4 ms·

It seems like the Kim regime is backed into a corner where only the capability to launch nuclear weapons will ensure that they aren't wiped off the face of the

It seems like the Kim regime is backed into a corner where only the capability to launch nuclear weapons will ensure that they aren't wiped off the face of the planet.

itbeho 9y ago
Or they could spend some of their treasure on feeding their own people instead of pursuing weapons of war. Anyone looking for a fight will eventually find one. http://www.newsweek.com/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-starving-his-people-pay-nuclear-weapons-573015 http://www.newsweek.com/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-starving-hi...
- btilly 9y ago
  The problem is that on the path from "our people's lives suck" to "our people have good lives" there is an inevitable step where "our people learn how badly their rulers have screwed them over". NK leadership doesn't think that they'll survive that step.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    Another issue, is that China and Seoul, and by extension the US, would be a lot more willing to step in and probably help with reunification or a regime change with open borders if it didn't also mean a massive financial effort/refugee crisis on the border.
    - btilly 9y ago
      My understanding is that it is all China. China's two concerns are avoiding a refugee crisis, and not having a US ally directly on such a sensitive border. Seoul would certainly face hardship, but is currently willing to help. (Plus they would be happy to have solved their fear of immanent invasion.) However allowing Seoul to help would leave a US ally directly on China's border. However Seoul's support is faltering as memories fade. In public polls, 56% of South Koreans think that supporting reunification as "essential", but support is much stronger among older generations. If the stalemate lasts a couple more generations, the two countries may not want to reunite.
      - jethro_tell 9y ago
        >Plus they would be happy to have solved their fear of immanent invasion. This may be fixed with the regime change method with open borders. I'm sure you are correct that the memory will fade and in turn, the desire to help, when there are no longer families that have to meet across the border.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
It's easy to mock the DPRK, but its actions are perfectly rational. The leadership has realised that nukes are necessary to remain in power.
- test6554 9y ago
  At some point, they'll just have to decide which threat is greatest. The internal one that is very real for them or the external one they are making stronger every day.
- existencebox 9y ago
  That seems to be canonically false, however, due to the fact that they had the metaphorical "gun to S. Korea's Head" long before they had nukes, and despite bragging for years about their intentions the international community was still very limited in their actions. Nukes seem peripheral to the core capability of just being able to do enough damage before you can be stopped that anyone is afraid to engage you. (to provide an example; if you watch the news running up to the iraq invasion, many outlets were _very convinced_ we'd see WMD used against us, but that didn't seem to be the primary or even tangential cause for hesitation at the time.)
  - kbenson 9y ago
    It's not just about how much damage you can cause, it's about who you can cause it to. At some point, if the only damage N.K. can do is to S.K., a third party might choose to take action against N.K. before they have the capability to hurt that third party. Put in real terms, if the U.S. strongly believed that N.K. would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the pacific northwest accurately in the next year, a preemptive strike by the U.S. that causes massive casualties in S.K. in retaliation might go from unthinkable to "a hard decision that needs careful thought." to those in power in the U.S.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      No, they could nuke China. Even if they don't they could send hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees poring over the border. There is a reason China plays ball with them.
vim_wannabe 9y ago
Considering what happened to Iraq, Libya, soon Syria and all the others, yes, nuclear capabilities are among the only things to protect you. And to think the countries were destroyed for the mere fact that they happened to have 'the wrong system of government'...
- kuschku 9y ago
  You can use an even better example, Ukraine. The Ukraine gave up their nuclear weaponry, with a promise from the west that we’d protect them. Only a few years later, Russia is invading the Ukraine right now, and we all don’t do shit.
  - jethro_tell 9y ago
    >with a promise from the west that we’d protect them. Well actually, with a promise that the USA and Russia would protect them. So it's not quite so clean cut as saying no one came to my aid. When infact, they were attacked by the people who were going to come to their aid. They could have joined NATO to get the backing of the full NATO Alliance, but they failed to get that done in 20 years because they didn't want to assure human rights for LGBT community which was a huge wedge issue (probably with massive help from Russian astro-turing). NATO will not allow a country to join that is currently involved in a border dispute. So they are in a bit of a pickle, though not one that should have been too hard to see coming.
    - themaninthedark 9y ago
      Only Russia attacked them. What aid has the USA rendered? This situation has shaken Japan's faith that the USA is willing to honor the agreement with them.

