North Korea

Frank the tank
Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
edited April 2013 in The cake stop
What should be done?

Obviously the propaganda machine is now in overdrive. Thing is we all know the country and its people are in a sh1t state but how is the current tension going to be sorted?

IMO the Chinese hold the key whether the west like it or not, and while ever NK have potentially nuclear weapons (however limited) at their disposal they'll always have a bargaining chip.

While I disagree with nuclear weapons having them allows you not to be kicked about by who ever.
Tail end Charlie

The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.

Comments

  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Whether they have a 'deliverable' nuclear weapon is debatable. Despite appearances, the fat kid is not actually in charge, his aunt & uncle almost certainly pull the strings, along with the military. And the Chinese will pull the plug on the regime when it suits them most - sooner or later...
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    Just leave them to it, they want to save face with their own people so just let them. Don't get involved, let their people give them one of those ridiculous rounds of applause you always see on news articles from over there and in a few weeks it will all go quiet again. I think even the Yanks are realising that is the best approach. It's just posturing but there is a danger that they might do something stupid just to save face if pushed.
  • random man
    random man Posts: 1,518
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:

    Hopefully the West has learned. Also, I think the US are sensible enough to know that, if pushed, North Korea are very likely to use their weapons. Iraq wasn't about WMD - surely everyone knows that now?
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,337
    north korea is a chinese sponsored state, the americans will never attack it simply for developing wmd

    if the chinese could find a way to cleanly and quickly control the norks they'd do it, but they don't want to bring down the young un if it risks destabilising things, so they'll slowly turn the screws in private without causing loss of face and it'll all calm down - unless some idiot with a twitchy trigger finger spoils the game

    the chinese don't give a shıt about the poor sods in the north, they want to keep a convenient, friendly, barrier state in place, and if it periodically baits the south, americans and japanese, without leaving any trail back to beijing, that's a great bonus

    they're scared that if there's a coup or breakdown of order they'll get swamped with refugees, while the south, with the backing of pretty much everyone but china and probably russia, will move to unify, leaving china minus a convenient buffer zone and perhaps encouraging it's own more fractious areas to hot things up
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Pross wrote:
    Just leave them to it, they want to save face with their own people so just let them. Don't get involved, let their people give them one of those ridiculous rounds of applause you always see on news articles from over there and in a few weeks it will all go quiet again. I think even the Yanks are realising that is the best approach. It's just posturing but there is a danger that they might do something stupid just to save face if pushed.
    IMHO this is the case, and the way to deal with it.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    IMHO that is the difference. Right or wrong.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    bompington wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.
    Interesting point that, Saddam was a tyrant but I believe he had genuine support amongst some of his people had he stood for a genuine free election (inspite of the points you raise). Given a free election how much support could "fat lad" genuinely expect. (leaving the secret police etc out of it).
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    bompington wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.

    But what about the reports of thousands starving to death in North Korea as a result of the regime? Might not be weapons involved in the usual meaning of the word but the effect is just the same. Assuming these reports are true of course, which brings about my other point, a lot of people talk as if they are in the know about the situation but really how much does anyone know?
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    verylonglegs wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.

    But what about the reports of thousands starving to death in North Korea as a result of the regime? Might not be weapons involved in the usual meaning of the word but the effect is just the same. Assuming these reports are true of course, which brings about my other point, a lot of people talk as if they are in the know about the situation but really how much does anyone know?
    It's a secretive regime, WE don't know. Hence I used the word propaganda in my OP.
    Mind you I don't think there are too many breaking their necks to go and live there.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Frank the tank wrote:
    While I disagree with nuclear weapons having them allows you not to be kicked about by who ever.

    So Frank, does that put you in the 'Maintain Trident' camp or the 'Unilateral Disarmament' camp? You can't have it both ways.
  • dynamicbrick
    dynamicbrick Posts: 460
    Frank the tank wrote:
    verylonglegs wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.

    But what about the reports of thousands starving to death in North Korea as a result of the regime? Might not be weapons involved in the usual meaning of the word but the effect is just the same. Assuming these reports are true of course, which brings about my other point, a lot of people talk as if they are in the know about the situation but really how much does anyone know?
    It's a secretive regime, WE don't know. Hence I used the word propaganda in my OP.
    Mind you I don't think there are too many breaking their necks to go and live there.

    Leaving aside the propaganda, NK is incapable of feeding itself properly given a) the population, b) the available arable land, c) the inefficiencies of communism/totalitarianism, d) it's a closed economy. Britain is incapable of feeding itself also, has been for over a century, although that's a simple population vs food production issue.

    As with any regime of that kind in power in NK, the system must spend a disproportionate amount of output keeping itself in power. The law of diminishing returns slowly takes effect - as it did with the USSR - where so much output is devoted to keeping the system in place it collapses in on itself. China avoided this through its unorthodox capitalism/part free market drive in the 90s.

    Eventually, NK will collapse - the Chinese keep it propped up with food, but how long they're prepared to let continue is anyone's guess. True, it serves as a useful buffer state - although that's less important with the way China is these days. It is better to ship food to NK than try to cope with X million refugees in your own territory.

    The more problematic situation is what to do with all the NorKs when it does implode. People who have only ever known Communism suddenly have free market forces thrust upon them. In Russia poverty increased after the collapse of the USSR. With the re-unification of Germany things turned out well in the end, but only with the immense resources of West Germany and the EU poured into dragging East Germany out of the stasis it had endured since 1945.

    What does the rest of the world do? Nothing, I'd predict. Nobody has the appetite for a second outing in Korea, even without the drain of Afghanistan. However, should the NorKs chuck a hot one at the US, Japan, or the south, they'll suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of a lot of bad news.

    IF that happened, then ultimately I think the Chinese would step in, by invading and installing their own puppet. Which, given the sheer scale of the problems to apparently be found there, would probably meet with little opposition from the rest of the world.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    Frank the tank wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.
    Interesting point that, Saddam was a tyrant but I believe he had genuine support amongst some of his people had he stood for a genuine free election (inspite of the points you raise). Given a free election how much support could "fat lad" genuinely expect. (leaving the secret police etc out of it).

    I ve just been Reading Christopher Hitchens' autobiography. He spent a lot of time in Iraq between the wars and after the second war. The things he saw were shocking! Stories of three truck loads of people three times a day being delivered to mass graves where they were simply buried alive was just one. I'm aware of Godwin's Law, but even the Nazi's had the decency to kill their victims before disposing of them.

    Saddam was in the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot and the Argentine junta, Kim Jong XX is in no way comparable to Saddam. To suggest that he was some how OK becasue he faked a win in some elections is frankly laughable

    (would recommend it as a read by the way)
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Not read his autobiography, but there are a multitude of clips of Hitchens on Youtube. Highly recommended.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    While I disagree with nuclear weapons having them allows you not to be kicked about by who ever.

    So Frank, does that put you in the 'Maintain Trident' camp or the 'Unilateral Disarmament' camp? You can't have it both ways.
    I'm sure we'd all like there to be no nuclear weapons anywhere but they do exist.

    Trident is very expensive and (despite what I said) it is debatable how much of a deterent it is, afterall it didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands and we never threatened to use it as a reprisal (fair enough it would have been a terrible over reaction had we nuked Buenos aries but we didn't) so as a deterent and as a weapon of reprisal in that case it was useless.

    We could certainly do with not spending the money on trident but OTOH why should we depend totally on the USA for our insurance? It's a tough un. How many other western powers feel the need to have a nuclear deterent?
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Frank the tank wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    While I disagree with nuclear weapons having them allows you not to be kicked about by who ever.

    So Frank, does that put you in the 'Maintain Trident' camp or the 'Unilateral Disarmament' camp? You can't have it both ways.
    I'm sure we'd all like there to be no nuclear weapons anywhere but they do exist.

    Trident is very expensive and (despite what I said) it is debatable how much of a deterent it is, afterall it didn't deter Argentina from invading the Falklands and we never threatened to use it as a reprisal (fair enough it would have been a terrible over reaction had we nuked Buenos aries but we didn't) so as a deterent and as a weapon of reprisal in that case it was useless.

    We could certainly do with not spending the money on trident but OTOH why should we depend totally on the USA for our insurance? It's a tough un. How many other western powers feel the need to have a nuclear deterent?

