6 ms·

I think when looking back through history, the continued torture of the entire North Korean population is going to be one of the most tragic events of the 21st

I think when looking back through history, the continued torture of the entire North Korean population is going to be one of the most tragic events of the 21st century. Despite the regime originating earlier, it feels to be most tragic now; long after any maligned geopolitical reason for the regime to exist has since disappeared. It’s something we don’t think about often currently, because it’s almost become a joke. The crazy hermit kingdom. But I really feel like we’ll look back at how we ignored it for so long shamefully. I don’t know what we could be doing though of course. I hope that will become clear soon.

reducesuffering 3y ago
What would you have the world do? Tens of thousands of Americans died trying to prevent it in the Korean War. Even if North Korea didn't have nuclear capabilities, it's asking for Iraq 2.0 (dictatorship threatening others, populace under severe oppression)
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  I would have gave MacArthur whatever he needed to win.
  - ksherlock 3y ago
    He wanted nuclear bombs in NK and China.
    - nickff 3y ago
      Do you have a citation for that? The only sources I've seen have said that others suggested offensive use of nuclear weapons, then scapegoated MacArthur when the studies were leaked/released to the public.
    - kneebonian 3y ago
      I maintain that the second greatest mistake the US ever made was not giving McArthur the bombs he wanted.
      - ksherlock 3y ago
        What's your number one mistake then? Not nuking Russia in 1945 or asking Stalin to help out in Asia?
  - dangerwill 3y ago
    What you are referring to is allowing MacArthur to have nuked China when they entered the Korean war, aka killing millions of civilians and leaving the eastern seaboard of China irradiated for generations. We should be glad he was kept on his leash.
    - okdood64 3y ago
      > leaving the eastern seaboard of China irradiated for generations It might depend on the particular warhead, but this was not the case for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        The nukes we had by korea were much larger
    - nickff 3y ago
      MacArthur repeatedly rejected suggestions for such use of nuclear and chemical weapons, stating that he would only use them to prevent an ultimate fallback. It seems that others, such as Bradley, Ridgeway, Truman, and even Eisenhower were more in favor of escalation than MacArthur, who seems to have been made something of a scapegoat upon his dismissal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nu... Sidenote: I am not a MacArthur 'fan', but he was a very complex character
- graypegg 3y ago
  I mentioned at the end of my comment I don’t have a good solution. I think something being tragic and shameful is possible even if we don’t have a solution. Just on a human level, this is humans doing horrible things to other humans. To me that’s shameful for all of us on the scale of history.
  - samastur 3y ago
    How is it shameful if nobody can think of a solution? What is there to be ashamed of, lack of omnipotence? Tragic, disappointing sure. I also happen to disagree that it is ignored or forgotten, this article just being the latest example.
    - graypegg 3y ago
      I’m probably being needlessly emotional about it. Anytime you look back in history you have all of the foresight from however many years after. I’m sure we’ll know a even more about what’s going on currently in 2023 way off into the future. On a purely logical level, we did what we could. But when people talk about other world events (WW2 for example) they’ll often wonder why the average person didn’t fight whatever horror was going on then. Does it ignore the entire context of the situation, yeah. But it’s odd that I think we’re in that time now. I’m being emotional because I have a cold, I’m in bed, reading something that made me sad. Take that with a grain of salt haha
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  If China decided they would no longer back North Korea, the regime could be replaced in hours. Most of the time, when toppling regimes, you have to be worried about someone even worse taking over. In this case, I don't see how it could get any worse.
  - andrewinardeer 3y ago
    History has shown that tempting fate like this often doesn't end well.
  - cryptoegorophy 3y ago
    Any worse? Pol Pot?
  - netsharc 3y ago
    What I imagine would happen is the North Koreans who have suddenly stopped becoming prisoners in their own land trying to enter China, and then China would have to post guards at the border, and be responsible for the mess, including violence, trying to stop them coming in. So the Chinese government probably has an interest in keeping an NK government alive, that way they can claim "He's the evil dictator oppressing his citizens, the mess over there is not our problem!". I wonder why that's my first thought, rather than the citizens wondering "Well, the government is gone, let's build a collective to self-govern." -- I guess people would rather join a structured society somewhere else rather than try to build one themselves (probably out of nothing, in NK). Not to mention yeah, even if the current asshole is gone, the next asshole is probably busy setting up shop to resume the oppression.
    - kneebonian 3y ago
      An important matter to understand is that a power vaccum fills very quickly, and often a power vacuum is filled by the most sociopathic, brutual and ruthless people around because they are willing to do anything necessary to secure and retain power. Many good and normal and moral people would want to self organize and self govern and build something better from the ashes of a fallen country, the problem is that those good and honest people will be manipulated, tricked, and murdered by those who are more brutal and cunning than them.
- ydnaclementine 3y ago
