Is North Korea's Leader losing it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Missile test as a new US admin kicks in (note, the new administration's tone toward NK has been far more confrontational). Is this petulance or pressure?

Assassination of half-brother. Sounds just a bit like the old middle-eastern 'kill all siblings who are of course rivals' behavior a la the Parthian empire...

Execution of government officials -- by anti-aircraft cannon (http://www.bing.com/search?q=North+Korea+executions&filters=tnTID%3a%2268055526-3BC3-4cc2-BB48-7F6478B07323%22+tnVersion%3a%221836580%22+segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%225%22+tnOrde r%3a%221e32d421-9e9f-47ed-a589-b3e63ac4cd88%22&efirst=3&FORM=HPNN01)-- for "enraging" the leader. Stalin and Mao just had threats eliminated, is this kind of picky overkill more petulance than policy?

Recall that R.G.H. Siu wrote that "cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." [emphasis added]


Though I must note that Un's behavior does at least make Donald Trump appear "presidential" by comparison -- something the Donald has not been doing much on his own....

[Montmorency]

Recall that R.G.H. Siu wrote that "cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." [emphasis added]

Or since I brought up Arendt in the other thread:


Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance.

Supreme Leader's relative propensity to execute the disfavored has been a subject of discussion for a few years (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8598655/north-korea-execution).

A simple explanation is that there are genuine power struggles in the midst of a relatively-young rule and the impending fruition of the nuclear armament card against the backdrop of increasing global uncertainty/instability. Or KJU is just a crazy/evil fool, whatever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just kept thinking...anti-aircraft gun?!!??

executing opposition is an old historical tactic, granted, but both Stalin and the PRC were pretty simple about it. one round behind the ear (and bill the family for the round if we're talking China). The overkill thing smacks of a lack of stability on some level.

[Husar]

Well, the missile test is warranted given US aggression and the need to take care of their national interests. Remember that he is responsible only for his own citizens, he can do whatever he wants with those of the US as long as it is in NK's national interests.

The execution of the half brother is most likely foreign aggression, the assumption that it was an inside job by his own brother is just silly and fake news unless there is 100% proof.

The execution is rather merciful, especially compared to the US for example, where people who get executed are often in terrible pain for a comparatively long time. A very humane move on the part of KJU. Even more so when we consider that executions in general and executions by gunpowder weapons are favoured by some in the US to save taxpayer money whereas noone in NK complains about the cost of the use of large caliber rounds of a more sophisticated design such as AA rounds or mortar rounds.

That people spread all this anti-korean hate-propaganda about the Great Leader who wants to Make Korea Great Again is mind-boggling, you can't always assume the worst. That's called a bias. :whip:

[Greyblades]

Someone on TWC was commenting on the merthod of assassination, that using such a deadly chemical in such a haphazard manner was uncharacteristically sloppy for the koreans and that it was a minor miracle noone else died with him.

[Beskar]

Someone on TWC was commenting on the merthod of assassination, that using such a deadly chemical in such a haphazard manner was uncharacteristically sloppy for the koreans and that it was a minor miracle noone else died with him.

It is commented (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/24/what-is-vx-nerve-agent-killed-kim-jong-nam-north-korea)that it required the mixing to actually occur on his face as well, using non-fatal binary agents (VX2), as it would have killed the attacks too in the process of them delivering it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, the missile test is warranted given US aggression and the need to take care of their national interests. Remember that he is responsible only for his own citizens, he can do whatever he wants with those of the US as long as it is in NK's national interests.

The execution of the half brother is most likely foreign aggression, the assumption that it was an inside job by his own brother is just silly and fake news unless there is 100% proof.

The execution is rather merciful, especially compared to the US for example, where people who get executed are often in terrible pain for a comparatively long time. A very humane move on the part of KJU. Even more so when we consider that executions in general and executions by gunpowder weapons are favoured by some in the US to save taxpayer money whereas noone in NK complains about the cost of the use of large caliber rounds of a more sophisticated design such as AA rounds or mortar rounds.

That people spread all this anti-korean hate-propaganda about the Great Leader who wants to Make Korea Great Again is mind-boggling, you can't always assume the worst. That's called a bias. :whip:


Merciful in its brevity mayhap. And I always thought the firing squad was the briefest and most appropriate execution choice for the USA (though I believe we should not execute our citizens for crimes. Removing the threat to the population is a must, but killing is not needed to accomplish that). The only state to use that method was Utah.

[Tuuvi]

Merciful in its brevity mayhap. And I always thought the firing squad was the briefest and most appropriate execution choice for the USA (though I believe we should not execute our citizens for crimes. Removing the threat to the population is a must, but killing is not needed to accomplish that). The only state to use that method was Utah.

Going off on a tangent but I've been thinking about this lately and I agree. I'm against the death penalty as well but if we're going to have it I'd prefer firing squad over lethal injection, there's just something about medicalizing the act of execution that is more disturbing to me than execution itself.

[Pannonian]

Going off on a tangent but I've been thinking about this lately and I agree. I'm against the death penalty as well but if we're going to have it I'd prefer firing squad over lethal injection, there's just something about medicalizing the act of execution that is more disturbing to me than execution itself.

Michael Portillo did an investigation of methods of capital punishment, and concluded that all current methods were inhumane in one way or another, either to the condemned or to the executioner. One way, not currently used, seemed to fit all the criteria though: oxygen deprivation through replacement with inert gases. It was amusing to watch him squirming at the results of each test, or in some cases putting himself through the paces (through a lower non-lethal dosage, of course). In the last case, oxygen deprivation, he became more and more incoherent until he zoned out and the observer ended the experiment.

Portillo Seconds From Death - Horizon:How to Kill a Human... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiEJKvbpOF0)

Said documentary directly prompted Oklahoma to change its method (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oklahoma-executions-idUSKBN0HB2CT20140916) of implementing the death penalty. AFAIK no executions have yet been done using the new method.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or since I brought up Arendt in the other thread:



Supreme Leader's relative propensity to execute the disfavored has been a subject of discussion for a few years (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8598655/north-korea-execution).

A simple explanation is that there are genuine power struggles in the midst of a relatively-young rule and the impending fruition of the nuclear armament card against the backdrop of increasing global uncertainty/instability. Or KJU is just a crazy/evil fool, whatever.

Although us civilians will not know the details, it is possible that South Korea's multi-layered missile defense system is so far ahead of North Korea's ballistics program that top officials are re-thinking the strategy to pursue nuclear weapons.

The whole idea of nukes is the ability to wipe out your enemy. If you have them but can't even effectively use them it just makes you a target. When it comes down to it, China would rather eat up the country and the millions of poor NK's rather than have SK/US forces on their border.

[Montmorency]

Well, the threat itself is paramount. Even if ROK has the most effective anti-nuclear shield in the world (to China's chagrin?), it doesn't reduce incentives for North Korea's regime to progress in its nuclear program.

China might prefer annexation to Korean reunification in a least-worst case (debatable given projected medium-term costs to Korea), but there isn't really any internationally-grounded justification that China can use to do it other than 'peace-keeping' in stead of a UN action. Do they then maintain the occupation by manufacturing or fomenting violent North Korean resistance?

[Greyblades]

You mean they cant pull another tibet?

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH of the various standard execution methods I have heard of being shot would probably be my first choice. Of the widely used ones, if making love to beautiful women is an option then probably that one.

I think lethal injection is horrific, the electric chair is barbaric and hanging is pretty disturbing as well, of the American ones? (am I missing any) it is only shooting I think of as somewhat humane.

[Fragony]

I don't believe you can be dead at once when shot in the heart. Arab/French way is probably the most humane.

