State Implosion -- A New Twist In North Korea - Page 3

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
On a lighter note, has anybody seen the list of similarities between George Bush Jnr. and Comrade Kim Jnr.? Makes for entertaining reading...

Bring it!

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
"Actually they just need food and fuel and trading partners."
And why should we care? What do we get in return for this?

Good night sleeps?

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The NK government is a bunch of nutfvcks and has no legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. They couldn't spend our money effectively, and I'm loathe to put good money after bad.

As Seeker pointed out, the only way to go is to let them get rich. Right now, they have nothing to lose. People having nothing to lose are the most deadly in the world.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
It's time for freedom for the people of NK. We should demand it!

Only economic prosperity will bring political freedom.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
I think the Sunshine Policy is right.

It appears to be morphing into an abomination, where SK is supporting a hideous regime in return for NK not committing suicide.

That is the first step. It'd pretty bad if they do commit sucide.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
All true negotiations have a walk away point for each side. What the Sunshine Policy is turning into--no walk away point for SK--takes away support for negotiations, by giving NK a distorted dataset for what the SK and the world community are willing to accept. This causes highly dangerous situations, in that NK thinks it can shoot for the moon and get it.

I am not the RoK government, so I don't have the inside details. However, DPRK is a lot closer to RoK than the US. It really behooves them if the North Koreans don't snap.

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Bah! I always liked "walk" better. It makes me think of a nondescript older gentleman walking along and then suddenly BEATING THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF SOMEONE WITH A BIG FAT CANE!

-Arrian

Not a little old lady with her trusty umbrella?

ravagon · January 31, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

As Seeker pointed out, the only way to go is to let them get rich. Right now, they have nothing to lose. People having nothing to lose are the most deadly in the world.

Simply handing over what they want though creates a precedent. It lets the NK's believe they can do it again - next time over something that can't just be handed over. Studies of Hitlers reactions/memoirs showed a markedly similar attitude coming into being after 1938 over Czechoslovakia.
How apt a comparison that may be I don't know but the US learned a lot of its lessons from WW2 and its origins (good and bad lessons) and won't be inclined to travel down a path that may lead to the same place.

Quote:

Only economic prosperity will bring political freedom.

I wonder if the leadership of the PRC feels the same way?

DanS · January 31, 2003, 18:20

An escalation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jan31.html

I read this to have been a hesitation by NK to cut its losses and do a deal this past week. That's why the SK diplomat to Pyonyang was stiffed. NK is probably monitoring closely the timetable for Iraq.

DanS · January 31, 2003, 18:31

As Seeker pointed out, the only way to go is to let them get rich. Right now, they have nothing to lose. People having nothing to lose are the most deadly in the world.

Sure, they have something to lose. Their regime. This is dear to them, although it's not worth two wooden nickels rubbed together for my own account.

Only economic prosperity will bring political freedom.

Nope. This is one of the lies propounded by the Chinese communists. You need look no further than India to see otherwise.

I am not the RoK government, so I don't have the inside details. However, DPRK is a lot closer to RoK than the US. It really behooves them if the North Koreans don't snap.

You haven't really defined what "snapped" would entail.

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
As Seeker pointed out, the only way to go is to let them get rich. Right now, they have nothing to lose. People having nothing to lose are the most deadly in the world.

Sure, they have something to lose. Their regime. This is dear to them, although it's not worth two wooden nickels rubbed together for my own account.

Of course, if they have only that to lose, then there is a very enormous problem.

Quote:

Only economic prosperity will bring political freedom.

Nope. This is one of the lies propounded by the Chinese communists. You need look no further than India to see otherwise.

Okay, let me phrase it in another way:

Only economic prosperity will bring raised living standards and a happier, more productive, less extremist people. Political freedom isn't worth **** if we're going to produce Mugabe, Hitler, or whatever force is ruling Indonesia right now.