  If the world can get through the Cold War and Germany reuniting, I feel there is a chance for NK at some point in the future (however slim)
vkou 3y ago
> I think when looking back through history, the continued torture of the entire North Korean population is going to be one of the most tragic events of the 21st century. 1. Not the utterly pointless, banal conflicts started by lies and personal vendettas that have already killed hundreds of thousands and millions of people, spilled over into neighbouring (and not so neighbouring) countries, and destabilized entire parts of the world? 2. If this is going to be among the worst of this century, you must have an incredibly optimistic outlook on what the next 80 years are going to look like!
- graypegg 3y ago
  I’m not going to get into a conversation comparing tragedy to find the top 10. I said “one of” specifically for that reason. I don’t think deciding if there’s actually worse things going on actually adds anything here. (A thread specifically about North Korea)
  - kelipso 3y ago
    When you say "one of the most" key word here being most, yes, you are 100% inviting comparison. I'm not interested in the discussion itself but you were definitely inviting comparison.
arp242 3y ago
> I really feel like we’ll look back at how we ignored it for so long shamefully One of the big problems has long been that North-Korea has a large network of artillery within shelling distance of Seoul. Now they also have rockets and nukes and stuff, but even without those any serious threat to NK would come with devastating cost of civilian lives in South-Korea. See e.g. [1], which estimates that "the DPRK could cause thousands of casualties in just a minute and more than 100,000 in an hour" and some of the case studies in that report have more than 200,000 in an hour. And all of that assumes only conventional HE rounds – no chemicals or nukes. And all of that is in the first hour alone: a full war would cost millions of lives (during the Korean war, South Korean casualties were about a million civilians and 250,000 soldiers). You need to move carefully when you've got almost 6,000 pieces of artillery pointed at your head, never mind nukes, and the people in control of them seem rather unhinged. I've seen people express this kind of "we should have just intervened" opinion before, and in principle I don't disagree, but it's really not that simple: both due to the strong risk of heavy civilian casualties, and the geopolitical impact with the USSR during the cold war (and to lesser degree, contemporary China and Russia – I can already see China invade Taiwan using "but you invaded NK!" as an excuse). [1]: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html
- graypegg 3y ago
  That’s a good point, I was wrong to use “ignore”. It’s a lot more complicated.
- leeter 3y ago
  It's a complicated issue. Part of the problem is nobody really wants to fix it because the costs will be enormous. When and if the regime falls it's going to take tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep it from destabilizing South Korea. Not to mention the massive refugee crisis that will occur. I'm pretty sure that's one of the many reasons why China hasn't dealt with it. Because the vast majority of refugees would go north across their border. China has made it clear they aren't particularly thrilled with the idea of having someone not under their thumb next to their border as well. As a consequence of that... the "best" scenario would probably be China invading. But "best" is definitely in scare quotes as that could go VERY wrong very very quickly. I think the PRC is aware of that too. So unfortunately that means the DPRK will starve, because the realpolitik is such that solving the issue is just not a tenable solution for all the other parties.
xhevahir 3y ago
Why do you say there's no more geopolitical reason for the country to exist? The Cold War is long over but China may well see DPRK as a valuable buffer and a means of diluting the military capabilities of rival countries. Belarus, another dictatorship that seems to be frozen in time, has a similar role vis-a-vis Russia.
glimshe 3y ago
Not only 21st century. While we've seen brutal dictatorships in the past, we've never seen one with access to 21st century technology to further their goals. The old dictatorships could only be so efficient, but the scale and sophistication of North Korea's actions is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it's not as much ignoring as it is the few options available. If there is one country that can do something about it, that would be China - they currently prop the regime. But I wouldn't hold my breath that China, also one of the most immoral regimes in history, would care about what North Korea is doing as long as it keeps bothering the US.
foverzar 3y ago
> the continued torture of the entire North Korean population is going to be one of the most tragic events of the 21st century. Despite the regime originating earlier, it feels to be most tragic now; long after any maligned geopolitical reason for the regime to exist has since disappeared Their real "torture" is western sanctions and exclusion from global trade. The reason for the regime to exist has never disappeared and will persist for as long as North Korea is being attacked. Everything about it being "crazy hermit kingdom" stems directly from the dominant political-economical institutions isolating North Korea and by extent all the individuals from the rest of the world. There is no excuse for treating people like that for generations. Worse than that, this ends up serving as a self-fulfilling prophesy that allows propaganda state media like BBC to push its narratives. Yeah, for sure people will suffer, but that's not their government who is being tyrannical - everyone is pretty much aware who specifically fuck with their livelihoods. Even worse, there seem to be lots of people in the west who actually seem to think that this approach is doing something positive and it's ok to be completely fascist as long as it serves some glorious political purpose.

