6 ms·

If you are the leaders of North Korea, yes

by AbstractH24 7mo ago

baxtr 7mo ago
What about its people?
- AbstractH24 7mo ago
  The leadership in North Korea’s clearly doesn’t prioritize them.
- Matl 7mo ago
  The fact that NK possess nuclear weapons strongly discourages external players from attacking it. It does not in any way change the tools NK has at its disposal domestically. If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
  - lyu07282 7mo ago
    > If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale. You think the US would just leave them alone as a communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering china???
    - Matl 7mo ago
      I think any US intervention in NK would not be to help the people of NK, that's all.
- cogman10 7mo ago
  Yes. Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war. Syria is the prime example of this. A major reason for the civilian slaughter was foreign intervention trying regime change.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war It's a macabre study. But one could honestly argue that several countries in the latter category's populations are better off than North Korea's.
    - cogman10 7mo ago
      Maybe after the civil war, certainly not during it. If I had to pick where to live, I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone. (This isn't me saying I want to live in NK, I don't). But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often the government but rather the international relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel. The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn countries.
        cogman10 7mo ago
        It'd depend on my status. There are a lot of people who can't just get out of Ukraine or Syria. The average citizen in Syria had no means to just flee. I'd assume in my above scenario that I'm one of the masses that can't escape. NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class. A decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on tours of NK.

If you are the leaders of North Korea, yes

baxtr 7mo ago

What about its people?

AbstractH24 7mo ago
The leadership in North Korea’s clearly doesn’t prioritize them.
Matl 7mo ago
The fact that NK possess nuclear weapons strongly discourages external players from attacking it. It does not in any way change the tools NK has at its disposal domestically. If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
- lyu07282 7mo ago
  > If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale. You think the US would just leave them alone as a communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering china???
  - Matl 7mo ago
    I think any US intervention in NK would not be to help the people of NK, that's all.
cogman10 7mo ago
Yes. Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war. Syria is the prime example of this. A major reason for the civilian slaughter was foreign intervention trying regime change.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Dictatorships suck, but what sucks more is a civil war powered by foreign governments doing a proxy war It's a macabre study. But one could honestly argue that several countries in the latter category's populations are better off than North Korea's.
  - cogman10 7mo ago
    Maybe after the civil war, certainly not during it. If I had to pick where to live, I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone. (This isn't me saying I want to live in NK, I don't). But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often the government but rather the international relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel. The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > I'd pick North Korea over Ukraine right now because it's a lot easier to live in a dictatorship than an active war zone To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn countries.
      - cogman10 7mo ago
        It'd depend on my status. There are a lot of people who can't just get out of Ukraine or Syria. The average citizen in Syria had no means to just flee. I'd assume in my above scenario that I'm one of the masses that can't escape. NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class. A decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on tours of NK.