As for the great leader, is he really in charge. His brother was murdered. He had his favorite uncle being torn apart by dogs. Or did he, and was he forced to watch it.

[Beskar]

You mean they cant pull another tibet?

or another Crimea from Putin's playbook.

[Montmorency]

They would have to explain how they changed their minds on the otherwise-consensus matter of Korean national sovereignty - a Korean state for the Korean peninsula - and how it impacts their arguments on the importance of national sovereignty and non-interference which they regularly promulgate on the international stage.

If they can grab a chunk of the Korean peninsula in the interest of 'totally temporary (some day)' pacification, why can't India or America or the UN go into Tibet? Russia or the 'stans into Xinjiang?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

TBH of the various standard execution methods I have heard of being shot would probably be my first choice. Of the widely used ones, if making love to beautiful women is an option then probably that one.

I think lethal injection is horrific, the electric chair is barbaric and hanging is pretty disturbing as well, of the American ones? (am I missing any) it is only shooting I think of as somewhat humane.

All 50 states, the DC, the US military, and the Federal government list lethal injection as the primary choice for execution whenever such a sentence is rendered. Electrocution, Hanging, Poison Gas, Hypoxia, and the firing squad are alternative forms used when the primary method is unavailable due to supplies or because of a court injunction against the methodology.

I was wrong, earlier, about Utah being the only firing squad state. Apparently, given all the problems with lethal injection drugs, Oklahoma added firing squads as a method as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The guillotine was, reputedly, the fastest way to end a life through execution (which some would argue makes it the most humane, however messy).

[Kagemusha]

I don't believe you can be dead at once when shot in the heart. Arab/French way is probably the most humane.

As for the great leader, is he really in charge. His brother was murdered. He had his favorite uncle being torn apart by dogs. Or did he, and was he forced to watch it.

I think the most humane way of execution is the way the Soviets did it. Unexpected firing of a pistol at the back of the head. No ceremonies no nothing, just unexpected end.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

or another Crimea from Putin's playbook.

Tibet, Crimea...really boil down to a simple metric. How much blood and treasure are you willing to expend to stop the aggressor? Unless you are willing to pay in that coin, the aggressor will continue to do as they wish.

[Pannonian]

Tibet, Crimea...really boil down to a simple metric. How much blood and treasure are you willing to expend to stop the aggressor? Unless you are willing to pay in that coin, the aggressor will continue to do as they wish.

Of all countries, Britain should not recognise Chinese authority over Tibet. We conquered it fair and square, and we have a treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lhasa) to prove our case.

[Husar]

I think the most humane way of execution is the way the Soviets did it. Unexpected firing of a pistol at the back of the head. No ceremonies no nothing, just unexpected end.

Yes, every method that doesn't immediately obliterate the brain kills through oxygen deprivation and unless the person passes out from shock, they sort of live through it for a few seconds until the brain begins to shut down.
Since pistol bullets can fail to penetrate a skull, the AA gun or a big explosive device should be the weapon of choice here, preferably unexpected, but that can be harder to arrange in this instance. A drone/air strike that hits dead center with a missile that flies faster than the sound should do the trick. It's possible to do with animals because we know the meat is worse if they die under stress.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-hannibal-creates-with-food-that-looks-like-human-flesh--and-looks-delicious-2015-6?IR=T

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of all countries, Britain should not recognise Chinese authority over Tibet. We conquered it fair and square, and we have a treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lhasa) to prove our case.

TR did a better job heisting Panama.

[Shaka_Khan]

The way I look at it, I think the number of executions show how desperate KJU is being. And unlike the earlier defectors from NK, the later ones are saying that the North Korean regime could collapse. There are high-ranking North Koreans defecting because of the fear of the purge that goes on in North Korea.

The missile tests seem to work if it's a political move. It's chilling the relationship between China and South Korea because it's making South Korea order and deploy THAAD, which China and Russia are strongly against. (I don't know if it has been done yet). I read that it could detect the launching sites in China and Russia in East Asia. This deployment also acts as part of a defence shield for the United States.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, the threat itself is paramount. Even if ROK has the most effective anti-nuclear shield in the world (to China's chagrin?), it doesn't reduce incentives for North Korea's regime to progress in its nuclear program.

How so? It raises the stakes of international conduct drastically.
It's one thing to hear NK talk about destroying Seoul when all they have is 40+ year old artillery (and perhaps whatever old equipment China has sold them since then).

The regime is close to a black hole of information, coupled that with the fact that you simply cannot have a mad man with nukes. If you have no intel on their inner workings then how long will the current international order remain as we all guess whether the Kim family remains in power for another year? I just don't feel as if either the US or China is willing to tolerate such uncertainty.



China might prefer annexation to Korean reunification in a least-worst case (debatable given projected medium-term costs to Korea), but there isn't really any internationally-grounded justification that China can use to do it other than 'peace-keeping' in stead of a UN action. Do they then maintain the occupation by manufacturing or fomenting violent North Korean resistance?

Does the Chinese government really care that much about having to manufacture a "just cause"?

[Husar]

How so? It raises the stakes of international conduct drastically.
It's one thing to hear NK talk about destroying Seoul when all they have is 40+ year old artillery (and perhaps whatever old equipment China has sold them since then).

You know that 40 year old guns firing projectiles with high explosive material are just about as deadly at the point of impact as modern guns firing the same amount of high explosive material? And North Korea supposedly has very, very large amounts of artllery. Not to forget that there was/is already artillery that can fire small nuclear warheads... (not that NK has them...yet)
I'm not even sure all their artillery is that old or from China anyway, they seem to produce quite a few versions of their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army_Ground_Force#Artillery

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4?IR=T


North Korea experts Victor Cha and David Kang posted on the website of Foreign Policy magazine late last month that the North can fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict.

They are unlikely to win a conflict as the article further mentions, but they can cause a whole lot of casualties right away.
It would however be a very big mess at the very least and result in the deaths of probably millions of people.
A missile defense system alone does not make a country safe. There are very modern systems that can defend against mortar or artillery rounds and so on, but they have a short range and can probably not defend a country against this much artillery anyway.

I see little gain in anyone starting a conflict with North Korea no that they have nuclear weapons anyway.
Any solution of the conflict will have to be in agreement with their regime, come from an internal revoution or is likely to become very, very deadly for many people in the vicinity and in range of their missiles and artillery.

As for KJU being a crazy mandman, I'm not so sure. There were those rumors about him wanting to slowly open up the country and apparently they weren't so wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/03/north-korea-wants-to-open-up-its-economy-and-a-small-program-in-free-market-singapore-shows-how/


But North Korea is very tentatively toying with some capitalist ideas, setting up about 20 special economic zones around the country, allowing farmers to keep and sell more of their produce, and tolerating more nascent activity in the jangmadang, or local markets, around the country.

I assume one has to separate the military grandstanding from the actual direction the country is taking. It is even possible that KJU does want to open up the country but others oppose him and need to be disposed of because he'll look weak to other potential opponents otherwise. I mean their entire leadership is probably a fascist snake pit where the smallest sign of weakness would make someone else crush him and take over...

I'd not expect a peaceful change to happen overnight either way. Just look at China and how it developed from Mao until now. It is still nowhere near a Norway, but maybe it needs time. Perhaps it will turn into a desert before it really changes, but uhm, yeah... :dizzy2:

[Montmorency]

How so? It raises the stakes of international conduct drastically.
It's one thing to hear NK talk about destroying Seoul when all they have is 40+ year old artillery (and perhaps whatever old equipment China has sold them since then).