reducesuffering 3y ago

What would you have the world do? Tens of thousands of Americans died trying to prevent it in the Korean War. Even if North Korea didn't have nuclear capabilities, it's asking for Iraq 2.0 (dictatorship threatening others, populace under severe oppression)

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I would have gave MacArthur whatever he needed to win.
- ksherlock 3y ago
  He wanted nuclear bombs in NK and China.
  - nickff 3y ago
    Do you have a citation for that? The only sources I've seen have said that others suggested offensive use of nuclear weapons, then scapegoated MacArthur when the studies were leaked/released to the public.
  - kneebonian 3y ago
    I maintain that the second greatest mistake the US ever made was not giving McArthur the bombs he wanted.
    - ksherlock 3y ago
      What's your number one mistake then? Not nuking Russia in 1945 or asking Stalin to help out in Asia?
- dangerwill 3y ago
  What you are referring to is allowing MacArthur to have nuked China when they entered the Korean war, aka killing millions of civilians and leaving the eastern seaboard of China irradiated for generations. We should be glad he was kept on his leash.
  - okdood64 3y ago
    > leaving the eastern seaboard of China irradiated for generations It might depend on the particular warhead, but this was not the case for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The nukes we had by korea were much larger
  - nickff 3y ago
    MacArthur repeatedly rejected suggestions for such use of nuclear and chemical weapons, stating that he would only use them to prevent an ultimate fallback. It seems that others, such as Bradley, Ridgeway, Truman, and even Eisenhower were more in favor of escalation than MacArthur, who seems to have been made something of a scapegoat upon his dismissal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nu... Sidenote: I am not a MacArthur 'fan', but he was a very complex character
graypegg 3y ago
I mentioned at the end of my comment I don’t have a good solution. I think something being tragic and shameful is possible even if we don’t have a solution. Just on a human level, this is humans doing horrible things to other humans. To me that’s shameful for all of us on the scale of history.
- samastur 3y ago
  How is it shameful if nobody can think of a solution? What is there to be ashamed of, lack of omnipotence? Tragic, disappointing sure. I also happen to disagree that it is ignored or forgotten, this article just being the latest example.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    I’m probably being needlessly emotional about it. Anytime you look back in history you have all of the foresight from however many years after. I’m sure we’ll know a even more about what’s going on currently in 2023 way off into the future. On a purely logical level, we did what we could. But when people talk about other world events (WW2 for example) they’ll often wonder why the average person didn’t fight whatever horror was going on then. Does it ignore the entire context of the situation, yeah. But it’s odd that I think we’re in that time now. I’m being emotional because I have a cold, I’m in bed, reading something that made me sad. Take that with a grain of salt haha
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
If China decided they would no longer back North Korea, the regime could be replaced in hours. Most of the time, when toppling regimes, you have to be worried about someone even worse taking over. In this case, I don't see how it could get any worse.
- andrewinardeer 3y ago
  History has shown that tempting fate like this often doesn't end well.
- cryptoegorophy 3y ago
  Any worse? Pol Pot?
- netsharc 3y ago
  What I imagine would happen is the North Koreans who have suddenly stopped becoming prisoners in their own land trying to enter China, and then China would have to post guards at the border, and be responsible for the mess, including violence, trying to stop them coming in. So the Chinese government probably has an interest in keeping an NK government alive, that way they can claim "He's the evil dictator oppressing his citizens, the mess over there is not our problem!". I wonder why that's my first thought, rather than the citizens wondering "Well, the government is gone, let's build a collective to self-govern." -- I guess people would rather join a structured society somewhere else rather than try to build one themselves (probably out of nothing, in NK). Not to mention yeah, even if the current asshole is gone, the next asshole is probably busy setting up shop to resume the oppression.
  - kneebonian 3y ago
    An important matter to understand is that a power vaccum fills very quickly, and often a power vacuum is filled by the most sociopathic, brutual and ruthless people around because they are willing to do anything necessary to secure and retain power. Many good and normal and moral people would want to self organize and self govern and build something better from the ashes of a fallen country, the problem is that those good and honest people will be manipulated, tricked, and murdered by those who are more brutal and cunning than them.
ydnaclementine 3y ago
If the world can get through the Cold War and Germany reuniting, I feel there is a chance for NK at some point in the future (however slim)

vkou 3y ago

> I think when looking back through history, the continued torture of the entire North Korean population is going to be one of the most tragic events of the 21st century. 1. Not the utterly pointless, banal conflicts started by lies and personal vendettas that have already killed hundreds of thousands and millions of people, spilled over into neighbouring (and not so neighbouring) countries, and destabilized entire parts of the world? 2. If this is going to be among the worst of this century, you must have an incredibly optimistic outlook on what the next 80 years are going to look like!

