just what they're admitting/what the relief teams are reporting seeing (who aren't exactly allowed to wander freely). It's possible NK could exaggerate the extent of losses to angle for more aid, but historically they've tended to downplay disasters because True Korea Best Korea Juche.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I really do believe that the primary reason they're proceeding with nuclear weapons at this point is that they've been after them for 50+ years, and by now they've already spent so much on getting the program going that they don't see any good reason to stop. Whitlam posted:Aren't the vast majority of those subscribers in Pyongyang though? Unlikely, as there just aren't that many people in Pyongyang, and cell phone use certainly isn't ubiquitous among the population there. (There's only 2.6 million people there). It's surely the city with the most cell phone users, but it's also simply the biggest city by far - the next biggest is Hamhung with about 770,000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Going by the cold war, most of the time it came close to being hot was by accident or miscalculation at the time, rather than by belligerence. Humans aren't really any smarter now, this represents many future crises and saber rattling events that stand a small but potent chance of the swiss cheese model disaster- no-one really intends for it to happen, but enough things fall into place for it to happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Aren't the vast majority of those subscribers in Pyongyang though? this was just glanced on in Ask a North Korean a couple of weeks back actually: quote:Park: When I left North Korea cell phones were only seen in Pyongyang, Pyongsong, and Nampo. About 60 percent of the Pyongyang citizens had phones at the time. Cells started to become widely popular from 2013 to 2014. When I left, a scene like this – where a man would look at his phone on the way to the subway – wasn’t so familiar, and the phones we used were limited to old style flip phones. Cellphones aren't really a sign of wealth though, they're getting pretty ubiquitous even in the poorer parts of India and Africa; they're not that expensive anymore and the capability to communicate instantly with anyone you know is pretty loving revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Flooding causing deaths in the Tumen River Basin. Seems the Chinese are more healpful than the DPRK's own Government. http://www.asiapress.org/rimjin-gang/report/20160915-nk-korea-flood-damage/ AsiaPress posted:2016/Sept/12 (2 further pages on the site - not quoting here because AsiaPress could do with the Ad impressions)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Biggus Dickus posted:Flooding causing deaths in the Tumen River Basin. Seems the Chinese are more healpful than the DPRK's own Government. It is pretty suspect, this article. The flood is gigantic and I seriously doubt a single flood gate way the heck upstream really changed the situation all that much. As it is the Chinese are experiencing large amounts of death and destruction. The actual amount of water should be seen: http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?num=14062&cataId=nk01500
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
yes, the Chinese too have suffered a lot from this summer's floods. The Chinese government’s incompetence caused flooding deaths in Hebei, villagers say http://qz.com/740803/floods-in-china-caused-xxx-deaths/ China floods: More than 150 killed and hundreds of thousands evacuated http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-36873902 mediadave fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
North Korea has 28 .kp websites, apparently. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/north-korea-has-just-28-websites
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
I find it increasingly hard to understand China's commitment to NK. Whilst the two reasons they give for backing the regime still make sense (not wanting a US ally/troops on their border + masses of refugees and instability) in the worst-case scenario (nuclear war on the peninsula) and the second worst (conventional) both the US regional presence and the instability will be 1000x worse than a 'peaceful' collapse of NK. Obviously NK is a large part of what drives SK to the US orbit and even now SK is way more important to China economically and culturally than NK. Basically if I were Xi Jinping right now I would be thinking it's time to cut my losses and accept that potentially having US tanks on my border is less dangerous than having 'allies' across the border who set off nuclear weapons, but maybe I underestimate Chinese paranoia or American perfidy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 23:10
|
|