Is North Korea's Leader losing it?

[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.

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.

[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.

[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...us-2015-6?IR=T

[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.

[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]

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 to prove our case.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of all countries, Britain should not recognise Chinese authority over Tibet. We conquered it fair and square, and we have a treaty to prove our case.

TR did a better job heisting Panama.

[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...orce#Artillery

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-n...ar-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/...ore-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...

[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.

[Montmorency]

Because the US leadership is also unstable.

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.