5 ms·

We certainly have done that in North Korea. We've given NK billions in aid in the expectation that the quest for nuclear weapons would end and NK would turn tow

We certainly have done that in North Korea. We've given NK billions in aid in the expectation that the quest for nuclear weapons would end and NK would turn towards prosperity. No one said, "we'll just kill them". The good thing is that NK is unlikely to kill us, since if it tries it won't survive as a political entity. That is called "deterrence".

boneslum 9y ago
Completely ignoring the fact that we contributed to the current situation by killing 20% of their population during the Korean War. Wonder if not doing that would have been a more effective deterrence?
- Accipitriform 9y ago
  Er, "The war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea following a series of clashes along the border." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Perhaps NK shouldn't have been the aggressor and gotten a bunch of citizens killed... How many South Koreans do you suppose would rather NK had won?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- astine 9y ago
  I have trouble countenancing people using the Korean War as justification for North Korean belligerence today. Yes, many North Koreans died during that war, but many South Koreans did as well... and those at the hands of their North Korean brothers. Not only was North Korea the aggressor in the Korean War, it was not the United States acting unilaterally that opposed it but the United Nations. This was one of the only times in history that the United Nations declared war on a nation acting as a clear aggressor. Had the United Nations not intervened, then we would see an entire Korean peninsula run as foolishly and cruelly as the North is. The DPRK's mythologizing of the war has done nothing but dig the North Korean people in general and the Kim regime in particular, into an ideological hole that they can't really get out of.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vkou 9y ago
Bill Clinton reached a deal with North Korea to supply them with oil, and normalize relations in exchange for them stopping their nuclear program. They did. Congress then reneged on the deal. Three years later, Bush gave his famous axis of evil speech, and invaded one of the countries on the list. Unsurprisingly, having taken one look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, and because it's not ran by suicidal morons, North Korea resumed their nuclear program. Have we all collectively forgotten the past 19 years?
- astine 9y ago
  Your characterization of events seems to be a bit of a simplification: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework Major reasons for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework was that DPRK was never abiding by it to begin with. I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons; North Korea should just respect its preexisting agreements with South Korea and rely on its relationships with China and Russia for nuclear deterrence the same as South Korea relies on the United States. It's no coincidence that talks broke down at around the same time that the North Korean famine started to subside. That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The reason Saddam got invaded was because he deliberately mislead people about his weapons programs. If North Korea was a less belligerent entity, they would be having a much easier time dealing with the United States.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint. If some agreement could not be reached, it would have bombed the Yongbyon reactor. The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of. > That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The belligerence was not in a void. The country underwent a devastating war, and was subjected to decades of economic and political marginalisation, with the constant threat of another war hanging over it. If the United States was less belligirent towards North Korea, they would also have a much easier time dealing with them. This is, of course, not a notion that is even entertained by the Department of State. Pretty much everyone involved in this cesspool is smeared in shit. No-one comes out looking good.

boneslum 9y ago

Completely ignoring the fact that we contributed to the current situation by killing 20% of their population during the Korean War. Wonder if not doing that would have been a more effective deterrence?

Accipitriform 9y ago
Er, "The war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea following a series of clashes along the border." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Perhaps NK shouldn't have been the aggressor and gotten a bunch of citizens killed... How many South Koreans do you suppose would rather NK had won?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
astine 9y ago
I have trouble countenancing people using the Korean War as justification for North Korean belligerence today. Yes, many North Koreans died during that war, but many South Koreans did as well... and those at the hands of their North Korean brothers. Not only was North Korea the aggressor in the Korean War, it was not the United States acting unilaterally that opposed it but the United Nations. This was one of the only times in history that the United Nations declared war on a nation acting as a clear aggressor. Had the United Nations not intervened, then we would see an entire Korean peninsula run as foolishly and cruelly as the North is. The DPRK's mythologizing of the war has done nothing but dig the North Korean people in general and the Kim regime in particular, into an ideological hole that they can't really get out of.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vkou 9y ago

Bill Clinton reached a deal with North Korea to supply them with oil, and normalize relations in exchange for them stopping their nuclear program. They did. Congress then reneged on the deal. Three years later, Bush gave his famous axis of evil speech, and invaded one of the countries on the list. Unsurprisingly, having taken one look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, and because it's not ran by suicidal morons, North Korea resumed their nuclear program. Have we all collectively forgotten the past 19 years?

astine 9y ago
Your characterization of events seems to be a bit of a simplification: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework Major reasons for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework was that DPRK was never abiding by it to begin with. I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons; North Korea should just respect its preexisting agreements with South Korea and rely on its relationships with China and Russia for nuclear deterrence the same as South Korea relies on the United States. It's no coincidence that talks broke down at around the same time that the North Korean famine started to subside. That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The reason Saddam got invaded was because he deliberately mislead people about his weapons programs. If North Korea was a less belligerent entity, they would be having a much easier time dealing with the United States.
- vkou 9y ago
  > I mean it really shouldn't be up to the United States to bribe DPRK into not pursuing nuclear weapons The United States also should not be making demands of the DPRK at gunpoint. If some agreement could not be reached, it would have bombed the Yongbyon reactor. The NNPT is a voluntary agreement - one that its key signatories are arguably in violation of. > That speech by Bush, foolish as it was, was not given in a void. It was a response to decades of belligerence by the DPRK. The belligerence was not in a void. The country underwent a devastating war, and was subjected to decades of economic and political marginalisation, with the constant threat of another war hanging over it. If the United States was less belligirent towards North Korea, they would also have a much easier time dealing with them. This is, of course, not a notion that is even entertained by the Department of State. Pretty much everyone involved in this cesspool is smeared in shit. No-one comes out looking good.