5 ms·

This NK situation is crazy -- seems like there is no good way to deal with this guy. If we silently ignore, he keeps testing until its too late. If we get aggr

This NK situation is crazy -- seems like there is no good way to deal with this guy. If we silently ignore, he keeps testing until its too late. If we get aggressive, he pulls the trigger. And "diplomatic pressure" doesn't seem to be having any effect. We've already had years worth of sanctions -- and well, this just happened.

devmunchies 9y ago
It's not just "this guy". The whole head of the government is like a machine. If he tries to bring it down the other elites will put him down. NK would not have been able to last this long by just one family having 100% power. It's a network.
- 2_listerine_pls 9y ago
  China supplies oil to NK. If you want them to stop, cut the oil.
program_whiz 9y ago
Is our only option to just surprise strike this guy into obvlivion and hope for the best, take casualties now? Assume that his capability is going to grow over time, just take whatever losses and assume eventually he will strike -- so best to eliminate the threat now while at the smallest point (but still obviously huge damage could be done to the innocent).
- mikeash 9y ago
  There's always the possibility of a peaceful resolution. Kim might one day decide he's better off making friends rather than enemies, or a more moderate leader might stage a coup or something. People thought the USSR would be around forever, and then suddenly in went to pieces without anyone having to blow it up. But what are the odds of that actually happening? Nobody really knows. If they're remote, then getting it over with now is probably the best approach. If they're decent, then waiting might be better. It's a difficult decision to make.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    USSR went away because Gorvachev dismantled it in a careful and systematic way. It was somewhat akin to the CEO breaking apart a monstrous company. Had it been anyone else the results more likely would have been dramatically different and, most likely, not in the more "acceptable" way.
- andrepd 9y ago
  That is an extremely bad idea. It's easy to talk off-handedly about casualties, but remember these could be on the scale of tens of millions. This is not something which you just shrug and do. Direct military action has almost 0% of occurring, by initiative of the West at least.
  - yomly 9y ago
    I am not convinced KJU would fear a nuclear fallout. He has nothing to lose. If he were determined to survive, he is sure to have bunkers to protect him and he could almost certainly smuggle himself out of the country. If he really valued the lives of his citizens, you would probably expect a different means of governing. I don't think you can treat this person as a rational individual when negotiating...
    - dageshi 9y ago
      Once you're away from your powerbase your days are numbered. He must certainly know that he'd be hunted till the end of days, like Bin Laden, like Hussein.
    - usefulcat 9y ago
      Nothing to lose, apart from wealth, power, luxury, the prestige of being the leader of a nation with a large nuclear-equipped military, not to mention quite possibly his life... all things I suspect he values quite highly.
  - program_whiz 9y ago
    But if you assume the probability of strike is increasing over time, as is the population of all these areas, then the best alternative (although horrible to imagine), may be sacrificing 10m lives now to save 100m lives in 10 years. Its not pretty, but can you say you believe given another 10 years unchecked development the likelihood of strike and deaths is lower?
    - Lambdanaut 9y ago
      Like a probabillistic indeterminate game of the trolley problem( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem )
- NedIsakoff 9y ago
  The real question is what the fuck do do with the 25 million North Korean refugees? 99.9% of the people are unable to function in a modern country. No one wants them. China doesn't and despite saying so, South Korea doesn't want them either (despite saying re-unification).
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  The only realistic option is to wait this out. As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike. For NK, it would mean a swift, permanent end to the regime. For the USA, it would mean an unacceptable level of causalities (not to mention a global economic disaster). There is dissent in NK, it will eventually take out dear leader. This is the most desirable end-game for NK.
  - program_whiz 9y ago
    If the missle had hit japan this morning, would you still think that?
    - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      What he said was: Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties. Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides. How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?
