What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT. They broke their promise. They've broken their promise multiple times. What they're looking for isn't a resolution to their situation, if anything they want to prolong it as long as possible. What they actually want is to win, and emerge "victorious" in the face of US "oppression".
Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.
The way they're behaving is quite rational. They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term.
This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival.
Lest people think I'm engaging in apologetics, what they're doing to keep in power is reprehensible. But they're not mad men looking for a symbolic "win" at the cost of suicide.
NK made it past the finish line: they have a real program and a modest delivery system. I expect they will continue to follow the same diplomatic strategy as Pakistan.
I believe that NK was untrustworthy long before the events you cite. They didn't reach a rational conclusion. They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.
Secondly treating your people like dirt is also a very bad idea. Singapore remains a monarchy while not being anything like NK. The man drives his country into the dirt for bombs when they are completely unnecessary. He could either a) treat his people better then wouldn’t need bombs, or b) keep China happy and still wouldn’t need bombs.
No they don't. Why would they want this radioactive toxic dumpster fire as their full responsibility? They're much better it being within their sphere of influence - so that anybody who wants anything done has to deal with China and make suitable offers to get things done - while having pretty much zero responsibility for the welfare of the people and not being subject of criticism for any atrocities that happen there, and not granting the people there even minuscule rights that Chinese subjects have. Current situation - at least until it explodes into a hot war - is a huge win for China, they are indispensable as the only power capable of putting a leash on Crazy Kim, they look relatively good in comparison to him, and they don't have to spend anything on it or bear any responsibility.
China is pretty much the only country that can pour enough money into NK to bring it out of poverty, and a border with an important US Ally (South Korea) would be priceless.
I don't think that's what they want to do, but it would actually make sense.
I don't see why you say this. I wouldn't say they are especially competent, but they seem to have stayed in existence and played off various larger rivals successfully for 70 odd years.
They are as "successful" as cancer is "successful" - it's hard to kill the cancer without killing the patient, but that's not a redeeming quality for cancer. In the same way, it's hard to kill Kim's regime without subjecting 25 million people to extreme dangers, exacerbated by the fact that many of them are already on the brink of starvation, and a lot of them are thoroughly brainwashed. It's not a sign of "success" or regime's rationality, it is the sign that it is hard for us to find a solution for this without hurting a lot of people in process.
A rational actor is a nation that is predictable, and is willing to uphold their word, and agreements. If promises are broken, agreements torn a part I don't think that state is a "rational" actor.
It dates back quite a long time. Development started as a response to the US putting nuclear artillery on the border with North Korea in 1958 and pointing it directly at Pyongyang.
>What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT.
They withdrew from the NPT in the run up to the totally provoked and necessary invasion of Iraq. Around this time Bush famously branded them part of the "axis of evil" and casually threatened nuclear annihilation, among other provocations.
I guess something led them to believe that they needed a nuclear deterrent?
They did at the time make an offer to the US in light of the provocations: sign a non-aggression treaty and let them to continue developing nuclear power. The US didn't, so they withdrew.
>What they actually want is to win
No, they want some kind of military parity before joining the negotiating table because Iraq shows what happens when you don't have parity...
You don't think seeing what happened to Gaddafi has anything to do with it? Libya got rid of their nuke development plans in 2003. If Libya had nukes, would the Libyan revolution have played out as it did? Do you think Kim Jong Un wants to get dragged around, anally raped and murdered by an angry mob? Probably not.
> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.
Not even close. China would rather NK sank into the sea than try to take 25M malnourished, undereducated more people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/12...
The BBC has run stories on it as well:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37321686
I'm sure it's just one of many motivations, but it does seem to be at least one of the motivating factors.
Furthermore the value of NK isn't the people, but the geographical position. It is a well known fact that China is amping up its projection of power, and using it to claim territory. Doklam is the most recent example. Furthermore I don't think China gives two shits about forcing people into doing what it wills. 25 million people is basically a negligible amount for China to handle, it's >2% of their total population. If anything it is an opportunity to gain goodwill by "rescuing" them.