graypegg 3y ago
I’m not going to get into a conversation comparing tragedy to find the top 10. I said “one of” specifically for that reason. I don’t think deciding if there’s actually worse things going on actually adds anything here. (A thread specifically about North Korea)
- kelipso 3y ago
  When you say "one of the most" key word here being most, yes, you are 100% inviting comparison. I'm not interested in the discussion itself but you were definitely inviting comparison.

arp242 3y ago

> I really feel like we’ll look back at how we ignored it for so long shamefully One of the big problems has long been that North-Korea has a large network of artillery within shelling distance of Seoul. Now they also have rockets and nukes and stuff, but even without those any serious threat to NK would come with devastating cost of civilian lives in South-Korea. See e.g. [1], which estimates that "the DPRK could cause thousands of casualties in just a minute and more than 100,000 in an hour" and some of the case studies in that report have more than 200,000 in an hour. And all of that assumes only conventional HE rounds – no chemicals or nukes. And all of that is in the first hour alone: a full war would cost millions of lives (during the Korean war, South Korean casualties were about a million civilians and 250,000 soldiers). You need to move carefully when you've got almost 6,000 pieces of artillery pointed at your head, never mind nukes, and the people in control of them seem rather unhinged. I've seen people express this kind of "we should have just intervened" opinion before, and in principle I don't disagree, but it's really not that simple: both due to the strong risk of heavy civilian casualties, and the geopolitical impact with the USSR during the cold war (and to lesser degree, contemporary China and Russia – I can already see China invade Taiwan using "but you invaded NK!" as an excuse). [1]: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA619-1.html

graypegg 3y ago
That’s a good point, I was wrong to use “ignore”. It’s a lot more complicated.
leeter 3y ago
It's a complicated issue. Part of the problem is nobody really wants to fix it because the costs will be enormous. When and if the regime falls it's going to take tens of billions of dollars in aid to keep it from destabilizing South Korea. Not to mention the massive refugee crisis that will occur. I'm pretty sure that's one of the many reasons why China hasn't dealt with it. Because the vast majority of refugees would go north across their border. China has made it clear they aren't particularly thrilled with the idea of having someone not under their thumb next to their border as well. As a consequence of that... the "best" scenario would probably be China invading. But "best" is definitely in scare quotes as that could go VERY wrong very very quickly. I think the PRC is aware of that too. So unfortunately that means the DPRK will starve, because the realpolitik is such that solving the issue is just not a tenable solution for all the other parties.

xhevahir 3y ago

Why do you say there's no more geopolitical reason for the country to exist? The Cold War is long over but China may well see DPRK as a valuable buffer and a means of diluting the military capabilities of rival countries. Belarus, another dictatorship that seems to be frozen in time, has a similar role vis-a-vis Russia.

glimshe 3y ago

Not only 21st century. While we've seen brutal dictatorships in the past, we've never seen one with access to 21st century technology to further their goals. The old dictatorships could only be so efficient, but the scale and sophistication of North Korea's actions is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it's not as much ignoring as it is the few options available. If there is one country that can do something about it, that would be China - they currently prop the regime. But I wouldn't hold my breath that China, also one of the most immoral regimes in history, would care about what North Korea is doing as long as it keeps bothering the US.

foverzar 3y ago

> the continued torture of the entire North Korean population is going to be one of the most tragic events of the 21st century. Despite the regime originating earlier, it feels to be most tragic now; long after any maligned geopolitical reason for the regime to exist has since disappeared Their real "torture" is western sanctions and exclusion from global trade. The reason for the regime to exist has never disappeared and will persist for as long as North Korea is being attacked. Everything about it being "crazy hermit kingdom" stems directly from the dominant political-economical institutions isolating North Korea and by extent all the individuals from the rest of the world. There is no excuse for treating people like that for generations. Worse than that, this ends up serving as a self-fulfilling prophesy that allows propaganda state media like BBC to push its narratives. Yeah, for sure people will suffer, but that's not their government who is being tyrannical - everyone is pretty much aware who specifically fuck with their livelihoods. Even worse, there seem to be lots of people in the west who actually seem to think that this approach is doing something positive and it's ok to be completely fascist as long as it serves some glorious political purpose.