The regime is close to a black hole of information, coupled that with the fact that you simply cannot have a mad man with nukes. If you have no intel on their inner workings then how long will the current international order remain as we all guess whether the Kim family remains in power for another year? I just don't feel as if either the US or China is willing to tolerate such uncertainty.

Why? The fact of the matter is that, after Clinton called off the air strikes in 1994 or thereabouts the North's nuclear program has become increasingly dispersed, increasingly shielded, and increasingly more difficult to neutralize without ground intervention.

At this point, let's say the program is still not complete (for the purpose of a viable weapon or system). Right now, it is likely already impossible to set back their efforts by more than a few months, even with all-out aerial attacks throughout the country.

Once they demonstrably have viable weapons, it will become meaningless. Deterrence will be the only option left short of a major Asian land war.

Whatever happens with the North Korean government right now, they are firmly in the advantage. They bought their time.


Does the Chinese government really care that much about having to manufacture a "just cause"?

They would if it undermines the logic they use to defend their interests in the South China Sea and Central Asia. China's leadership isn't careless, at least not in how they approach international relations and construct its rhetoric.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why?

Because the US leadership is also unstable. :clown:

[Montmorency]

Because the US leadership is also unstable. :clown:

maybe he can send in the navy Seals

[Greyblades]

I think the best outcome we can reasonably hope for is that the chinese say "fuck it, he's gone too far" and pull the plug; end the kim bloodline, let the korean brass dissapear into an mongolian gulag and turn the ruins into yet another Chinese province.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think the best outcome we can reasonably hope for is that the chinese say "fuck it, he's gone too far" and pull the plug; end the kim bloodline, let the korean brass dissapear into an mongolian gulag and turn the ruins into yet another Chinese province.

This would not be the best outcome for the people of North Korea. One Korea, run by Koreans using the basic framework of governance now used in the South would be best.

I do acknowledge, however, that Chinese domination would provide a more stable government for them, and one that is at least vaguely concerned with feeding its own people and allowing them something resembling opportunity.

[Greyblades]

It's the best we can reasonably expect without somehow getting the chinese to ignore the USA liberating a nation right on ther doorstep, which vietnam somewhat indicated would never ever happen.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's the best we can reasonably expect without somehow getting the chinese to ignore the USA liberating a nation right on ther doorstep, which vietnam somewhat indicated would never ever happen.

No, they wouldn't stand for the US liberating NK, nor Japan. An "Anschluss" with SK, maybe, as long as SK made the Yalu valley into some form of DMZ.

[Montmorency]

No, they wouldn't stand for the US liberating NK, nor Japan. An "Anschluss" with SK, maybe, as long as SK made the Yalu valley into some form of DMZ.

They could be comfortable if two points could be secured:

1. No US forces or installations north of the old DMZ.
2. General drawdown of US military presence in Korea given expiration of overt security justification.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They could be comfortable if two points could be secured:

1. No US forces or installations north of the old DMZ.
2. General drawdown of US military presence in Korea given expiration of overt security justification.

More or less what I meant. They will not feel threatened by a unified Korea, especially one that abjured WMD. US or other Western forces would be a different matter. Post Napoleonic to Pre-WW2 Chinese history does not leave them predisposed to allow the Western powers anything resembling a foothold so close to the Middle Kingdom.

[Beskar]

Eastern-Germany solution for North Korea.

[Greyblades]

More or less what I meant. They will not feel threatened by a unified Korea, especially one that abjured WMD. US or other Western forces would be a different matter. Post Napoleonic to Pre-WW2 Chinese history does not leave them predisposed to allow the Western powers anything resembling a foothold so close to the Middle Kingdom.

I dont believe that the chinese would be happy without any control over a potential unified korea, they would need some collateral to ensure the US or korea would not go back on any deals, promieses wont cut it.

[Montmorency]

I dont believe that the chinese would be happy without any control over a potential unified korea, they would need some collateral to ensure the US or korea would not go back on any deals, promieses wont cut it.

Closed bases might count towards that. Harder to put troops back after they're out.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Closed bases might count towards that. Harder to put troops back after they're out.

Is China worried about the number of US solders or the deployment of advanced weapons systems? The addition of North Korea allows better coverage of activity from China's northern provinces.
Even without a single US troop in Korea, they can still sell THAAD components to the South Korean military.

[Montmorency]

Is China worried about the number of US solders or the deployment of advanced weapons systems? The addition of North Korea allows better coverage of activity from China's northern provinces.
Even without a single US troop in Korea, they can still sell THAAD components to the South Korean military.

Sure, that's a kicker without even having US-operated installations in the North, or even throughout the country.

On the other hand, with the 'sole aggressor' disarmed, it is much easier for China to pressure Korea against it. Think, if they raise a Crimea-tier fuss over installations near Seoul while KJU is on the cusp of demonstrating a proper capability, can ROK politicians justify it to their citizens and corporate stakeholders when North Korea is no more and money needs to be funneled there for reconstruction anyway?

[Greyblades]

Question is if china can out pressure the US's influence. I dont think china would take the chance.

[Gilrandir]

Eastern-Germany solution for North Korea.

I wouldn't like to see a french kiss between Un and Pu.

[Shaka_Khan]

What's different from this incident is that Kim Jong-un angered China and Malaysia. Both are reacting strongly against him. And from the looks of it, it's possible that Vietnam and Indonesia could get angered. I'm beginning to think that the North Korean agents tricked a Vietnamese girl and an Indonesian one into doing this. I don't know if you guys saw the news on what Malaysia will do to them. (I understand why the Malaysians would be angered about the VX attack in their airport). North Korea will get even more isolated than ever before.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sure, that's a kicker without even having US-operated installations in the North, or even throughout the country.

On the other hand, with the 'sole aggressor' disarmed, it is much easier for China to pressure Korea against it. Think, if they raise a Crimea-tier fuss over installations near Seoul while KJU is on the cusp of demonstrating a proper capability, can ROK politicians justify it to their citizens and corporate stakeholders when North Korea is no more and money needs to be funneled there for reconstruction anyway?

That seems to be an answerable question. Are there any recent polls of SK citizens regarding their opinion of China?

[Montmorency]

That seems to be an answerable question. Are there any recent polls of SK citizens regarding their opinion of China?

Not so simple for those politicians without firm international support. If China expands its domination over SE Asia and the archipelagan states and US bases are closed and troops drawn down from Korea, there wouldn't be much scope to act unless Japan and the US take a generally more-aggressive stance toward China than they have so far - in which case withdrawing troops would prove to have been a major strategic blunder anyway.

[Sarmatian]

That seems to be an answerable question. Are there any recent polls of SK citizens regarding their opinion of China?

Recent, as in 2014. Close enough

19514

[Montmorency]

Recent, as in 2014. Close enough

19514

Down with Pakistan.

[Greyblades]

Pakistan was one of our more damaging mistakes.

[Shaka_Khan]

I have to admit, North Korea knows how to insult Trump, saying that Trump is too much like Obama.

[Shaka_Khan]

2. General drawdown of US military presence in Korea given expiration of overt security justification.
The US values Korea due to Korea's close proximity to China and Russia. A lot of the US citizens aren't aware of this. Also, South Korea has a large and modern military, all paid by South Korea. Take note that John Kerry was the first to ask the former South Korean president to have THAAD deployed. This was when he met her in Korea. She refused because she knew that would anger China. China is South Korea's largest market. And South Korea was the biggest exporter to China. John Kerry asked again via phone. She refused. This shows that the US has its own interest in having THAAD deployed there. THAAD in Korea acts as an early warning system for the US. It was when North Korea continued to test missiles and nukes (including missiles that could be fired from submarines) that made the former South Korean president change her mind. Also, remember that the presidents such as Carter and Reagan wanted to withdraw the US troops, but they changed their minds. Trump is no longer demanding money from South Korea because he was informed that South Korea actually pays a big proportion for the US bases in Korea. The first person to inform him was a Korean-American who questioned him during his presidential race. Trump refused to believe him. The next person to inform Trump was Wolf Blitzer during an interview at CNN. Trump clearly looked surprised. I'm pretty sure that he got more informed during his presidency.

