I often wonder if the best outcome for the North would be a revolution from within. Unfortunately that doesn't look very likely, given the level of indoctrination that apparently exists.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
How about that North Korea?
- Thread starter xj220
- Start date
The Chinese don't care what govt is in power in Pyongyang, so long as it's stable and friendly to them. They want a puppet government, or at least a quiet, obedient client state, as opposed to the unpredictable noisy one they've got now. Mostly they want a reliable buffer state between them and SK and Japan. They don't want reunification on Seoul's terms or a pro-western North. And they really don't want revolution and collapse; they know all those NK refugees would come swimming north across the Yalu, not south through a bunch of minefields.
So basically everyone wants the status quo to continue because every other option is worse.
So basically everyone wants the status quo to continue because every other option is worse.
I am curious what our man on the ground @PEPfromage thinks!
So? I don't mean to be flippant but reducing the size of their huge standing military isn't likely anywhere near the top of the list of things to do for 'lil Kim. Not only does the oversized military translate into more power but its sheer size provides a measure of stability and control that would not be possible if it was drawn down significantly. And they do in fact export stuff, with trade to China even expanding recently (minerals, textiles, etc.) in spite of sanctions while quite a bit of the rest is done illicitly or through foreign sources as varied as arms, restaurants, hacking, and construction. Even though money isn't pouring in from those exports, unless it is counterfeit, they still make enough to 'survive' and to 'fund' their huge standing army along with extras like ICBM's and nukes. Even one of the worst famines in the past 100 years didn't make the regime change course 20 years ago, no reason to think getting nukes and ICBM's will make them change now.
No, that's my point. Nobody thinks Kim intends to invade anybody (their propaganda and our shitty "Red Dawn" remake notwithstanding), so the DPRK army's only purpose is deterring an attack and securing the regime. Deterrence with a conventional army is expensive. It's relatively cheap with nukes, once you've bought them. Same calculus Truman and Ike were using in the 50's; if no one will attack you because you can retaliate with nukes, what do you need to feed and maintain a big army for?
The North has exports, but it doesn't have an export economy. China is their only real customer. I'm betting Kim's logic is that if they can develop a credible nuke deterrence, then it eliminates the need to maintain a big expensive army, and will force other countries (like Japan) to deal with you seriously.
The despots of the world learned from Libya and Iraq. If you don't have nukes, Western countries can topple your regime.
Kim Jung Un's greatest interest is staying alive. That means preserving the status quo.
Here's the deal. There is no upside for the US here. What do we get by provoking a conflict? America First? Give me a break.
Kim Jung Un's greatest interest is staying alive. That means preserving the status quo.
Here's the deal. There is no upside for the US here. What do we get by provoking a conflict? America First? Give me a break.
"Oh no, not G-Spot and Club USA!"
And also
"Those Viking girls are mean! They won't be missed..."
The DPRK army's only purpose isn't to deter attack and 'lil Kim probably isn't thinking along the lines of Ike and Truman. The military and the party along with the North Korean state as a whole are all intertwined and vital to the each other's existence, diminishing one would diminish them all. And what exactly would you replace that big expensive army with what? The jobs developed by the vibrant economy? Not only do they have no real choice with replacing their army but they wouldn't want to do it in the first place. Without a very large military they make themselves vulnerable to conventional attack, and without modern military equipment they still need to rely on their large numbers to make up their deficiencies in that area. There won't be a 'peace dividend' anytime soon in Pyongyang.
The strategy to rely on nuke forces in lieu of conventional ones was proven to be a mistake both by the US and the UK, both of them relied heavily on nuke forces in the 50's and 60's but still found themselves sucked into conventional conflicts. Nuke deterrence meant nothing to a small adversary without them, showing it to be a poor deterrence strategy with little to no flexibility. Nukes didn't deter adversaries like Indonesia or North Vietnam (or even Argentina later) from attacking you when they know full well you aren't going to use them.
As for exports China certainly isn't their only customer, less than half of North Korea's exports go there. Is it a lot compared to other countries? No, but it lets them survive and that is 'lil Kim's main goal in life as HokiePilot pointed out. A credible nuke threat, coupled with his very large conventional forces, helps ensure that.
Last edited:
And where will VR crews get Thai food if Ban Thai is destroyed.
Go to actual Thailand you say...Oh Ok, I can do that.
It won an election....
To get away from checkers and take a bit more of a chess look at all of this: how great would it be for Russia and China (in different ways) to watch the US dive down this sewer drain? Lots of talking heads in the media, WWIII this WWIII that, I don't think it would be much of a world war, per se. I think it would be the US and some rather incapable regional allies left holding the bill for a humanitarian disaster the world hasn't seen in a long time while our real adversaries sat by and watched us punch ourselves in the nuts for years to come. We seem to have a knack for just that sort of "campaign."
Nor, a humanitarian disaster that modern society could recover from.
Clarify please. You talking about a nuke exchange? Feel free to describe how that would look. Or you talking about post conventional shoot out?
Added one to your list . . . unless anyone thinks we can do three stability ops simultaneously. If so, I want what they're having.
I think that's a bit excessive, unless we're talking a major exchange of nukes.
Also, read up on your Ursula LeGuin for a rebuttal.
I wonder if the thousands and thousands of American families in S Korea share this same sentiment. Or even the ones in Japan and Guam. I'm guessing not. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan where we just take our army to some shitty corner of the earth and "bring it". This is where our actions have immediate, serious consequences on a shit ton of American / S Korean civilian lives.
The thing that is different here from many of the other recent conflicts is that this issue didn't just spring up. This one has been looked at, and then re-looked at, and then looked at again.