3 ms·

How might we validate the two competing hypotheses? That is, fundamental policy shift vs business-as-usual reacting to changing global events (primarily US elec

How might we validate the two competing hypotheses? That is, fundamental policy shift vs business-as-usual reacting to changing global events (primarily US election). Both seek to explain the same phenomenon (increase in aggressive rhetoric and internal messaging), and as a lay person it is difficult to see whether the evidence leans one way or another. The chain of implications in OP (that rejection of US normalisation as a goal would lead to increased aggression towards the South) does seem a bit unclear to me, but that isn’t reason to dismiss the argument entirely. In either case (or another one entirely…), it is clear that there is a huge degree of uncertainty here. Decisions should be made with that in mind, rather than wagering on one best-guess hypothesis.

throwup238 3y ago
We can't; at least not before shit goes down. Even people in the National Security Council with access to all the latest intelligence can't answer that question with any certainty. Hell they might just be as clueless as we are, depending on how much effort they've put into obtaining intelligence on North Korea. There's no guarantee that the people working on it are there because of merit or of nepotism. As lay people, we don't stand a chance and any armchair bloviating is purely for our own entertainment to help cope with our powerlessness. If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that anything can happen. Just believe whatever narrative helps you sleep at night and you'll be alright.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  you are largely talking about pundits on tv stating russia will not attack. While basically everyone else remotely connected to the topic were convinced russia is prepig for a war. You dont build fobs supply dumps and move massive amounts of equipment to 'scare' neighbour. That being said, russia's 3day operation has probably a lot of dictators and would be conquerors thinking. A modern war is not that easy and can quickly lead to a massive resource drain. Russia attack a weaker neighbour from 3 directions. It had technological, logistical, economical, manpower and first strike advantage. And yet here we are. That is definitely something even delusional dictator will consider.
- truculent 3y ago
  Well, we more or less agree up to the last sentence, I suppose

throwup238 3y ago

We can't; at least not before shit goes down. Even people in the National Security Council with access to all the latest intelligence can't answer that question with any certainty. Hell they might just be as clueless as we are, depending on how much effort they've put into obtaining intelligence on North Korea. There's no guarantee that the people working on it are there because of merit or of nepotism. As lay people, we don't stand a chance and any armchair bloviating is purely for our own entertainment to help cope with our powerlessness. If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that anything can happen. Just believe whatever narrative helps you sleep at night and you'll be alright.

me_me_me 3y ago
you are largely talking about pundits on tv stating russia will not attack. While basically everyone else remotely connected to the topic were convinced russia is prepig for a war. You dont build fobs supply dumps and move massive amounts of equipment to 'scare' neighbour. That being said, russia's 3day operation has probably a lot of dictators and would be conquerors thinking. A modern war is not that easy and can quickly lead to a massive resource drain. Russia attack a weaker neighbour from 3 directions. It had technological, logistical, economical, manpower and first strike advantage. And yet here we are. That is definitely something even delusional dictator will consider.
truculent 3y ago
Well, we more or less agree up to the last sentence, I suppose