[Fragony]

Keep asking it but getting no response to it, what if that fat joke isn't in charge at all. Think of it, did he really ordered his favorite uncle to be shred into pieces or was he forced to watch that happening. I must have a sick mind but I think I am right. Look at the guy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Keep asking it but getting no response to it, what if that fat joke isn't in charge at all. Think of it, did he really ordered his favorite uncle to be shred into pieces or was he forced to watch that happening. I must have a sick mind but I think I am right. Look at the guy.

To what end such a deception?

[Fragony]

To what end such a deception?

In my musings, maybe the people who are really in charge just need a figurehead, and we got it all wrong. Maybe his father was in full control, but now the generals are. The propaganda about his uberskills is so rediculous that it might be intentionally rediculous, not to believed but to disempower, making people live the lie. Nofth-Koreans can't be so far off that they actually believe he scored a hole in one the first time he tried, or could drive aa car when he was 3 years old. It are too obvious a lie

[Husar]

To what end such a deception?

Perhaps they need him, as Fragony says. They might need him because they spent decades making the Kims the magical unicorn leaders who are the only ones able to save their "besieged" nation. I say that because what Fragony says fits with all the rumors of Kim Jong Un wanting to do this or that which then either didn't happen or just on a very small scale. Even if he isn't just a figurehead, he may have some very strong competition.

The one thing I keep wondering about is how he can have studied for years in Switzerland and then go back and think his country is fine. Even from an egoistical point of view he is the ruler of a polished mud hole to some extent.

[Fragony]

Perhaps they need him, as Fragony says. They might need him because they spent decades making the Kims the magical unicorn leaders who are the only ones able to save their "besieged" nation. I say that because what Fragony says fits with all the rumors of Kim Jong Un wanting to do this or that which then either didn't happen or just on a very small scale. Even if he isn't just a figurehead, he may have some very strong competition.

The one thing I keep wondering about is how he can have studied for years in Switzerland and then go back and think his country is fine. Even from an egoistical point of view he is the ruler of a polished mud hole to some extent.

Yes and my inner Machivalian considers that this can be used against the real regime without killiing anything at all. The unicorn can be a sword of damoclas when used right. They created the myth, that is usefull. as it can completily be used against them, I don't believe he let his favorite uncle being torn apart by dogs, my version makes more sense imho and is certainly less bloody

[rory_20_uk]

China would only be satisfied if their troops were marching and eventually overseeing South Korea alongside an American withdrawal: bases can be reopened after a few years and as has been said, a country ruled by the South using american equipment and undertaking wargames with America is no different.

If a hot war were to ever actively start, Chinese troops (or possibly special police units) would be helping support the population and ensure stability possibly even with the North' blessing (better a nice life in China than warcrimes trial in the Hague).

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Of course it could just mean, as the media has speculated since his accession, that he has to work harder than his forebears to maintain control over government factions. There's no need to speculate that he is a figurehead for that to apply.

[Montmorency]

China would only be satisfied if their troops were marching and eventually overseeing South Korea alongside an American withdrawal

North Korea, you mean. China would definitely make a strong push to oversee, or at least participate in, the security occupation of the North (and from there delay reintegration with the South or maintain an semi-autonomous zone).

[Fragony]

Of course it could just mean, as the media has speculated since his accession, that he has to work harder than his forebears to maintain control over government factions. There's no need to speculate that he is a figurehead for that to apply.

A lot would fall into place if he is though. It's just a pet-theory of me but it's a good 'what if' to assume that he isn't in control at all. Look at the possibities if so, North-Korea could be pacified without shooting a single bullet if I'm right and save thousands of lifes. Invite the fattie over and give him something he can sell to his people, food supplies for example, his people don't have to know they were just given. Why not try it, it's the best scenario for everyone, if it is like I think it is the real enemies have nothing, who would defy the prodigal leader after all, checkmate. Clean and bloodless. Only psychopaths like killing.

[rory_20_uk]

North Korea, you mean. China would definitely make a strong push to oversee, or at least participate in, the security occupation of the North (and from there delay reintegration with the South or maintain an semi-autonomous zone).

If there were a war, the North Would inflict massive civilian casualties and then almost immediately fall to pieces as their existing infrastructure collapses and is blown to pieces by the South / USA. Of course hard points would survive since they are buried under mountains but to try and engage in defence outside of these areas would be futile.

The South, having suffered so much would at the very least want to push the DMZ 100 miles further North to protect themselves - and as before why stop there? Would China just hope that they establish a smaller North Korea under UN oversight or would they preemptively secure this themselves just as the Russians did?

A United Korea would only be if China had oversight over it. Vassal states at their borders are to be their vassals.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

The South, having suffered so much would at the very least want to push the DMZ 100 miles further North to protect themselves - and as before why stop there? Would China just hope that they establish a smaller North Korea under UN oversight or would they preemptively secure this themselves just as the Russians did?

It comes down to who reaches Pyongyang first. China can't get infantry to the DMZ within a day obviously, and the South Koreans will be crossing in force with their American allies. The circumstances of the outbreak of war, and who occupies what by the cessation of Northern resistance, will determine the terms of reunification or joint governance.

China can't really hope to grab the whole thing for itself, which is why kicking the can continues to be the best option. The best case for China is Chinese-militarized Changbai Mts, and US troops leaving the peninsula within 5/10 years.

[Sarmatian]

I think you are all underestimating North Korean army and resilience of the civilian population.

The civilian population of North Korea is used to food shortages and the primary purpose of civilian society is to support the army. Even though eventual winner is not in doubt (bar direct Chinese intervention), it wouldn't be easy or fast, and I wouldn't be so certain that NK wouldn't be pushing over DMZ first.

China's primary concern is keeping the buffer zone between China and American bases in Korea. They did try to push for a deal with USA, in which North Korea stops developing nukes and ICBM's in return for a gradual withdrawal of US troops from South Korea but Americans refused.

[Montmorency]

The civilian population of North Korea is used to food shortages and the primary purpose of civilian society is to support the army. Even though eventual winner is not in doubt (bar direct Chinese intervention), it wouldn't be easy or fast, and I wouldn't be so certain that NK wouldn't be pushing over DMZ first.

Well, unless the North Korean leadership decides to roll over before the fighting starts then strategically they would have to begin by storming the border with ground forces. I'm not sure there is reason to believe the offensive wouldn't collapse quickly, in which case there would be relatively-little resistance for Allied troops in enemy country other than the fastnesses.

In fact, one approach in Chinese interests would be to have North Korea attack pre-emptively and with little warning (i.e. prior to publicized American buildup) , which would be the most disruptive to the Allied efforts before the machine can get going, and would allow China the most time to occupy the North. On the other hand, such naked aggression from the North would put the Allies in the best diplomatic, though not military, position to take a maximalist stance on Korean sovereignty, and it would lead to US-Chinese tensions beating anything since the 1950s. Also, it would bring the worst favor for North Korean government officials should they ever be caught for international trial.

Civilian resistance - maybe, but to what extent? These aren't fanatics, even if they haven't been bombed to dust before the enemy appears.

[Sarmatian]

I'm having trouble believing that a state that has a military first policy, to an extent of starving its own citizens if need be, a state that is 100% focused on the conflict we're talking about is just going to roll over and die quickly in the even of that conflict.