      - program_whiz 9y ago
        What I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike" My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.
        nazgul17 9y ago
        The missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >Is our only option to just surprise strike this guy into obvlivion and hope for the best, take casualties now? This is why North Korea is dead set on developing nuclear bombs. As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking.
  - harshreality 9y ago
    > As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking. No, but China would, and even North Korea's conventional threat against South Korea would. A non-nuclear PRNK has nothing to fear from the USA, because China loves its North Korean buffer against South Korea, and will not let anything happen to it. Wouldn't China love a non-nuclear PRNK even more? It would still be a buffer and could still cause massive damage to Seoul and South Korea's industry and shipping, but without the region-destabilizing nuclear threat to Japan, Guam, CONUS, etc. If KJU wanted to be a responsible leader, it seems to me that he would drop his nuclear and icbm programs, come up with a narrative for why that was necessary (or simply lie to his people and launch short-range rockets all the time to maintain a facade of continued progress), accept international aid and modernization, and claim credit for it to his people. If the international community does things he doesn't like, he can still threaten to attack South Korea, which would be devastating. The nuclear threat is just one step too far, and if KJU isn't careful, he's going to find that out. Trump isn't going to attack offensively (at least not without Chinese and South Korean green lights), not only because the counterattack would be a disaster for U.S. allies and perhaps the U.S. itself, but because China would then get involved in some capacity on North Korea's side. KJU doesn't appear to want to be a responsible or rational leader, nor does he want to help his people. It seems like he wants the nuclear threat to get sanctions lifted so he can be even more of a jackass to his subjects and prop up his own regime with more comfort and power. He's already living well; if he's not happy with the status quo and wants more power and lifted sanctions to benefit himself and not his citizens, that makes me worry about his rationality vastly more than I worry about Trump's, and I do worry about Trump's sometimes.
    - 9y ago
NedIsakoff 9y ago
Its not that he pulls the trigger. The real question is what the fuck do do with the 25 million North Korean refugees? No one wants them.
- jlebrech 9y ago
  europe doesn't seem to have trouble with that number of refugees or am i mistaken?
  - dagw 9y ago
    Europe has received an order of magnitude fewer refugees spread out of 2.5 years. As to whether or not they've been having "trouble", I guess it all depends on how bad things have to get before you upgrade it from inconvenience to trouble.
  - NedIsakoff 9y ago
    Europe took in 2.5M in 2015/2015 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis), North Korea has 25M population. Europe economically is much stronger then South Korea. Plus the refugees are more functional in a modern world then 99.9% of the DPRKians.
  - TausAmmer 9y ago
    Still have not encountered anyone from Europe who is happy about having refugees up to they arse. Except those that benefit from transporting/smuggling them and government agencies. Money grabbers love refugees, 25M refugees will give billions of income, of course, from the expense of common man. And you can talk all you want about the outcome and best scenarios, lives. Warmongers will war, money grabbers will grab, you will pay for that!
  - program_whiz 9y ago
    There has been a huge increase in terrorism and crime, as well as massive drains on public resources. 99% of refugees aren't going to come to a first world nation from their 3rd world war-torn nation and just "settle in and start being productive". Obviously a minority (Doctors, Lawyers if they can meet new/different standards) can contribute, but most of those people were in poverty and uneducated back home, and living in a totally different society -- so integration is pretty rough imo.
d6e 9y ago
It's definitely not one guy. This is a great read which helped me understand the perspective and situations dictators, and nation leaders in general, often face. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_ISyPzb8ZNFNG6 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_ISy...
- lkbm 9y ago
  CGP Grey did a video based on this book for those who want a short (uh...I mean 20-minute) introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

