7 ms·

I suspect that if they developed an H-bomb it would be due to China's assistance ...

jjoonathan 11y ago
I thought the only reason why China supported NK was because they don't want to clean up after a fallen regime and deal with the stream of refugees. Giving NK a H-bomb would not help with that goal, it'd increase instability if anything. I don't know much about geopolitics so I could be very wrong.
- dbcooper 11y ago
  Note the "if they developed". I don't think they tested an H-bomb.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  NK having an H-bomb makes it far less likely for other countries to try and destablize NK. Additionally, if they start to get destbalized, then having a bomb makes it far more likely that countries like the US would support the regime (because, as much as we do not like the idea of NK having a nuclear weapon, it is still preferable to all of the groups that will take control of it after NK falls)
  - 1stop 11y ago
    That doesn't make sense: The groups that would take control: Japan: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Korea: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Russia: Already have this tech China: Already have this tech USA: Already have this tech Or do you mean some minor group, rather than a state taking control of a failed NK?
    - akerro 11y ago
      But dropping a bomb like that on Japan, US, S. Korea will kill skilled, educated people, destroy their technology, infrastructure and put country to a recession. Dropping it on NK will, like, kill thousands of slaves and destroy no meaningful infrastructure.
      - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
        >thousands of slaves People.
        corin_ 11y ago
        Agreed. But there's a potential moral debate to be had around the subject. Imagine if you were given this scenario: "x" people will be killed tomorrow, you can't change that. There are three options for which people will be killed, either "well-off", "in poverty" or "random". You can choose one of the three, if you don't make a choice then one of the three will be randomly picked and the deaths still occur. Would killing the people in poverty be better because you're wiping out more misery, would it be worse because you're letting financial state influence death? And as much as ethically we want to think that all people are equal, let's not forget that most armys would be willing to kill 10 opponents to save the life of 1 colleague, and taking the US as an example I suspect (could be wrong..) a poll of the US would see most people willing to kill 10 North Koreans to save the life of 1 American, without having any other information about the 11 people who might die.
        sbjustin 11y ago
        I think you could use anyone as an example. It's always easier to ignore people you don't know than the people you do. I imagine most people would pick a family member over people they don't know.
        hnal943 11y ago
        It matters that they NK people are slaves to their government. Killing the people will not influence the government like it would in parts of the world with better morality.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Yes, also, it's probably in the millions in terms of number of people we'd consider to be living as slaves in NK.
    - VLM 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun It depends WHY it falls. The existing system is almost completely military with a sorta civilian mostly hereditary aristocracy leading it. So if it falls because the military collapses it'll be nearly a wasteland, total anarchy, but if the military stays in total power then instead of hereditary civilian aristocracy they'll have a genuine combat soldier (or at least a semi-experienced general) in charge. At the very tippy top the Chinese like their buffer states, and are not going to be happy with reunification with SK. Of course the same people said the same things about Eastern Germany.
- eklavya 11y ago
  Pakistan's nuclear and missile program wouldn't be possible if not for China.
  - sanoli 11y ago
    In both these cases (NK and Pakistan, assuming NK got tech from China), was there a lot of money involved? I mean, does China do it also for the money, or is it mostly geopolitical influence?
- ckarmann 11y ago
  If NK regime falls down, likely it's going to be South Korea who is going to get refugees and to clean up the mess, since their long-term objective is to unify Korea and only the NK regime is preventing that. The problem China does not want to have is a US ally at his border.
  - chrisdevereux 11y ago
    I am 99% sure that both China and the US would be happy with a deal along the lines of "The regeime goes, but NK stays a Chinese satellite", assuming that such a deal were feasible without risking huge destruction and loss of life.
Shivetya 11y ago
at one time that might have been true but I would suspect that rational heads in China would not want to give such technology to an inherently unstable regime. Similar to how Russia operated, their allies might end up with nukes in their territory but they were Russian nukes, same as the US. In the last decade or two, I doubt China wants a more dangerous North Korea. It could be that NK is attempting to play China like it plays the rest of the world. We always assume China is pulling all the strings but maybe NK knows some strings it can pull too
jandrese 11y ago
What would the Chine government's motive be to help the Kim government upgrade to H-Bombs? They're already a political liability and most people in the region are nervous about them having atom bombs in the first place. It just seems like a bad idea.

