3 ms·

This is almost North Korean propaganda. >The real question is why the US keeps blustering about N. Korea and why US hawks keep fanning the flames. North Korea

This is almost North Korean propaganda. >The real question is why the US keeps blustering about N. Korea and why US hawks keep fanning the flames. North Korea fans the flames by its continued, calculated provocations. You're right in that they aren't crazy: this periodic activity is designed to elicit a response from the international community, and up until the 2000s this worked. Their provocations used to result in more aid being sent their way. They've become less effective in recent years. >US sanctions have helped NK become an insular place where reality is distorted and basic famine prevents much dissent from occurring. No, the brutal and monstous Kim regime did that by establishing a totalitarian police state. It's wrong and frankly somewhat racist to strip every non-US actor of their agency. >Like playground bullies, US politicians need small countries to push around to make themselves feel powerful. North Korea created the current situation when it attempted to conquer its southern neighbor and was forced back. It has created a nightmare state of total control explicitly built on a "military first" policy. It has routinely and repeatedly threatened to attack and destroy its neighbors South Korea and Japan. The idea that the US is just "bullying" this dangerous state is simply mad. That's not to say they must be attacked. It's a very difficult situation where either the world attacks North Korea and millions die, or they let it stand and millions of North Koreans suffer while the regime builds up a nuclear arsenal. And this ridiculous idea that North Korea needs nuclear weapons to keep the US out is equally absurd. The US doesn't invade North Korea today for the same reason it didn't do so for the 60 years since the end of the Korean War: NK doesn't need nuclear weapons to wreak massive devastation on South Korea. It has enough conventional weapons to make a war with North Korea, however short, utterly deadly. Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them. If you're not a paid propaganda agent, you should be. You do good work.

grandalf 9y ago
> That's not to say they must be attacked. So then what's the point of all the bluster and outrage? > up until the 2000s this worked. It's apparently still working. The past administrations have each come into the picture claiming to finally be ready to do something about NK, but have simply continued the stupid bluster of their predecessors. My prediction is that the US will offer to re-establish improved relations with NK if KJU steps down. This is the GWB strategy that worked so beautifully with Saddam Hussein. Then, when KJU doesn't step down the US will have an excuse to do all the horrible stuff that should never have been seriously considered as an option, such as additional intervention, arms sales, surveillance, etc. > Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them. I think you are forgetting about the mutually assured destruction that nukes offer. If NK uses a single nuclear weapon in an aggressive way its entire land mass would be obliterated within minutes. A rational leader (such as KJU) would simply not do that. He'll say all sorts of outrageous, Trump-like hyperbole, but he won't actually do anything. FWIW we all know that is how a rational leader would behave which is why US hawks try to convince us he's irrational or mentally ill. The solution is for the US to offer unconditional carrots to facilitate engagement. Totalitarian regimes are aided by factors that make them more insular, and weakened by things like trade and foreign entanglements associated with it. The goal should not be to weaken KJU but to strengthen enough factions in NK who have peaceful long term interests. US policy puts way too much emphasis on "regimes" and a black and white (frankly stupid) moralistic view. As the US abolitionist movement and other humanitarian movements should attest, regimes improve over time when economic activity creates many powerful interests to counteract the backward ones. If we continue the horrible status quo on NK, we are much more likely to have accidents due to brinksmanship which could trigger nuclear war.

grandalf 9y ago

> That's not to say they must be attacked. So then what's the point of all the bluster and outrage? > up until the 2000s this worked. It's apparently still working. The past administrations have each come into the picture claiming to finally be ready to do something about NK, but have simply continued the stupid bluster of their predecessors. My prediction is that the US will offer to re-establish improved relations with NK if KJU steps down. This is the GWB strategy that worked so beautifully with Saddam Hussein. Then, when KJU doesn't step down the US will have an excuse to do all the horrible stuff that should never have been seriously considered as an option, such as additional intervention, arms sales, surveillance, etc. > Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them. I think you are forgetting about the mutually assured destruction that nukes offer. If NK uses a single nuclear weapon in an aggressive way its entire land mass would be obliterated within minutes. A rational leader (such as KJU) would simply not do that. He'll say all sorts of outrageous, Trump-like hyperbole, but he won't actually do anything. FWIW we all know that is how a rational leader would behave which is why US hawks try to convince us he's irrational or mentally ill. The solution is for the US to offer unconditional carrots to facilitate engagement. Totalitarian regimes are aided by factors that make them more insular, and weakened by things like trade and foreign entanglements associated with it. The goal should not be to weaken KJU but to strengthen enough factions in NK who have peaceful long term interests. US policy puts way too much emphasis on "regimes" and a black and white (frankly stupid) moralistic view. As the US abolitionist movement and other humanitarian movements should attest, regimes improve over time when economic activity creates many powerful interests to counteract the backward ones. If we continue the horrible status quo on NK, we are much more likely to have accidents due to brinksmanship which could trigger nuclear war.