It seems like the Kim regime is backed into a corner where only the capability to launch nuclear weapons will ensure that they aren't wiped off the face of the planet.

itbeho 9y ago

Or they could spend some of their treasure on feeding their own people instead of pursuing weapons of war. Anyone looking for a fight will eventually find one. http://www.newsweek.com/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-starving-his-people-pay-nuclear-weapons-573015 http://www.newsweek.com/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-starving-hi...

btilly 9y ago
The problem is that on the path from "our people's lives suck" to "our people have good lives" there is an inevitable step where "our people learn how badly their rulers have screwed them over". NK leadership doesn't think that they'll survive that step.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  Another issue, is that China and Seoul, and by extension the US, would be a lot more willing to step in and probably help with reunification or a regime change with open borders if it didn't also mean a massive financial effort/refugee crisis on the border.
  - btilly 9y ago
    My understanding is that it is all China. China's two concerns are avoiding a refugee crisis, and not having a US ally directly on such a sensitive border. Seoul would certainly face hardship, but is currently willing to help. (Plus they would be happy to have solved their fear of immanent invasion.) However allowing Seoul to help would leave a US ally directly on China's border. However Seoul's support is faltering as memories fade. In public polls, 56% of South Koreans think that supporting reunification as "essential", but support is much stronger among older generations. If the stalemate lasts a couple more generations, the two countries may not want to reunite.
    - jethro_tell 9y ago
      >Plus they would be happy to have solved their fear of immanent invasion. This may be fixed with the regime change method with open borders. I'm sure you are correct that the memory will fade and in turn, the desire to help, when there are no longer families that have to meet across the border.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

It's easy to mock the DPRK, but its actions are perfectly rational. The leadership has realised that nukes are necessary to remain in power.

test6554 9y ago
At some point, they'll just have to decide which threat is greatest. The internal one that is very real for them or the external one they are making stronger every day.
existencebox 9y ago
That seems to be canonically false, however, due to the fact that they had the metaphorical "gun to S. Korea's Head" long before they had nukes, and despite bragging for years about their intentions the international community was still very limited in their actions. Nukes seem peripheral to the core capability of just being able to do enough damage before you can be stopped that anyone is afraid to engage you. (to provide an example; if you watch the news running up to the iraq invasion, many outlets were _very convinced_ we'd see WMD used against us, but that didn't seem to be the primary or even tangential cause for hesitation at the time.)
- kbenson 9y ago
  It's not just about how much damage you can cause, it's about who you can cause it to. At some point, if the only damage N.K. can do is to S.K., a third party might choose to take action against N.K. before they have the capability to hurt that third party. Put in real terms, if the U.S. strongly believed that N.K. would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the pacific northwest accurately in the next year, a preemptive strike by the U.S. that causes massive casualties in S.K. in retaliation might go from unthinkable to "a hard decision that needs careful thought." to those in power in the U.S.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    No, they could nuke China. Even if they don't they could send hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees poring over the border. There is a reason China plays ball with them.

vim_wannabe 9y ago

Considering what happened to Iraq, Libya, soon Syria and all the others, yes, nuclear capabilities are among the only things to protect you. And to think the countries were destroyed for the mere fact that they happened to have 'the wrong system of government'...

kuschku 9y ago
You can use an even better example, Ukraine. The Ukraine gave up their nuclear weaponry, with a promise from the west that we’d protect them. Only a few years later, Russia is invading the Ukraine right now, and we all don’t do shit.
- jethro_tell 9y ago
  >with a promise from the west that we’d protect them. Well actually, with a promise that the USA and Russia would protect them. So it's not quite so clean cut as saying no one came to my aid. When infact, they were attacked by the people who were going to come to their aid. They could have joined NATO to get the backing of the full NATO Alliance, but they failed to get that done in 20 years because they didn't want to assure human rights for LGBT community which was a huge wedge issue (probably with massive help from Russian astro-turing). NATO will not allow a country to join that is currently involved in a border dispute. So they are in a bit of a pickle, though not one that should have been too hard to see coming.
  - themaninthedark 9y ago
    Only Russia attacked them. What aid has the USA rendered? This situation has shaken Japan's faith that the USA is willing to honor the agreement with them.