I thought the only reason why China supported NK was because they don't want to clean up after a fallen regime and deal with the stream of refugees. Giving NK a H-bomb would not help with that goal, it'd increase instability if anything. I don't know much about geopolitics so I could be very wrong.

dbcooper 11y ago
Note the "if they developed". I don't think they tested an H-bomb.
gizmo686 11y ago
NK having an H-bomb makes it far less likely for other countries to try and destablize NK. Additionally, if they start to get destbalized, then having a bomb makes it far more likely that countries like the US would support the regime (because, as much as we do not like the idea of NK having a nuclear weapon, it is still preferable to all of the groups that will take control of it after NK falls)
- 1stop 11y ago
  That doesn't make sense: The groups that would take control: Japan: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Korea: Likely already have this tech, ally of US Russia: Already have this tech China: Already have this tech USA: Already have this tech Or do you mean some minor group, rather than a state taking control of a failed NK?
  - akerro 11y ago
    But dropping a bomb like that on Japan, US, S. Korea will kill skilled, educated people, destroy their technology, infrastructure and put country to a recession. Dropping it on NK will, like, kill thousands of slaves and destroy no meaningful infrastructure.
    - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
      >thousands of slaves People.
      - corin_ 11y ago
        Agreed. But there's a potential moral debate to be had around the subject. Imagine if you were given this scenario: "x" people will be killed tomorrow, you can't change that. There are three options for which people will be killed, either "well-off", "in poverty" or "random". You can choose one of the three, if you don't make a choice then one of the three will be randomly picked and the deaths still occur. Would killing the people in poverty be better because you're wiping out more misery, would it be worse because you're letting financial state influence death? And as much as ethically we want to think that all people are equal, let's not forget that most armys would be willing to kill 10 opponents to save the life of 1 colleague, and taking the US as an example I suspect (could be wrong..) a poll of the US would see most people willing to kill 10 North Koreans to save the life of 1 American, without having any other information about the 11 people who might die.
        sbjustin 11y ago
        I think you could use anyone as an example. It's always easier to ignore people you don't know than the people you do. I imagine most people would pick a family member over people they don't know.
      - hnal943 11y ago
        It matters that they NK people are slaves to their government. Killing the people will not influence the government like it would in parts of the world with better morality.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Yes, also, it's probably in the millions in terms of number of people we'd consider to be living as slaves in NK.
  - VLM 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songun It depends WHY it falls. The existing system is almost completely military with a sorta civilian mostly hereditary aristocracy leading it. So if it falls because the military collapses it'll be nearly a wasteland, total anarchy, but if the military stays in total power then instead of hereditary civilian aristocracy they'll have a genuine combat soldier (or at least a semi-experienced general) in charge. At the very tippy top the Chinese like their buffer states, and are not going to be happy with reunification with SK. Of course the same people said the same things about Eastern Germany.
eklavya 11y ago
Pakistan's nuclear and missile program wouldn't be possible if not for China.
- sanoli 11y ago
  In both these cases (NK and Pakistan, assuming NK got tech from China), was there a lot of money involved? I mean, does China do it also for the money, or is it mostly geopolitical influence?
ckarmann 11y ago
If NK regime falls down, likely it's going to be South Korea who is going to get refugees and to clean up the mess, since their long-term objective is to unify Korea and only the NK regime is preventing that. The problem China does not want to have is a US ally at his border.
- chrisdevereux 11y ago
  I am 99% sure that both China and the US would be happy with a deal along the lines of "The regeime goes, but NK stays a Chinese satellite", assuming that such a deal were feasible without risking huge destruction and loss of life.

Shivetya 11y ago

at one time that might have been true but I would suspect that rational heads in China would not want to give such technology to an inherently unstable regime. Similar to how Russia operated, their allies might end up with nukes in their territory but they were Russian nukes, same as the US. In the last decade or two, I doubt China wants a more dangerous North Korea. It could be that NK is attempting to play China like it plays the rest of the world. We always assume China is pulling all the strings but maybe NK knows some strings it can pull too

jandrese 11y ago

What would the Chine government's motive be to help the Kim government upgrade to H-Bombs? They're already a political liability and most people in the region are nervous about them having atom bombs in the first place. It just seems like a bad idea.