All I'm saying is that perhaps China has a vested interest in trying to provoke NK into increasingly irrational decisions so to open an opportunity for them to annex NK in the name of "maintaining order".
I think they are, from their perspective. First, non-rational actors don't survive to establish and hold political power, for years (generations for the Kim family) in dictatorships where failure means death. Kim Jong-un's behavior would be madness in a democracy and where we care about fellow citizens, but it's successful (by his terms) and makes sense in a dictatorship.
Second, consider the history of U.S. regime change from an outside perspective:
1) Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program; the U.S. said it did, invaded, and overthrew the regime.
2) Libya did have a minor nuclear weapons program. In an agreement with the U.S. (and maybe with others too) it gave up the program. Soon after, the U.S. bombed the Libyan military and helped the opposition overthrow the regime.
3) Iran had a very capable nuclear weapons program. It gave up the program in a treaty with the U.S. Now the U.S. is at high risk to renege on the treaty, continues to threaten Iran, and continues to talk about regime change.
It seems that no matter what you do, what the U.S. says, or what international law is, if the U.S. doesn't like you then it pursues regime change. That's the Russian point of view, too, to an extent. It's openly discussed that perhaps the only way to protect yourself is to own nuclear weapons.
(As a side note, when people question the value of following international law, this is it: If the U.S. reliably followed international law, NK could trust that a deal to give up its weapons would be followed and others wouldn't feel the need to acquire them. On the other hand, if the U.S. withdraws from the Iran agreement, why would NK - or anyone - bother even discussing an agreement? So they can disarm and be destroyed?)
> Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill.
And sometimes you need to stop being Bush and start being (name your favorite peace-maker). I'm not sure what that proves - sometimes one tactic is appropriate, sometimes another, and often a a completely different approach. Also, this situation does not at all seem similar to WWII.
annex what? I don't think China's interested in maintaining a peaceful region, as much as they are scared of losing control of their country and desperately trying to keep their country in one piece, having witnessed the fall outs from the collapse of the Soviet.
This makes sense. NK is valuable to China as a buffer from Western countries. I'm surprised by this announcement simply because from that strategic perspective, it hurts China. If they plan on annexing, that makes more sense.
If they do, I'm sure we won't do much to stop them. We'll complain (us Westerners) but when the rubber meets the road, China is a better holder of that territory. Our only concern will be annexation of SK by China after NK, but I find that unlikely within the next 20 years.
NK is a complete basket case, with a population that has been brainwashed by 70+ years of misrule, a development level probably below China in 1949, and they have a different language and culture.
Right now, China gets the benefit of a buffer state without the downside of fixing generations of problems. They would take the blame for every problem.
Did you know that the goal of reunification is explicitly written into South Korea's constitution? Yet I've spoken to younger South Koreans -- even they don't really want to reunify with the North, because it would significantly lower the reunified country's standard of living.
It took an entire generation for East Germany to reintegrate with the West, and even now GDP per capita is about 30% lower in the east. And East Germany was only about 20 years economically behind the West. For NK, multiply that problem 10x.
If China was considering this type of thing, it would be a split of NK territory between itself and South Korea. China would be holding secret talks with South Korea about militarily assisting them to reunite with the North, in return for China getting some of North Korea's territory. After the initial show of strength, China would offer top NK leaders and military officers lifelong residence in that annexed territory, with immunity from deportation. The U.S. right now is probably trying to stop such secret talks from starting, probably by impressing on the SK govt just how much their standard of living would be impacted by reuniting with the North. Of course, China would be using this as leverage in the secret negotiations to gain as much NK territory as possible.
North Korea is rational. They have a very good idea of how far they can annoy everyone else before it starts to hurt them, and they have proven very adept at being able to extract concessions from the rest of the world.
> The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve.