devmunchies 9y ago

It's not just "this guy". The whole head of the government is like a machine. If he tries to bring it down the other elites will put him down. NK would not have been able to last this long by just one family having 100% power. It's a network.

2_listerine_pls 9y ago
China supplies oil to NK. If you want them to stop, cut the oil.

program_whiz 9y ago

Is our only option to just surprise strike this guy into obvlivion and hope for the best, take casualties now? Assume that his capability is going to grow over time, just take whatever losses and assume eventually he will strike -- so best to eliminate the threat now while at the smallest point (but still obviously huge damage could be done to the innocent).

mikeash 9y ago
There's always the possibility of a peaceful resolution. Kim might one day decide he's better off making friends rather than enemies, or a more moderate leader might stage a coup or something. People thought the USSR would be around forever, and then suddenly in went to pieces without anyone having to blow it up. But what are the odds of that actually happening? Nobody really knows. If they're remote, then getting it over with now is probably the best approach. If they're decent, then waiting might be better. It's a difficult decision to make.
- notyourday 9y ago
  USSR went away because Gorvachev dismantled it in a careful and systematic way. It was somewhat akin to the CEO breaking apart a monstrous company. Had it been anyone else the results more likely would have been dramatically different and, most likely, not in the more "acceptable" way.
andrepd 9y ago
That is an extremely bad idea. It's easy to talk off-handedly about casualties, but remember these could be on the scale of tens of millions. This is not something which you just shrug and do. Direct military action has almost 0% of occurring, by initiative of the West at least.
- yomly 9y ago
  I am not convinced KJU would fear a nuclear fallout. He has nothing to lose. If he were determined to survive, he is sure to have bunkers to protect him and he could almost certainly smuggle himself out of the country. If he really valued the lives of his citizens, you would probably expect a different means of governing. I don't think you can treat this person as a rational individual when negotiating...
  - dageshi 9y ago
    Once you're away from your powerbase your days are numbered. He must certainly know that he'd be hunted till the end of days, like Bin Laden, like Hussein.
  - usefulcat 9y ago
    Nothing to lose, apart from wealth, power, luxury, the prestige of being the leader of a nation with a large nuclear-equipped military, not to mention quite possibly his life... all things I suspect he values quite highly.
- program_whiz 9y ago
  But if you assume the probability of strike is increasing over time, as is the population of all these areas, then the best alternative (although horrible to imagine), may be sacrificing 10m lives now to save 100m lives in 10 years. Its not pretty, but can you say you believe given another 10 years unchecked development the likelihood of strike and deaths is lower?
  - Lambdanaut 9y ago
    Like a probabillistic indeterminate game of the trolley problem( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem )
NedIsakoff 9y ago
The real question is what the fuck do do with the 25 million North Korean refugees? 99.9% of the people are unable to function in a modern country. No one wants them. China doesn't and despite saying so, South Korea doesn't want them either (despite saying re-unification).
crispyambulance 9y ago
The only realistic option is to wait this out. As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike. For NK, it would mean a swift, permanent end to the regime. For the USA, it would mean an unacceptable level of causalities (not to mention a global economic disaster). There is dissent in NK, it will eventually take out dear leader. This is the most desirable end-game for NK.
- program_whiz 9y ago
  If the missle had hit japan this morning, would you still think that?
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    What he said was: Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties. Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides. How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?
    - program_whiz 9y ago
      What I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike" My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.
      - nazgul17 9y ago
        The missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>Is our only option to just surprise strike this guy into obvlivion and hope for the best, take casualties now? This is why North Korea is dead set on developing nuclear bombs. As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking.
- harshreality 9y ago
  > As long as the US remains a threat North Korea has no other choice, it's not like getting rid of their WMD's would prevent the US from attacking. No, but China would, and even North Korea's conventional threat against South Korea would. A non-nuclear PRNK has nothing to fear from the USA, because China loves its North Korean buffer against South Korea, and will not let anything happen to it. Wouldn't China love a non-nuclear PRNK even more? It would still be a buffer and could still cause massive damage to Seoul and South Korea's industry and shipping, but without the region-destabilizing nuclear threat to Japan, Guam, CONUS, etc. If KJU wanted to be a responsible leader, it seems to me that he would drop his nuclear and icbm programs, come up with a narrative for why that was necessary (or simply lie to his people and launch short-range rockets all the time to maintain a facade of continued progress), accept international aid and modernization, and claim credit for it to his people. If the international community does things he doesn't like, he can still threaten to attack South Korea, which would be devastating. The nuclear threat is just one step too far, and if KJU isn't careful, he's going to find that out. Trump isn't going to attack offensively (at least not without Chinese and South Korean green lights), not only because the counterattack would be a disaster for U.S. allies and perhaps the U.S. itself, but because China would then get involved in some capacity on North Korea's side. KJU doesn't appear to want to be a responsible or rational leader, nor does he want to help his people. It seems like he wants the nuclear threat to get sanctions lifted so he can be even more of a jackass to his subjects and prop up his own regime with more comfort and power. He's already living well; if he's not happy with the status quo and wants more power and lifted sanctions to benefit himself and not his citizens, that makes me worry about his rationality vastly more than I worry about Trump's, and I do worry about Trump's sometimes.
  - 9y ago

NedIsakoff 9y ago

Its not that he pulls the trigger. The real question is what the fuck do do with the 25 million North Korean refugees? No one wants them.

jlebrech 9y ago
europe doesn't seem to have trouble with that number of refugees or am i mistaken?
- dagw 9y ago
  Europe has received an order of magnitude fewer refugees spread out of 2.5 years. As to whether or not they've been having "trouble", I guess it all depends on how bad things have to get before you upgrade it from inconvenience to trouble.
- NedIsakoff 9y ago
  Europe took in 2.5M in 2015/2015 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis), North Korea has 25M population. Europe economically is much stronger then South Korea. Plus the refugees are more functional in a modern world then 99.9% of the DPRKians.
- TausAmmer 9y ago
  Still have not encountered anyone from Europe who is happy about having refugees up to they arse. Except those that benefit from transporting/smuggling them and government agencies. Money grabbers love refugees, 25M refugees will give billions of income, of course, from the expense of common man. And you can talk all you want about the outcome and best scenarios, lives. Warmongers will war, money grabbers will grab, you will pay for that!
- program_whiz 9y ago
  There has been a huge increase in terrorism and crime, as well as massive drains on public resources. 99% of refugees aren't going to come to a first world nation from their 3rd world war-torn nation and just "settle in and start being productive". Obviously a minority (Doctors, Lawyers if they can meet new/different standards) can contribute, but most of those people were in poverty and uneducated back home, and living in a totally different society -- so integration is pretty rough imo.

d6e 9y ago

It's definitely not one guy. This is a great read which helped me understand the perspective and situations dictators, and nation leaders in general, often face. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_ISyPzb8ZNFNG6 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_ISy...

lkbm 9y ago
CGP Grey did a video based on this book for those who want a short (uh...I mean 20-minute) introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs