4 ms·
Sadly, I think the best thing to do is to say no. North Korea makes decisions that constantly harms it's people. Conducting nuclear test after nuclear test, fo
by John23832 10y ago
Sadly, I think the best thing to do is to say no.
North Korea makes decisions that constantly harms it's people. Conducting nuclear test after nuclear test, for what? To say you have one? To have another toy to saber rattle with? All while preaching that it exists in a sheltered paradise. All while its people starve.
Giving them aid even though they defy what pretty much everyone in the world asks them to do (even China is getting towards their wits end), only allows them to defy even more. To abuse their people even more. Not aiding them at least gives their people a chance to see what is really going on. Sadly that means some people may starve, and I'd hate to see that happen, but honestly, what else do you do?
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoProblem is...North Korea is a legitimate existential threat to a key US ally (South Korea) and a meaningful threat to others (Japan). We have fun laughing at North Korea but they are armed to the teeth and are indeed capable of turning Seoul into a cinder.
- snerbles 10y agoThis capability comes with or without nuclear weapons as well, since Seoul is located well within artillery range of the north.
- sliverstorm 10y agoYou wouldn't know it given the land size of the country, but NK used to have the third largest standing army in the world, after the USA & PRC. (They are fourth now, after India)
- douche 10y agoWhich would stand up just about as well as the Iraqi army did in either Gulf War after a week's worth of airstrikes from a CAG in the Sea of Japan, cruise missiles and land-based bombers out of Japan. It'd be a turkey-shoot.
- snerbles 10y agoIn the week we obliterate the DPRK, they'll flatten Seoul.
- pattisapu 10y agoSpeaking as an American -- to say no arguably puts us on a moral footing like North Korea's -- playing political hardball at the expense of innocent people.
- John23832 10y agoI agree. It's a shitty situation either way. But really, to give them even MORE food that we already do, would be enabling abusers. They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do. At a certain point though, the politicians have to be held responsible to the people. And people are never more hungry for change, than when they are hungry for food.
- placeybordeaux 10y ago> They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do. What are you referring to? Aid given outside the context of a specific crisis is fairly destructive. What that can do is drag the price of food down below what farmers in the region can work with.
- John23832 10y agoIf I implied that we just dump food into Africa, that's not what I meant. We make a concerted effort to feed people there. I'm well aware of the economic implications of flooding the (already fragile) food markets of developing countries.
- linkregister 10y agoI'm pretty sure the U.S. doesn't provide food aid to African nations anymore; when it was occurring it was considered a subsidy to U.S. farmers at the expense of dumping food on local markets and destroying local agriculture. U.S. foreign aid to developing nations is now delivered in the form of grants to local NGOs to help improve local farming practices, infrastructure (water wells mostly), and also military aid (aid earmarked to buying U.S.-made weaponry). As a percentage of federal spending, foreign aid amounts to less than one percent, dominated by aid to Israel and Egypt. West, Central, and Eastern African aid is not a significantly high percentage of U.S. federal spending. I agree with your point about enabling abusers, I just thought I should let you know that U.S. foreign aid is more sophisticated than simply dumping food on local markets.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago> Not aiding them at least gives their people a chance to see what is really going on. That sounds nice but is exactly the opposite of what would happen; they'd likely be told the world has abandoned them, they can only rely on themselves, that sort of nationalist shout that would ultimately shift more power to Pyongyang. That's their game, and you'd be playing right into it. Not helping them would likely backfire and increase anti-w{orld,est} sentiment that many North Koreans already carry -- taught and nurtured by leadership -- and make the people more supportive of the regime.
- John23832 10y agoI highly doubt that when we give them food NK says "Hey look at how nice the Americans are" either. The people probably don't even know the food comes from us. It really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation.
- mejari 10y agoIs there more power that could be shifted to Pyongyang? What power is there in NK that they don't already possess?
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoDefectors already tell us that not everybody is on board, they just shut up about it. Denying North Koreans food when they need it might convert those folks to regime supporters once it's used for propaganda value. That increases the regime's power. There's outright power, which is what you're talking about, and the people being behind you no matter what which is subtly different. If someone in the world starts favoring changing the regime, the people being behind the regime is insurance; it'd be way harder to accomplish those goals with the people in the fight.
- John23832 10y agoOr denying food might be the last straw the spurs people to action against the regime. The fact is, we don't really know what will happen.