The only way the problem could be solved diplomatically is a grand bargain between China and the US (maybe Russia as well, but China is definitely required) to let the Kim government fall.
> Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.
The real problem with North Korea, and the reason we're in this dangerous unstable equilibrium is that, as much as the relevant powers hate the current situation, the alternatives are even more unpalatable. No one wants to take on the task of absorbing North Korea--China and South Korea are already too rich (the gap is even wider than East/West Germany, and that took 20 years to close). Furthermore, China already has a rural-to-urban migration problem, and North Korean refugees would only exacerbate that issue.
War with North Korea would be a very unpalatable situation. The center of Seoul is only about 30 miles from the North Korean border, and some suburbs are even closer--within artillery range of the border. That gives North Korea the ability to raise the death count to over a million people in a very short amount of time even before rockets or nuclear weapons are involved, not to mention instigating a short-term refugee situation that makes Syria's look small. Furthermore, North Korean rocketry and nuclear weapons gives it the ability to threaten the megacities of Japan, and if Kim Jung Un feels he can't win, he very well could go out with a painful bang.
Put more simply, a war with North Korea, although likely very short, could easily produce a death toll commensurate with World War I. A military option is not a good option. There are no good options when it comes to North Korea. At this point, the least bad option to me is to ignore North Korea's tantrums, publicly reaffirm commitment to the defense of South Korea and Japan in the event of a war at any cost, and quietly work with China to develop post-Kim scenarios.
I wouldn't overestimate their knowledge. Just as Saddam Hussein thought he'd be allowed to annex Kuwait and generally behave like an ass and nobody would dare to lift a finger, Kim is probably under the same impression. People think that various totalitarian regimes feed their citizens propaganda, but deep inside the inner party circle they have rational (even if evil) people that operate on correct information and capable of making correct (even if extremely self-serving) decisions.
The reality is usually different. The inner circle may have access to more information, but they are also largely ignorant about how politics works in the Western countries. They are as prone to biases and misjudgment as any human, and the absence of robust feedback circles usually present in open society amplifies their errors of judgement. And of course, somebody can only be told he is a unerring genius and supreme being for so long before he himself starts believing it, and once that happens, huge errors of judgment are inevitable.
Thus, what they expect the West to do may be completely different from what the West would actually do.
That would seem to be a good thing, both for NK and the rest of us.
Of course it is.
If you think about it from the perspective of a dynasty trying to save its own skin under any circumstances to avoid having to go through something akin to another Nuremberg trials, then everything the Kim leadership does is rational.
They are even willing to point nuclear weapons at the world and subject the North Korean people to no end of physical and mental abuses just to maintain their grip on power in a country where they live like God-Kings.
They could have done this in the 50s when the red army controlled Norks during the war. They want a buffer state between them and SK.
I don't believe this. I think China wants to avoid the refugee crisis that would ensue on their doorstep if North Korea collapsed.
If we don't pressure him Kim Jong Un will have to do something be to get attention again.
If China can't effectively police their own fly-by-night domestic firms from doing by things like selling industrial salts as fake table salt, how likely is it they'll be able to shut down NK oriented firms, or even be aggressively inclined to investigate and enforce this order? That is, perhaps this is mostly for show to comply on paper with UN resolutions.
In this case, these NK firms will certainly be a topic of focus, and likely remain so for quite a while.
>Remember Johnny, if no one sees it, its like it never even happened.
At the same time, I think it's not far-fetched that China would flex its muscle against the US if we escalate this conflict.
It’s a weird situation where basically everyone hates NK (I imagine China would be more happy if that was just more of their normal territory) but everyone is terrified of what happens when the NK State dissolves.
SK wants to reunite but that would have to be done slowly to avoid the same issues China is afraid of (ignoring any ‘diehards’ causing terrorism or just unrest).
I don't think so. I think they would actually just let NK be nuked and maybe try to capture it afterwards.