They've spent more than half a century preparing for it. They will put up a huge fight.

[Montmorency]

The people will before the state.

Why do you think they will resist? If you think of touted Japanese civilian readiness, that (sentiment at least) was borne on the back of a healthy imperial economy and largely successful military ventures abroad, over two generations. North Korea doesn't have that experience. The fear and hatred without the success and power. More likely that once the armed forces are in rout, not causing anyone any trouble will be a more common priority than Operation Werewolf.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree that the populace probably has a very limited "will to combat," though the long propaganda preparation and limited foodstuffs -- which is a classic way to cow the populace -- probably means that the NK populace would do little or nothing to aid an aggressor against their own government. They would all emulate the turtle and hunker down and wait it out.

Nor is it likely that the NK army would collapse quickly. The terrain of NK in general features lots of mountains/hilly areas that they have had a half century to stock with defensive positions, emergency magazines etc. Projecting a quick collapse is overly optimistic at best barring a profligate use of tactical nuclear weapons. NK favors defense in terms of terrain.

Add in the fact that China has a propensity to counterpunch armed forces that are trending towards its border and you are upping the difficulty further. Heck, even if you beat the odds and GOT China to agree to temporarily ignore events south of the Yalu while NK was clobbered they would NOT cope with the use of nuclear devices that close to their border -- so there is no quick option to toppling NK.

[Montmorency]

When we say quick victory, we mean in the field. Holdouts in bunkers have limited ability, decreasing over time, to project over surrounding territory. This only works in the advantage of the Allies, since it justifies and permits a solidified military occupation in the face of the Chinese response. When time is on our side, there is no need to resort to nuclear weapons - or, as the alternative may be, fuel-air bombs.

[Sarmatian]

I'm not talking about population (but I will come back to that) but the 6,000,000 people in the army. 6 million people strong army that spent the last 70 years figuring out how to inflict maximum to damage to SK and US troops. For reference, Soviet had about 6 million men in the western theater in 1945. Even if they were equipped to WW2 standards, that's still 6 million men, with enough reserves to operate at peak efficiency for several months. Every person in that army has had 5-10 years of military training. They're dangerous with sharp sticks, not to mention modernized AK copies. Again, for reference, Iraqi army in 2003 had barely half a million men. And it's not gonna be mostly desert. Most importantly, they won't underestimate "decadent westerners".

Now, the civilian population. All had also 5-10 years of military training, including women. While some parallels could be drawn with WW2 Japan, most obviously that the Dear Leader is for all intents and purposes a god Emperor, there are many more differences.

1) Japanese population was told that it was Japan's destiny to rule Asia and that Europeans and Americans were decadent people who wouldn't be able to stand the might of Japanese. They never expected a defensive war, which it had become already in 1942. NK civilian population is expecting and preparing for a long defensive war if need be.

2) Also, the very fact that Home Islands were under threat made people question the narrative. They felt they were lied to and doubts started to appear. In case of North Korea, they aren't believing they're gonna walk into Washington and dictate terms, they're preparing to beat SK and US troops or inflict maximum casualties if they fail.

3) Japanese morale was slowly dwindling as casualties started increasing and supplies became scarcer and scarcer. North Koreans are expecting high casualties and scarcity. It wouldn't be the first time the population felt a lack of food.

4) Japanese morale didn't collapse instantly. It took 3 years of heavy bombing, that only got stronger with each passing day.

5) Standards are different today - you can't just bomb civilians centers into submission without mass international outcry. You can't drop napalm on Pyongyang and kill 100,000 civilians to sap their will to fight.

This won't be Iraq, if it happens. It will probably resemble Vietnam.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not talking about population (but I will come back to that) but the 6,000,000 people in the army. 6 million people strong army that spent the last 70 years figuring out how to inflict maximum to damage to SK and US troops. For reference, Soviet had about 6 million men in the western theater in 1945. Even if they were equipped to WW2 standards, that's still 6 million men, with enough reserves to operate at peak efficiency for several months. Every person in that army has had 5-10 years of military training. They're dangerous with sharp sticks, not to mention modernized AK copies. Again, for reference, Iraqi army in 2003 had barely half a million men. And it's not gonna be mostly desert. Most importantly, they won't underestimate "decadent westerners".

Now, the civilian population. All had also 5-10 years of military training, including women. While some parallels could be drawn with WW2 Japan, most obviously that the Dear Leader is for all intents and purposes a god Emperor, there are many more differences.

1) Japanese population was told that it was Japan's destiny to rule Asia and that Europeans and Americans were decadent people who wouldn't be able to stand the might of Japanese. They never expected a defensive war, which it had become already in 1942. NK civilian population is expecting and preparing for a long defensive war if need be.

2) Also, the very fact that Home Islands were under threat made people question the narrative. They felt they were lied to and doubts started to appear. In case of North Korea, they aren't believing they're gonna walk into Washington and dictate terms, they're preparing to beat SK and US troops or inflict maximum casualties if they fail.

3) Japanese morale was slowly dwindling as casualties started increasing and supplies became scarcer and scarcer. North Koreans are expecting high casualties and scarcity. It wouldn't be the first time the population felt a lack of food.

4) Japanese morale didn't collapse instantly. It took 3 years of heavy bombing, that only got stronger with each passing day.

5) Standards are different today - you can't just bomb civilians centers into submission without mass international outcry. You can't drop napalm on Pyongyang and kill 100,000 civilians to sap their will to fight.

This won't be Iraq, if it happens. It will probably resemble Vietnam.


Somewhere between the two would be my estimate.

The NK civilian population has too many elements that are functionally coerced into support of the government. On the other hand, if invaded there is always some tendency to resist the invaders and the local rule enforcers will still be plying their trade. Thus my estimate is that they would do as told until their area was captured, but that civil resistance would be limited once those enforcers could no longer force compliance. Thinking that the invading troops would be treated as liberators is silly. On the other hand, Vietnam had the vestiges of colonial exploitation to play upon, as well as rampant corruption in the SV government. SK has corruption problems, but actually takes some action against them. NK may not be able to generate guerilla efforts on a VC-like level.

The NK army is numerous, decently equipped, and not without training. Combine that with NK's terrain and you are looking at a formidable defense. They are very likely professional enough to use their fixed defenses as positions from which to launch 'spoiling' strikes or counterattacks. While they have a degree of control over any area, they will also command the support of the local populace, allowing logistics efforts to continue even if facing SK/USA air superiority. Certainly not unbeatable, but it would take time, treasure, and thousands of lives to effect a victory there.

[Montmorency]

The Vietnamese had been actively fighting guerrilla and large-scale war for a full generation, and went in against America at the peak of their fighting and financial strength. The Vietcong, moreover, had North Vietnam for supply and reinforcement. North Korea has little depth, little help, and less time.

Where we disagree, Sarmatian, is on the point that pure time and focus will translate into effectiveness and will, and then into organized resistance in the absence of bureaucracy.

[Fragony]

What if it isn't you bringing the fight to them, but they go all Normandy on you, the US has no answer to that, most troops will make it and than what. Unlike North-Korea the US has a wealth of easy accesable beaches, and NK has enough men and firepower to really dig in. That scenario has been simulated multiple times and the US eventually wins every time, but it's not pretty. I tried to find the link but couldn't find it sorry for that but it's not so hard to imagine that it would be a major problem taking a lot of time. If I remember right it's expected that about 60% of the clone-army will make it to the shores, how fast the US can respond I can't recall but it takes a while but the US is wide-open in every simulation. As teh Serb said (or at least hinted at) NK expects to have massive losses, they won't care about massive losses. What can you do, you can't intimidate with bombing urban centres anymore that's so WW2

[Montmorency]

I tried to find the link but couldn't find it sorry for that but it's not so hard to imagine that it would be a major problem taking a lot of time. If I remember right it's expected that about 60% of the clone-army will make it to the shores,

On seacraft? How would they even make it past Japan?