Quote:

I am not the RoK government, so I don't have the inside details. However, DPRK is a lot closer to RoK than the US. It really behooves them if the North Koreans don't snap.

You haven't really defined what "snapped" would entail.

Snapped would entail missiles, possibly nuclear, in Seoul and Tokyo. Snapped would entail millions of refugees crowding into rickety boats in an attempt to reach China or Japan by sea. Snapped would entail an entire nation put into war, a vortex that destroys the pitiful little infrastructure the NK's already have and a few neighbours too. Snapped would entail, if you will, a brutal loss of American influence and power in the region.

Velociryx · January 31, 2003, 20:32

Nahhh.....I disagree with that last bit, rans. When the dust settled there, in your scenario, who would spend the bucks to put things back together? The Euros? Don't hold your breath. Japan, with her staggering economy? Don't bet the ranch. China? Much as they'd love to, they couldn't afford it.

Who's that leave?

-=Vel=-

DanS · January 31, 2003, 20:56

Snapped would entail missiles, possibly nuclear, in Seoul and Tokyo. Snapped would entail millions of refugees flooding into the north and south, or crowding into rickety boats in an attempt to reach China or Japan by sea. Snapped would entail an entire nation put into war, a vortex that destroys the pitiful little infrastructure the NK's already have and dragging the surrounding countries in. Snapped would entail, if you will, a brutal loss of American influence and power in the region.

Of that list, the only clear item is the refugees. That's why I suggest a proactive, orderly way of dealing with that.

But the NKs would have to have a reason to shoot missiles and the like. They would need a reason to go to war. Would they attack if unprovoked, for instance? Further, they would have to believe that the punishment would be less than the benefit.

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahhh.....I disagree with that last bit, rans. When the dust settled there, in your scenario, who would spend the bucks to put things back together?

-=Vel=-

China, South Korea, Japan.

Seriously, what do you think would happen if North Korea implodes? America will be compelled to send troops in, which everyone else would hate. Or they can just let North Korea implode by itself, and probably take down a couple of other countries in the region, which America would hate.

A very bad situation, I'd say.

Velociryx · January 31, 2003, 21:59

Still not convinced. SK has already pretty much washed their hands of the whole situation (in fact, as has been pointed out earlier, they're supporting the bad seed because it'd be "too expensive" to deal with the alternative). Japan's not in financial shape to put in much more than a token effort....a fraction of the total bucks that it'd take to put NK on a paying basis again, and China lacks the fundage to do it (besides, China's got more than they can say grace over inside their own borders).

Uncle Sam, however, has deep enough pockets to make it fly in the aftermath.

I agree that it wouldn't be pretty, I'm just saying there'd be no loss of influence, cos nobody else would write a big enough check.

-=Vel=-

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Snapped would entail missiles, possibly nuclear, in Seoul and Tokyo. Snapped would entail millions of refugees flooding into the north and south, or crowding into rickety boats in an attempt to reach China or Japan by sea. Snapped would entail an entire nation put into war, a vortex that destroys the pitiful little infrastructure the NK's already have and dragging the surrounding countries in. Snapped would entail, if you will, a brutal loss of American influence and power in the region.

Of that list, the only clear item is the refugees. That's why I suggest a proactive, orderly way of dealing with that.

But the NKs would have to have a reason to shoot missiles and the like. They would need a reason to go to war. Would they attack if unprovoked, for instance? Further, they would have to believe that the punishment would be less than the benefit.

Refugees itself is a big problem. But let me try to reorganize my points.

1) Refugees. Millions of people flooding into China and S Korea. China has enough refugee camps right now for, what, half a million? And what are these refugees going to do once they get into China? A million poor people roaming around looking for food - as if China doesn't have enough problems with that already.