    I agree Frank that we would all feel better in a world without nukes, but they can't be uninvented.
    As I see it, their sole use is as a deterrent to another so armed power. It doesn't really matter if we would be willing to launch a retaliatory strike, just as long as any nuclear armed power believes that we might. They didn't call it MAD for nothing. :)
    As regards maintaining Trident, our defence service and politicians have to try to look forward 25 years or so to see what sort of world we will be living in. Who knows which states will have the capability then.
    I think the NATO countries have been too content to let America dominate and been able to shelter under its umbrella for too long. Yes I know Trident and Polaris, before it, were predominantly US systems, but I think we should try to have an independent capability.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    On the subject of dictators and how they oppress their people Good old uncle Joe starved around 30,000,000 of his own during his lifetime. However, there are still ordinary people who long for the days when he was running the show. :?
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    As, apparently, the U S have an override on wether we can use the Nukes we have I really cannot see the point of having them.

    As far as the N K situation is concerned, given the touchiness of the top guy there, why did the U S send stealth bombers and fighters to S K to take part in manouevers on the border.

    Diplomacy and foresight are not the strongest suites in their arsenal, hence my initial comment.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    ddraver wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Frank the tank wrote:
    random man wrote:
    Where's the consistency? Saddam Hussein wasn't allowed WMD so why should North Korea?

    I guess they haven't got any oil :roll:
    A subtle difference (leaving OIL out of it) is North Korea actually HAVE WMD be they of limited use.
    Another subtle difference, mind you, is that NK don't have a dictator with an actual track record of invading neighbouring countries, or using actual WMD on his own people. Something a lot of people seem very keen to forget about Saddam.
    Interesting point that, Saddam was a tyrant but I believe he had genuine support amongst some of his people had he stood for a genuine free election (inspite of the points you raise). Given a free election how much support could "fat lad" genuinely expect. (leaving the secret police etc out of it).

    I ve just been Reading Christopher Hitchens' autobiography. He spent a lot of time in Iraq between the wars and after the second war. The things he saw were shocking! Stories of three truck loads of people three times a day being delivered to mass graves where they were simply buried alive was just one. I'm aware of Godwin's Law, but even the Nazi's had the decency to kill their victims before disposing of them.

    Saddam was in the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot and the Argentine junta, Kim Jong XX is in no way comparable to Saddam. To suggest that he was some how OK becasue he faked a win in some elections is frankly laughable

    (would recommend it as a read by the way)

    I'm not so sure that he's not comparable to Saddam, well possibly Kim Jung himself isn't that evil as such, but the occasional stories which come out of NK are horrific, the regimes concentration/prison camps are totally horrendous.

    As for the situation with NK, I haven't seen many convincing cases, china doesn't really want thousands of refugees coming over the boarder, and SK is so far ahead of NK economically, that unification could do them a lot of harm.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    plowmar wrote:
    As, apparently, the U S have an override on wether we can use the Nukes we have I really cannot see the point of having them.

    As far as the N K situation is concerned, given the touchiness of the top guy there, why did the U S send stealth bombers and fighters to S K to take part in manouevers on the border.

    Diplomacy and foresight are not the strongest suites in their arsenal, hence my initial comment.

    Sabre rattling, like that of NK is usually designed to ellicit a reaction to test another nations resolve, and to highlight any weakness or hesitation, ergo the US's robust response.
    It has been suggested that had France reacted more forcefully when Germany had entered the Rhineland, Hitler would have had to back down as he was not in a position to wage war.
    More recently, Argentina perceived it as weakness when the UK withdrew a ship from the South Atlantic.
    The US response was fully in line with its determination and obligation to assist its allies.
  • plowmar
    plowmar Posts: 1,032
    But, Ballysmate, do we want that type of assistance if it can lead to unintended consequences. By 'we' I mean the world in general if a nuclear conflegration is the result.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    plowmar wrote:
    But, Ballysmate, do we want that type of assistance if it can lead to unintended consequences. By 'we' I mean the world in general if a nuclear conflegration is the result.

    No one wants the world turned into a cinder. A passive response (Is that an oxymoron?) would encourage NK to push their luck further. At some point they have to be told 'Enough is enough' . The earlier they are made to realise this the better. It's better to tell them now than wait until the first missile is launched.
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Ballysmate wrote:
    plowmar wrote:
    But, Ballysmate, do we want that type of assistance if it can lead to unintended consequences. By 'we' I mean the world in general if a nuclear conflegration is the result.

    No one wants the world turned into a cinder. A passive response (Is that an oxymoron?) would encourage NK to push their luck further. At some point they have to be told 'Enough is enough' . The earlier they are made to realise this the better. It's better to tell them now than wait until the first missile is launched.
    I still believe China is the key to diffusing the situation as they have a foot in both camps.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.

Categories