3 ms·

There seem to be a few misconceptions or oversights here: The US military can essentially break almost any government instantly, insurgency is a different beas

There seem to be a few misconceptions or oversights here: The US military can essentially break almost any government instantly, insurgency is a different beast. That's no mystery. North Korean ICBMs can theoretically reach America in the same way that I can theoretically walk into the Kremlin and choke Putin to death with my bare hands. In practice, it's unlikely. There are preventive measures in place. As for the Taliban getting ahold of an ancient helicopter, I don't think it's a major concern. You may have seen that anything of real value was first destroyed, as is standard practice. The US is not going to declare an end to hostility with North Korea and has no reason to and many reasons not to.

vkou 4y ago
> The US military can essentially break almost any government instantly, insurgency is a different beast. That's no mystery. I'd like to add that I have strong doubts that a North Korean insurgency is a likely outcome of a war, unless occupation and reintegration is botched on an utterly comical scale - an order of magnitude more than it was botched in Iraq. [1] Claiming that the threat of a NK insurgency is real, on the other hand, is a great way to secure more funding for the DoD. [1] Which may well had coalesced into a stable state, if it weren't for the occupation purging every Ba'ath-adjacent political and security functionary they could get their hands on. Instead of being included in the post-Saddam state, all those people who lost their jobs went into the hills and started building IEDs and firing mortars at US Army bases.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Agreed. I think it's underappreciated just how inefficient and undercapitalized the North Korean state is, and by extension how low their people's expectations are. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, South Korea would be logistically and economically able to flood the North with what would seem to be impossibly plentiful consumer goods and staples. And politics have a way of dissolving in the face of consumption...

vkou 4y ago

> The US military can essentially break almost any government instantly, insurgency is a different beast. That's no mystery. I'd like to add that I have strong doubts that a North Korean insurgency is a likely outcome of a war, unless occupation and reintegration is botched on an utterly comical scale - an order of magnitude more than it was botched in Iraq. [1] Claiming that the threat of a NK insurgency is real, on the other hand, is a great way to secure more funding for the DoD. [1] Which may well had coalesced into a stable state, if it weren't for the occupation purging every Ba'ath-adjacent political and security functionary they could get their hands on. Instead of being included in the post-Saddam state, all those people who lost their jobs went into the hills and started building IEDs and firing mortars at US Army bases.

ethbr0 4y ago
Agreed. I think it's underappreciated just how inefficient and undercapitalized the North Korean state is, and by extension how low their people's expectations are. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, South Korea would be logistically and economically able to flood the North with what would seem to be impossibly plentiful consumer goods and staples. And politics have a way of dissolving in the face of consumption...