2) Missiles. North Korea won't fire their missiles as if now, since Kim Jong-Il isn't suicidal. But when the situation implodes, when the military is torn into factions, when the government is on the brink of collapse, when foreign troops are entering to try to contain the situation, that's when the missiles will fly. And a nuke in Japan isn't something Japan deserves - not after what their country has already gone through. (I can't believe that a Chinese is saying this

.)

3) Rebuilding. The country sure isn't going to turn capitalist and democratic overnight. Who is going to foot the bill of rebuilding? South Korea? They'll be quickly overburdened. China? Not something that the USA or Russia would agree to. USA? Billions of dollars poured down an endless hole, and that brings us to our last point:

4) American reputation. Vel has pointed out that America will benefit from a strong military presence in the area. But at what cost? A nuked Japan? A ruined SK? A flooded China? America is going to sacrifice three enormous trading partners and piss their people off, in order to gain one hellhole, and attract global hatred in the process?

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Still not convinced. SK has already pretty much washed their hands of the whole situation (in fact, as has been pointed out earlier, they're supporting the bad seed because it'd be "too expensive" to deal with the alternative). Japan's not in financial shape to put in much more than a token effort....a fraction of the total bucks that it'd take to put NK on a paying basis again, and China lacks the fundage to do it (besides, China's got more than they can say grace over inside their own borders).

Uncle Sam, however, has deep enough pockets to make it fly in the aftermath.

I agree that it wouldn't be pretty, I'm just saying there'd be no loss of influence, cos nobody else would write a big enough check.

-=Vel=-

I'll admit that my last point was a bit on-the-fly. But look at the revised point #4 above.

SK has most definitely not washed their hands of the whole affair. All of the countries in the area are actively working for NK to reform. That's precisely the point of the Sunshine Policy, the Rail and Road links, the opening up of the tourist areas, the industrial zones at Sinuiju and Kaesong. It is in SK's interest to support the modernization of NK so that reunification would be less painful.

Velociryx · January 31, 2003, 22:12

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating letting the place go to hell in a handbasket till there's no alternative but war....I'm simply saying that when it's time to rebuild, nobody but the USA has the coin to foot the bill, and with the US footing the bill, you can bet there will be no loss of influence. Quite the opposite, actually.

Otherwise, I agree with the gist of your four points.

-=Vel=-

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating letting the place go to hell in a handbasket till there's no alternative but war....I'm simply saying that when it's time to rebuild, nobody but the USA has the coin to foot the bill, and with the US footing the bill, you can bet there will be no loss of influence. Quite the opposite, actually.

Otherwise, I agree with the gist of your four points.

-=Vel=-

Well, I think we're in agreement then.

My point basically is, America will find a way to salvage the situation and get something out of it, but all in all, having NK implode isn't worth it for America either - not when there are much better - and profitable - ways out of the mess.

DanS · January 31, 2003, 22:55

On your last point, we have never went at it with short-term profit in mind. Never. We have to protect our allies' lives and livelihoods as much as possible, true. But that should be looked at as a risk weighed against other risks, where the relative probability modifier is crucial. But proping up NK would 100% guarantee decades of despotism for the NK. I'm inclined against this right off the bat.

#1 -- SK would guarantee that they will take refugees off of China's hands. They have an obligation to do this right now, but haven't asked that hard for Chinese cooperation. I understand that asking China to not enforce a treaty is a big deal.

#2 -- Just let the situation ride for a while. This doesn't need to involve the SK military, just as the reunification of Germany didn't. I just see Kim Jong Il as the worst case. Even a military right-winger would be better.

You know, I keep going back to Germany because it is a successful example. This can be done peacefully. The risks have to be weighed, of course.

#3 -- SK can and will afford it. It's a first-world country. The US will help.

#4 -- The US doesn't benefit by having a strong military force in the region. And the potential downsides you mention are risks, not facts. The risks can be mitigated.

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
On your last point, we have never went at it with short-term profit in mind. Never. We have to protect our allies' lives and livelihoods as much as possible, true. But that should be looked at as a risk weighed against other risks, where the relative probability modifier is crucial.