Better off trying to infiltrate Latin America with cartel aid and hop the border wall into Texas.

[Gilrandir]

The one thing I keep wondering about is how he can have studied for years in Switzerland and then go back and think his country is fine. Even from an egoistical point of view he is the ruler of a polished mud hole to some extent.

Who cares what you rule as long as you are a RULER.


It comes down to who reaches Pyongyang first. China can't get infantry to the DMZ within a day obviously, and the South Koreans will be crossing in force with their American allies.

In all talk about racing towards DMZ/Pyongyang you forget about airborne/seaborne opearations. Any side (I mean either China or US/SK) may land its troops anywhere where such landings can be performed. Of course it is a question how long those expeditional troops will have to/will be able to hold out until reinforcements arrive.


I'm having trouble believing that a state that has a military first policy, to an extent of starving its own citizens if need be, a state that is 100% focused on the conflict we're talking about is just going to roll over and die quickly in the even of that conflict.

They've spent more than half a century preparing for it. They will put up a huge fight.

I read an article of a guy who lived in Vladivostok and there he often encountered NK workers brought to toil it on Russian factories and plants. This guy says that in any conflict if their opponents showed enough gut Koreans were likely to leg it after initial 3-5 minutes of a fight even if they were numerically superior. So he assumes they won't put up any serious resistance if a war were to start. Perhaps the example isn't symptomatic, but the morale of North Koreans may be questionable if they realize there is nothing/nobody to fight for.

[Fragony]

On seacraft? How would they even make it past Japan?

Better off trying to infiltrate Latin America with cartel aid and hop the border wall into Texas.

Not my simulation I don't know how, do know that's it a scenario that is taken serious, it's like shooting 10 rockets of which only one is actually dangerous I guess, that principle. Expected in simulations is that a lot of ships will never make it but a majority will, but would you honestly be surprised if that would be an affordable risk if it really comes to war with a country like NK, they don't give a shit about their people. The US expected Normandy to be much worse than it really was in the end, and the US actually does give a shit about it's people. If defence-experts are worried about that particular scenario than we should assume that they take it seriously

[Shaka_Khan]

The one thing I keep wondering about is how he can have studied for years in Switzerland and then go back and think his country is fine. Even from an egoistical point of view he is the ruler of a polished mud hole to some extent.
There's a Japanese cook who worked for the current North Korean leader's father. This cook had a good relationship with the son and sometimes he was his babysitter. The cook wrote in his book that the son asked him if North Korea was poor. This was when the son went back to North Korea during a vacation from the Swiss university. The son looked very concerned. He didn't see the poverty level of the North Koreans outside Pyongyang when he was a kid. This made the cook think that the son might try to improve the living standards of the North Koreans. However, the cook also said that his first impression of the son when he was younger wasn't good. The son just glared at the cook when he was introduced to him for the first time. The cook's books about North Korea was published in Japan and South Korea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Fujimoto


It comes down to who reaches Pyongyang first. China can't get infantry to the DMZ within a day obviously, and the South Koreans will be crossing in force with their American allies. The circumstances of the outbreak of war, and who occupies what by the cessation of Northern resistance, will determine the terms of reunification or joint governance.

China can't really hope to grab the whole thing for itself, which is why kicking the can continues to be the best option. The best case for China is Chinese-militarized Changbai Mts, and US troops leaving the peninsula within 5/10 years.
Also, China at this moment didn't deploy enough soldiers at the border to reach Pyongyang. I think the current deployment is mainly defensive. The South Koreans and the Americans will have a hard time trying to get to Pyongyang also because more of North Korea's army is deployed near the DMZ than near the Chinese border. And the South Koreans and the Americans would be the ones doing the defending before they could advance to Pyongyang. The North Korean military outnumbers both the South Korean and the American ones in Korea altogether. It would take some time for the American reinforcements from outside Korea to arrive. And take into account that the DMZ has the most mines in the world.

[Fragony]

Read the wiki but that doesn't sound any different from the usual kid with autism or asperger, says nothing to me really. Just personal memoires (likely with $$$$ in mind)

[Shaka_Khan]

(likely with $$$$ in mind)
You're not alone on that. Many people have said the same about him. However, he did provide a lot of valuable information about the dark side of the Kim family. This was at a time when very little was known about them. This dark side is Kim Jong-un's weak spot in his rule over the North Koreans. Only the South Koreans had hints from the high ranking North Koreans who defected. Knowing the psychology of Kim Jong-un (no matter how irrational) gives the other side an advantage.

[Fragony]

The decadence is certainly striking considering how poor the North-Koreans are, going to get that book, nice to have an insiders view no matter his motivations

[Shaka_Khan]

Shane talks about his Vice documentary on the North Korean slaves in Siberia. He also talks about the parts that are not in the documentary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0Kk8W1UJA

[Shaka_Khan]

Here's the documentary:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtlxTF_SX28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVas26AFeAs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYnH-3vidzE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G1uVrzLU4

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89rCmjb9wHk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7J8FSBitWs

[Fragony]

Only had the stomach to watch the first but I promise I'll watch them all. Unreal that they don't even know they are not in North-Korea. They can't be that dumb -1

edit, watched all, I insist others do as well. Totally new for me at least

Thx for sharing SK that was really interesting

[Montmorency]

Re: Vice Documentary

"Peculiarities of the National Hunt"

[Shaka_Khan]

Vice went to North Korea in these videos:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24R8JObNNQ4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw46Ll-Zy4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HJj85K_7MQ

[Fragony]

Seen them before, but let's assume that nobody acts irrationaly just for the heck of it and that they know exactly what they are doing, and know exactly what they would lose, and have already accepted that. If so that's scary. And not irrational at all, that makes it even worse

[Beskar]

N Korea claims CIA plot to kill Kim Jong-un
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39815561

[Seamus Fermanagh]

N Korea claims CIA plot to kill Kim Jong-un
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39815561

Probably a Baptist mission trip. Pretty sure KJU can take 'em down.

[Fragony]

Kinda funny, North-Korea is now also threatening China with 'serious consequences', wtf do they think they can do against China, messing with China is going to be quik easy and painless. Well maybe not painless but you get it

[AE Bravo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/world/asia/south-korea-election-moon-jae-in-ahn-cheol-soo-hong-joon-pyo-trump.html?_r=0

Moon and Ahn are the main candidates, both have somewhat of an equal shot at winning. Conservatives at a big disadvantage because of the Park Geun-hye scandal.

Thought this was pretty interesting as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy4oFVuNPkg

SK really dances to its own tune.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/world/asia/south-korea-election-moon-jae-in-ahn-cheol-soo-hong-joon-pyo-trump.html?_r=0

Moon and Ahn are the main candidates, both have somewhat of an equal shot at winning. Conservatives at a big disadvantage because of the Park Geun-hye scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us3IieNZht0

I get the feeling that the relationship between South Korea and the United States might sour down compared to now if Moon becomes the president. Moon and Trump have interests that contradict each other when it comes to North Korea.