NK has to balance on the knife edge between being threatening enough to get concessions but not so much other countries give up and ignore them (or level them).
KJU doesn’t seem to know how to walk that line, and didn’t have enough time to learn it from his father.
I’d say ‘we’re getting close to the end’ but no one who has ever made that prediction has been right. It’s too unique (especially with Trump now) to be able to get a good guess.
If the DPRK doesn't achieve victory within 72 hours then yes of course they will be flattened, but nonetheless a DPRK victory is within the realm of possibility. Seoul may be reduced to a smoking heap, 20M dead and 10M having emigrated, and it will be a Pyrrhic victory, but it could be a victory nonetheless.
It would cause mass casualties but by no means would the metropolis be 'obliterated'. There certainly wouldn't be 20 million dead unless everyone within the Greater Seoul area rushed north and threw themselves into the beaten-zone.
Assuming, of course, that the artillery troops follow their orders to fire.
They can win as in they can get control of Seoul in the first 72hours. But then they are left with two choices: Backdown, or burn the city.
They can act fast because they have a geographical advantage. But that's about it. They win for 72hours and lose forever.
That said, nobody wants a land war in Asia (one of the Classic Blunders) so it would take a lot of stupidity to get there.
I'm just thinking that if I was a remotely rational dictator in his position, that's what I'd do right before 'showing them' and sending off a nuke or two that would probably/possibly lead to the obliteration of my own people.
The US with Trump at the helm seems perfectly happy to play the evil villain for him, throwing out telegenic threats of nuclear annihilation.
If Libya and Iraq prove anything it's not having a nuke program that's actually the greater risk, coz they'll just accuse you having one anyway...
>So he may just force a war
There's no point in doing that.
Moreover, the Chinese gov. has been sending NK refugees back to NK, even though it knows those people won't end well.
But anyway, +1 for Chinese gov. on this stance - I guess this might be a start for a morally better China, a real Big Man country.
This "defense-only" weapon upsets the decade-old nuclear balance of M.A.D. because the THAAD radar is sensitivity and location weaken China's nuclear retaliatory ability.
Chinese gov. should explain why it let NK have nukes before blaming 'power balance'
What do the 'wealthy' look like in NK? Is there an upper class of non-relatives and, if so, via what means -- government ties (business or personal)? What do they do on a daily basis, for work, fun, etc? It just seems to isolated, and perhaps that's my internet adoration speaking -- but is there a class of wealth in NK, what does it look like, how does it come to be?
And I'm honestly curious: if there is a wealthy class, what do they do for fun/enjoyment/entertainment purposes -- and how will this impact that?
It's over 2 and a half hours long, but I like Rogan's interviews they go by pretty fast.
Suki Kim's “Without You, There Is No Us” (2014) offers a perspective from the time she spent there.
>What do they do on a daily basis, for work, fun, etc? It just seems to isolated
They are mostly isolated to Pyongyang where they live bureaucratic lifestyles.
>what do they do for fun/enjoyment/entertainment purposes
Not much. They basically are confined to the city. The make a comfortable living and spend their whole lives trying to please KJU.
>how will this impact that?
If the economic impact is extensive, then it would inhibit their ability to support the regime, and that would hurt morale all around Pyongyang.
These companies also form an excellent mechanism to maintain control. Many of them are labor providers; young NK men are conscripted to do logging in Siberia, gold mining in China and other such work. Their wages are sent back to Room 39 and any accumulation of despondent young men is eliminated.
It's quite an operation they've got going.
But always keep an eye out for him doing something even remotely good and praise him for that. Send over food or whatever else his country may need. Reward the behavior you want to see. Ignore the behavior you don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyqUw0WYwoc
Interview of 2 ex-NorthKorean. It's informative (not much pathos or sensationalism even considering the context)
The reason NK still exists is not USA's mercy or NK's nuke, it's because it's neighboring with China & Russia. Same thing applies to Vietnam.