Well, that's of course the idealistic case. But on the other hand, much American foreign policy is based entirely on profit - long- or short-term.

Quote:

#1 -- SK would guarantee that they will take refugees off of China's hands. They have an obligation to do this right now, but haven't asked that hard for Chinese cooperation. I understand that asking China to not enforce a treaty is a big deal.

How many? That's a lot of poor, confused, pissed-off people. They aren't going to be docily and quietly herded into refugee camps.

Quote:

#2 -- Just let the situation ride for a while. This doesn't need to involve the SK military, just as the reunification of Germany didn't. I just see Kim Jong Il as the worst case. Even a military right-winger would be better.

You know, I keep going back to Germany because it is a successful example. This can be done peacefully. The risks have to be weighed, of course.

East Germany was probably the best-off communist country out there. Even then, Germany experienced massive difficulties in the decade following reunification.

North Korea is utterly wrecked, on the other hand. SK will need to dilute half of their wealth into a hellhole. In the meantime, they will also need to rule NK as a military dictatorship.

Quote:

#3 -- SK can and will afford it. It's a first-world country. The US will help.

Why not let the NK's do it themselves? There is not a single country in the region that wouldn't pressurize NK to stop b****ing and start trading already. And all 4 of NK's neighbours - all 4 - have made it. Given NK's relative small size, they can make the leap in 10 years and reunify in 20.

The problem, of course, is Kim Jong-Il's stubbornness. That's where the Sunshine Policy comes in - so that he can take notice of the four blinding examples staring him in the face.

Quote:

#4 -- The US doesn't benefit by having a strong military force in the region. And the potential downsides you mention are risks, not facts. The risks can be mitigated.

Those are very possible "risks" under such a scenario.

DanS · January 31, 2003, 23:37

Well, that's of course the idealistic case.

It's not idealism. It's our money and I don't want good money chasing after bad. Giving concessions to NK won't make this regime God-fearing democratic capitalists. It's a fantasy.

But on the other hand, much American foreign policy is based entirely on profit - long- or short-term.

Our foreign policiy in the immediate vicinity of NK includes SK and Japan, where it was not based at all on profit, strictly construed.

so that he can take notice of the four blinding examples staring him in the face

He must not be too quick on the uptake...

ranskaldan · January 31, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Well, that's of course the idealistic case.

It's not idealism. It's our money and I don't want good money chasing after bad. Giving concessions to NK won't make this regime God-fearing democratic capitalists. It's a fantasy.

There isn't exactly much of a choice. Your only other choices are to invade - which will be disastrous - and to not do anything.

Quote:

Our foreign policiy in the immediate vicinity of NK includes SK and Japan, where it was not based at all on profit, strictly construed.

What is it based on, then?

Quote:

He must not be too quick on the uptake...

Not as slow as you think either.
Kim has been willing so far to experiment with industrial zones, road/rail links, and the like.

Urban Ranger · February 1, 2003, 06:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
As Seeker pointed out, the only way to go is to let them get rich. Right now, they have nothing to lose. People having nothing to lose are the most deadly in the world.

Sure, they have something to lose. Their regime. This is dear to them, although it's not worth two wooden nickels rubbed together for my own account.

If the country implodes, so will the regime. There is no difference.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Only economic prosperity will bring political freedom.

Nope. This is one of the lies propounded by the Chinese communists. You need look no further than India to see otherwise.

According to the CIA Factbook 2002, the GDP per capita, adjusted by PPP, is $4300 for the PRC, and $2500 for India. What about India?

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
I am not the RoK government, so I don't have the inside details. However, DPRK is a lot closer to RoK than the US. It really behooves them if the North Koreans don't snap.

You haven't really defined what "snapped" would entail.

What do you think? What will people with nothing to lose do lose faces certain death?

Urban Ranger · February 1, 2003, 06:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Uncle Sam, however, has deep enough pockets to make it fly in the aftermath.