Thought this was pretty interesting as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy4oFVuNPkg

SK really dances to its own tune.
I wouldn't trust a news media fully. I've been to a lot of countries. I know of a lot of OECD cities that are more dangerous than the entire country of South Korea.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdqCRvpEyxo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQMy5fbguPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rUyDOSBaNs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4gKuiVAmUw

[HopAlongBunny]

N.Korea seems to be simply sliding into the the spaces Trump's foreign policy creates.
As the U.S. retreats from Asia, China becomes the only game in town. Short-term, lip service to America might be needed but with American diplomatic, economic and military withdrawl the longterm game is all China.
The question (for me) is does China really care? The present policy seems to open up the region for China to pursue hegemony; with a nod and a wink to American bluster China moves into the empty spaces America creates.
N.Korea just rides the wave and makes a nice "shiny" to wave at America while China expands and entrenches it influence and territory in the region.
Does Trump have the patience or vision to sustain the long game of strategy and diplomacy required; regional allies might chose to wait it out, but they might jump ship:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/30/donald-trump-is-handing-china-the-world

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/03/how-not-to-lose-asia-to-china/

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqNKsmidJUs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPjK5XtkDJI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO0RLyH5qGs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uur3zAXAHi8

[Husar]

A video tends to be a bad way to convey a list of numbers. Not only is it needlessly time-consuming, it also contains wrong data, such as Britain spends 1% of its GDP on defense. The actual number is 1.9%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Japan has about twice the population of Britain and almost twice the GDP, it's mathematically impossible that they both spend 1% on defense and Britain spends more...
The tank and especially aircraft comparisons are a bit simplistic, comparing just simple numbers for the most part. I'm not sure what the point is and lists could give me the numbers much faster, so tl;dw....

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsJjP3He4h8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFvtT6Gung


Japan has about twice the population of Britain and almost twice the GDP, it's mathematically impossible that they both spend 1% on defense and Britain spends more...
Actually, Japan spends a lot on its military. Contrary to what many outside of Asia believe, Japan's military isn't small. And they have expensive tanks and other vehicles and aircrafts. The Japanese navy is quite impressive, too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-8pv60U2dc


I'm not sure what the point is
I'm trying to show how dangerous the region could get if war breaks out. The militaries in this region are large and powerful. Add the US military including the ones that are already stationed in East Asia.

[Fragony]

Haven't watched the video but that's a JSF you see on the picture of the video at least. Photoshop? Japan doesn't has them (lucky bastards)

[Husar]

Actually, Japan spends a lot on its military. Contrary to what many outside of Asia believe, Japan's military isn't small. And they have expensive tanks and other vehicles and aircrafts. The Japanese navy is quite impressive, too.

The video had Britain spend more money than Japan. It also said both Britain and Japan spend 1% of GDP.

So let's assume Japan has a GDP of 100 and Britain a GDP of 50. Please tell me how they can both have a military budget of 1% of their respective GDPs and Britain comes out spending more.

Of course the answer is that Brtian does not spend 1% but 1.9% or thereabouts and that's how they spend somewhat more in absolute terms.

And of course some people are just posting alternative facts again: https://www.f35.com/global/participation/japan


The first F-35A for Japan was presented at an official rollout ceremony on Sept. 23, 2016.

[Beskar]

The video had Britain spend more money than Japan. It also said both Britain and Japan spend 1% of GDP

If you paid attention... everyone was spending 1% !

[Husar]

If you paid attention... everyone was spending 1% !

I stopped watching actually.

[edyzmedieval]

North Korea thing is sabre rattling as usual, but it's definitely to some levels we haven't seen so far.

[Greyblades]

The unusual lack of chinese support would probably explain it.

They feel cornered and might be close to lashing out.

[Strike For The South]

Lashing out is not a rational move. If Kim is really as unhinged as some people think he is, a coup may not be totally out of the question. A North Korean attack would do nothing but kill a lot of people on the peninsula and put the USA right across the river from the Chinese.

[Beskar]

Remove leadership, offer general amnesty for the rest and rebuilding the country under an United Korea.

[Sarmatian]

Remove leadership, offer general amnesty for the rest and rebuilding the country under an United Korea.

And what are supposed to do with the rest of the afternoon?

[Strike For The South]

Except China won't allow that because it will invariably become a US backed state. Conceivably, they could be persuaded if the US made some concessions in the South China Sea but why should we do that for what seems like an inevitability?

[Beskar]

United States could be persuaded to withdraw troops at that point. China could be lured with economic investment in rebuilding North Korea. An united Korea might end up being more sympathetic to Beijing too due to the Influence of the North Koreans who are slowly being integrated into the democratic process.

In a way, it would actually decrease USA influence in Asia, so geopolitically, having North Korea as a rogue pariah is actually beneficial for American interest.

[Strike For The South]

As soon as the North Koreans get that first hit of American soft culture, they will flock to us.

Bow to the Levis.

I imagine Sarmatians house is nothing but basketballs, Springsteen tapes, and closets full of blue jeans.

[Montmorency]

As soon as the North Koreans get that first hit of American soft culture, they will flock to us.

Bow to the Levis.

I imagine Sarmatians house is nothing but basketballs, Springsteen tapes, and closets full of blue jeans.

They're more into bootlegged South Korean soap operas, but it's close.

Maybe the world should just empower the United States over the United Nations.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Remove leadership, offer general amnesty for the rest and rebuilding the country under an United Korea.

If only...

I don't think the PRC would accept this without a lot of hefty caveats.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As soon as the North Koreans get that first hit of American soft culture, they will flock to us.

Bow to the Levis.

I imagine Sarmatians house is nothing but basketballs, Springsteen tapes, and closets full of blue jeans.

So the ultimate weapon against China...the one they fear....is K-pop?

[Strike For The South]

In a manner of speaking. China is trying to be smart about it and make a measured descent into capitalism. NK won't have that luxury under the scenario we are discussing.

[Pannonian]

So the ultimate weapon against China...the one they fear....is K-pop?

I've seen it mentioned that North Korea's ultimate threat against Chinese neglect is to open the borders and allow their population to flood unchecked into China. Does that count as K-pop?

Also, I found this whilst looking for something else.


Kim does have 3 sons, which one of them will take power. I hope it will be the second oldest of them, as he studied in Switzerland, so we can hope for a more democratic and liberal mind.

[Shaka_Khan]

Speaking of North Korean K-pop...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW-gbFTZGAs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDJwlUNiJBQ

[drone]

Speaking of North Korean K-pop...

So that's what unaltered Korean women look like...

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq54msMu3Sc

[Sarmatian]

As soon as the North Koreans get that first hit of American soft culture, they will flock to us.

Bow to the Levis.

I imagine Sarmatians house is nothing but basketballs, Springsteen tapes, and closets full of blue jeans.

... and I'm humming Yankee Doodle while eating a hot dog.

I think the true end of western cultural dominance was Gangnam Style. An Asian performer with the most popular rap song ever. Pretty soon we're all gonna be glued in front of the screen, waiting for a new episode of Smo Kee and the Ban Din.

It's over.

[Montmorency]

Gangnam Style

rap song

dude

[Sarmatian]

Rap, pop, techno... whatever.

Not Springsteen.

[edyzmedieval]

Also, I found this whilst looking for something else.

Hah, how wrong I was.

I expected it to be totally different - expected it to actually be much better than it was before.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B_idqiEoUE

[Fragony]

You sometimes don't know whe to laugh and just shake your head. That teacup-eared fattie is threatening with total-doom. It would be comical if the situation for North-Koreans wouldn't be so miserable.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCQroithXoQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWhQHrT-Z0s

[Fragony]

North Korea is a running joke that isn't really funny. Seeing the great leader run would be though, I bet he would win the olympics the first time tried

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNtoG1ZHjFc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFSjU0kef0

[Fragony]

Oh things heating, theatening to attack a US-basse, suicidel very. I still think that fattie isn't in control at all, It's the type would have bullied when I was younger and more sstupid

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Frags:

NK has no downside from this. NK is allowed to be a hyperbolic, tantrum-throwing, 'drama-queen' state. If the said they were going to nuke Japan tomorrow, the vast bulk of the world would presume it is just NK being its usual noisy self. NK is allowed to be obstreperous, because nobody expects them to behave. The rest of the world, outside of China, SK, Japan, and the USA, doesn't much care how much noise they make just so long as they actually shoot a nuke AT somebody.

