4 ms·

> NK isn't some rationalistic actor. The way they're behaving is quite rational. They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new adm

> NK isn't some rationalistic actor. The way they're behaving is quite rational. They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term. This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival. Lest people think I'm engaging in apologetics, what they're doing to keep in power is reprehensible. But they're not mad men looking for a symbolic "win" at the cost of suicide.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hodgesrm 9y ago
That's assuming that NK is just building the deterrent to stay in power. Another possibility is that they would seek to increase their power against other, non-nuclear armed nations. Many of NK's historical actions such as kidnapping foreign citizens [0] or the abominable treatment of prisoners like Otto Warmbier cannot be explained simply by a rational desire for regime survival. We don't really know what their end game is.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term. I believe that NK was untrustworthy long before the events you cite. They didn't reach a rational conclusion. They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.
- Certhas 9y ago
  You imply that untrustworthy, lying bullies can't be rational. Read the parent again: > This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival. If you're a criminal bully, then the only way to not get taken down by the bigger kids is to get nuclear weapons.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  > They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies. And US policy towards Korea has been something else?
  - krapp 9y ago
    South Korea seems to be doing just fine, and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime, so I don't really see the purpose of the equivocation you're trying to set, here.
    - chickenfries 9y ago
      I'm not trying to equivocate I'm trying to point out the a-historicism of throwing our hands in the air and saying "well I guess there's just no reasoning with them!" The reason our diplomatic options are so poor now is because we have constantly failed to deliver our end of the bargain when it comes to nonproliferation in North Korea, see the Agreed Framework. Saying that they're "just crazy bullies" has always been a stupid over simplification that gets us nowhere closer to not blowing each other up. > and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime And DPRK is not? What are you even talking about? The DPRK literally uses inflammatory rhetoric about the USA all the time.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies. Yes, and that's worked out great for the Kims for almost 70 years now. We haven't exactly given them an incentive to change or reform. It's impossible to exaggerate how badly we botched our handling of Libya in particular. After watching what happened to Gaddafi, there was literally no other option for Kim besides an all-out push to develop nuclear arms. Iran, not being a country populated exclusively by idiots, will be doing the same. The US simply cannot be trusted regardless of what party is at the helm, and that's a huge problem for us as well as anyone we're doing international business with.
smsm42 9y ago
It looks like currently their estimation is that the West is too weak to oppose them and by taking a bellicose stance they can extract concessions, payments and other benefits. This is basically a blackmail/hostage situation.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  They haven't been wrong about that in the past...
doingmyting 9y ago
There is a documentary on Netflix called The Propaganda Game that does a good job of explaining this. It goes way back to the history of when the Korean peninsula got split. It's an interesting watch especially if you're trying to escape the narrative in the echo chamber of the west for an hour or so. edit: grammar
convivialdingo 9y ago
I agree completely. Contrast those rogue nations with Pakistan - who has nukes - and it's a strong argument. Pakistan regularly taunts India with the same threats and they still get megabucks in aid. NK made it past the finish line: they have a real program and a modest delivery system. I expect they will continue to follow the same diplomatic strategy as Pakistan.
newsmania 9y ago
No they’re not. The only reason they are still there is because China wants them there. And they are being very dumb by making China angry. Secondly treating your people like dirt is also a very bad idea. Singapore remains a monarchy while not being anything like NK. The man drives his country into the dirt for bombs when they are completely unnecessary. He could either a) treat his people better then wouldn’t need bombs, or b) keep China happy and still wouldn’t need bombs.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  China isn't angry at NK for building nukes. They're angry because now they have to be given that the U.S. wants them to be "or else". I'm not sure that the "or else" is real, but China has a lot to lose, while NK only has Kim to lose, so I expect China will continue attempting to appear angry at NK.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

hodgesrm 9y ago

That's assuming that NK is just building the deterrent to stay in power. Another possibility is that they would seek to increase their power against other, non-nuclear armed nations. Many of NK's historical actions such as kidnapping foreign citizens [0] or the abominable treatment of prisoners like Otto Warmbier cannot be explained simply by a rational desire for regime survival. We don't really know what their end game is.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term. I believe that NK was untrustworthy long before the events you cite. They didn't reach a rational conclusion. They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.

Certhas 9y ago
You imply that untrustworthy, lying bullies can't be rational. Read the parent again: > This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival. If you're a criminal bully, then the only way to not get taken down by the bigger kids is to get nuclear weapons.
chickenfries 9y ago
> They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies. And US policy towards Korea has been something else?
- krapp 9y ago
  South Korea seems to be doing just fine, and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime, so I don't really see the purpose of the equivocation you're trying to set, here.
  - chickenfries 9y ago
    I'm not trying to equivocate I'm trying to point out the a-historicism of throwing our hands in the air and saying "well I guess there's just no reasoning with them!" The reason our diplomatic options are so poor now is because we have constantly failed to deliver our end of the bargain when it comes to nonproliferation in North Korea, see the Agreed Framework. Saying that they're "just crazy bullies" has always been a stupid over simplification that gets us nowhere closer to not blowing each other up. > and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime And DPRK is not? What are you even talking about? The DPRK literally uses inflammatory rhetoric about the USA all the time.
CamperBob2 9y ago
They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies. Yes, and that's worked out great for the Kims for almost 70 years now. We haven't exactly given them an incentive to change or reform. It's impossible to exaggerate how badly we botched our handling of Libya in particular. After watching what happened to Gaddafi, there was literally no other option for Kim besides an all-out push to develop nuclear arms. Iran, not being a country populated exclusively by idiots, will be doing the same. The US simply cannot be trusted regardless of what party is at the helm, and that's a huge problem for us as well as anyone we're doing international business with.

smsm42 9y ago

It looks like currently their estimation is that the West is too weak to oppose them and by taking a bellicose stance they can extract concessions, payments and other benefits. This is basically a blackmail/hostage situation.

cryptonector 9y ago
They haven't been wrong about that in the past...

doingmyting 9y ago

There is a documentary on Netflix called The Propaganda Game that does a good job of explaining this. It goes way back to the history of when the Korean peninsula got split. It's an interesting watch especially if you're trying to escape the narrative in the echo chamber of the west for an hour or so. edit: grammar

convivialdingo 9y ago

I agree completely. Contrast those rogue nations with Pakistan - who has nukes - and it's a strong argument. Pakistan regularly taunts India with the same threats and they still get megabucks in aid. NK made it past the finish line: they have a real program and a modest delivery system. I expect they will continue to follow the same diplomatic strategy as Pakistan.

newsmania 9y ago

No they’re not. The only reason they are still there is because China wants them there. And they are being very dumb by making China angry. Secondly treating your people like dirt is also a very bad idea. Singapore remains a monarchy while not being anything like NK. The man drives his country into the dirt for bombs when they are completely unnecessary. He could either a) treat his people better then wouldn’t need bombs, or b) keep China happy and still wouldn’t need bombs.

cryptonector 9y ago
China isn't angry at NK for building nukes. They're angry because now they have to be given that the U.S. wants them to be "or else". I'm not sure that the "or else" is real, but China has a lot to lose, while NK only has Kim to lose, so I expect China will continue attempting to appear angry at NK.