I agree that it wouldn't be pretty, I'm just saying there'd be no loss of influence, cos nobody else would write a big enough check.

Why would the US care? Gazillions of tiny countries over around the world imploded over and over again, and the US didn't lift a little finger. Why would they care - if they can't get a friendly government in?

DanS · February 1, 2003, 17:41

What about India?

It shows that political freedom can exist without prosperity. So your comment that "[o]nly economic prosperity will bring political freedom" is false. There are plenty of other dirt poor countries out there that are reasonably democratic.

Velociryx · February 1, 2003, 18:04

UR: One word for why the US would care.

China.

Like it or not, *ready* or not....they're coming.

Their troubles at home won't be an infinite pool, and don't kid yourself....China has a long memory and plenty of territorial axes to grind.

Watch and see.

Chief among them, is that China WANTS the US out of the region. We're their own personal boogy man, and from the Chinese perspective, it is the US who is responsible for keeping China from flexing her muscles fully in the region.

-=Vel=-

cia · February 1, 2003, 18:08

Irrespective of troops Velociryx, the fact that China has no navy and the US does keeps them up at night. It's hard to defend thousands of miles of coastline even if they had the whole region and the US wanted to "come over".

ranskaldan · February 1, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
What about India?

It shows that political freedom can exist without prosperity. So your comment that "[o]nly economic prosperity will bring political freedom" is false. There are plenty of other dirt poor countries out there that are reasonably democratic.

I think what UR means is that "political freedom" without the necessary economic prosperity is no better than tyranny.

Velociryx · February 1, 2003, 18:12

::nodding:: I agree with what you're saying. The thing is, China WANTS to be the next big kid on the block. Everything they do sugessts this. And they have long viewed our presence in Asia as a roadblock to that. Few things would please China more than for the US to disappear entire from the region.

Of course, the US doesn't really want that to happen, and one of the keys to maintaining a strong Asian presence is the willingness to spend the necessary coin to keep things going its way.

Thus, my earlier point.

-=Vel=-

ranskaldan · February 1, 2003, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR: One word for why the US would care.

China.

Like it or not, *ready* or not....they're coming.

Their troubles at home won't be an infinite pool, and don't kid yourself....China has a long memory and plenty of territorial axes to grind.

Watch and see.

Chief among them, is that China WANTS the US out of the region. We're their own personal boogy man, and from the Chinese perspective, it is the US who is responsible for keeping China from flexing her muscles fully in the region.

-=Vel=-

In our modern world of malls and airports, who needs to "flex muscles"? America didn't exactly need to invade Canada to beat Canada into submission.

Velociryx · February 1, 2003, 18:16

Rans...in a perfect world I agree with you! But in a perfect world, we could do away with armed forces entirely, true? Until that day though, armed forces = muscles....and insurance.

-=Vel=-

DanS · February 1, 2003, 18:17

I think what UR means is that "political freedom" without the necessary economic prosperity is no better than tyranny.

And I disagree. Tyrrany is much worse.

ranskaldan · February 1, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Rans...in a perfect world I agree with you! But in a perfect world, we could do away with armed forces entirely, true? Until that day though, armed forces = muscles....and insurance.

-=Vel=-

Well, I agree that superpowers like the US, etc, do need to invade now and then to assert their power and put down troublesome governments. But all in all, the modern world doesn't require or encourage superpowers to be fighting to the death with each other or lesser minions. This is because

1) The allies of modern superpowers, in our world of malls and airports, fall in line because of economic and diplomatic profit. They don't even need to be threatened - if they have any brains, they'd stick close to the big kid on the block.

2) Modern superpowers can't fight each other anyways, since no one fights a war with a 100% self-destruction rate. Until a country becomes reasonably sure that it can stop 90%+ of all nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks, there will be no China-US wars, Tom Clancy-like scenarios, etc.