Nobody, but nobody, is willing to attack NK and defeat them. Terrain and the hyper-militarization/Stalinization of NK would make any conventional attack a ghastly blood-letting for anyone capable of defeating them.

Their nuclear program is the last key element of security for NK. If they have a deployable nuke or 5, the USA and its allies cannot nuke them without losing a USA or Japanese city or more as the price for slagging NK (which, by the way, would give us 15+ years of reduced global temperatures). Same with any special operations effort to whack the current 'fragrant leader.' Can't do it if you know he would nuke a few hundred thousand someones on your team.

And we know he would. We don't think he is crazy enough to strike first and start a nuclear war, but we are pretty sure he would strike back to punish any effort that truly threatens him. He has the willpower for that.

Trump is, apparently, NOT allowed to be obstreperous in kind. Suggesting an actual threat to NK makes them think the 'fragrant leader' will get nervous and blow up somebody -- and more of our allies are in easy range than US targets proper. So our Allies, and our media, are all....a-twitter...over it.

[Montmorency]

Frags:

NK has no downside from this. NK is allowed to be a hyperbolic, tantrum-throwing, 'drama-queen' state. If the said they were going to nuke Japan tomorrow, the vast bulk of the world would presume it is just NK being its usual noisy self. NK is allowed to be obstreperous, because nobody expects them to behave. The rest of the world, outside of China, SK, Japan, and the USA, doesn't much care how much noise they make just so long as they actually shoot a nuke AT somebody.

Nobody, but nobody, is willing to attack NK and defeat them. Terrain and the hyper-militarization/Stalinization of NK would make any conventional attack a ghastly blood-letting for anyone capable of defeating them.

Their nuclear program is the last key element of security for NK. If they have a deployable nuke or 5, the USA and its allies cannot nuke them without losing a USA or Japanese city or more as the price for slagging NK (which, by the way, would give us 15+ years of reduced global temperatures). Same with any special operations effort to whack the current 'fragrant leader.' Can't do it if you know he would nuke a few hundred thousand someones on your team.

And we know he would. We don't think he is crazy enough to strike first and start a nuclear war, but we are pretty sure he would strike back to punish any effort that truly threatens him. He has the willpower for that.

Trump is, apparently, NOT allowed to be obstreperous in kind. Suggesting an actual threat to NK makes them think the 'fragrant leader' will get nervous and blow up somebody -- and more of our allies are in easy range than US targets proper. So our Allies, and our media, are all....a-twitter...over it.

Of course we prefer that our leaders not speak on the same level as the tinpots of the world. Taking vacuous stands degrades credibility. North Korea has less credibility to lose.

Plus if it is or reaches "truly threatening", then Kim will arguably be justified in a pre-emptive conventional attack or nuclear strike.

Now an small but interesting question, given that:

1. The United Nations Command (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command) was the formal leader of the war effort on South Korea's behalf, with troops under US operational control
2. NATO members could be obliged to support America in the event of renewed hostilities in Korea.
3. Non-NATO members of the UNC included Australia/New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, Columbia, South Africa, and Ethiopia (Scandinavia and India provided humanitarian aid)

Are the countries named as part of the UNC all technically still at war with North Korea, and would they be obliged they reaffirm their commitment in that capacity to the coalition in the event of renewed hostilities?

[Greyblades]

Their nuclear program is the last key element of security for NK. If they have a deployable nuke or 5, the USA and its allies cannot nuke them without losing a USA or Japanese city or more as the price for slagging NK (which, by the way, would give us 15+ years of reduced global temperatures). Same with any special operations effort to whack the current 'fragrant leader.' Can't do it if you know he would nuke a few hundred thousand someones on your team.
Thats the thing: he cant, but he's close.

Thats what the drama over the missile tests has been about. Until the north koreans can place a nuclear bomb on top of a long range missile they are limited to 1945 style bomber deployment. Once air superiority is lost they can only detonate them on the ground in a semisuicidal fasion.

Once the north koreans can put a nuke on a missile it is a short jump to load that missile on a submarine and once that is done the entire world is a target and it becomes a more absolute deterrant. It doesnt need to be big it just needs to hit DC.

This is the last opportunity to prevent them becoming dangerous to everyone not bordering it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...

Are the countries named as part of the UNC all technically still at war with North Korea, and would they be obliged they reaffirm their commitment in that capacity to the coalition in the event of renewed hostilities?

Arguable. The NK has publicly declared itself not bound by the agreement on several occasions. Moreover, the USA broke the agreement back in the late 1950s by introducing new weapons systems. So, while the UNC members might be morally obligated, at least the way I interpret things, there is more than enough legalistic grounds to tell the USA and SK that they are on their own.

[Montmorency]

This is the last opportunity to prevent them becoming dangerous to everyone not bordering it.

Exactly. Another (rough) way to present the logic up until now:

https://i.imgur.com/kTfqVlu.png


Arguable. The NK has publicly declared itself not bound by the agreement on several occasions. Moreover, the USA broke the agreement back in the late 1950s by introducing new weapons systems. So, while the UNC members might be morally obligated, at least the way I interpret things, there is more than enough legalistic grounds to tell the USA and SK that they are on their own.

Here's some comments from an old article (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-korean-war-could-ensnare-canada-documents-suggest/article1315755/) on Canada's potential role:

1. Canada has no real combat element in Korea and Japan (as of 2010), being represented in the relevant offices by a handful of COs and their staff.
2. The legacy UN mission will probably not be given formal permission to do this or that, with Chinese and Russian intransigence on the SC to be expected.
3.
"I have a hunch that the UN role, whatever its formalities are now through the military commission and other things, are likely to be superseded almost immediately by a coalition of the willing that would be led by the United States and South Korea."
4.
Federal officials say there have been no "asks" to Canada for military support in the region.

On the other hand, with challenges having grown on all ends over the past decade a desperate United States could come down to entreating or demanding various allies for boots on the ground.

On the historical end, this essay (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-role-of-the-un-in-the-unending-korean-war-united-nations-command-as-camouflage/5350876) points out that UN resolutions up to the war were intending to create a "Unified Command" designating the United States as executive agent, but the US did not like the appearance of acting unilaterally and so it began to be designated a "United Nations Command" as a sort of camouflage. This is despite the UN violating its own charter at least twice. First in accepting that there would be no UN political oversight of a mission under the ostensible auspices of the body. Second in that Harry Truman acted unconstitutionally by committing troops to the conflict in terms of a "police action" before getting Congressional approval, and UN members participating in UN military actions are required by the UN charter to act in accordance with their individual "constitutional processes".

[HopAlongBunny]

Further to "China moving into the spaces vacated by the U.S."
Besides the Pacific Rim, look to the U.N.. Trump's isolationist rhetoric and withdrawl from international engagement has opened up space for China.
Brave New World with China in the lead? Not yet, but if China is willing to pick up the slack, I don't see much opposition from the U.N. membership:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/06/as-u-s-retreats-from-world-organizations-china-steps-in-the-fill-the-void/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No opposition is likely I agree. I suspect the bulk of the world leadership would prefer a second "Great Power" and would much prefer China to Russia in that role.