North Korea

bloop bloop blah
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

North Korea

Post #1 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:10 am

Surprised there is no thread. The rhetoric and bravado out of the North has been insane.

Know the consensus is that it's a huge hissy fit, but nonetheless such posturing does create instability and a real danger.

Heard relatively little on China's stance (other than some passing condemnation). My real thought is that we can't let this regime remain in power and continue to develop long range nuclear capacity. They'll just get tougher and tougher to deal with. At the same time, an all out conflict is unthinkable without China's at least tacit consent and would be devastating on the region.

Diddly of a pickle.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #2 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:23 am

This, like most North Korean hissy fits, is mostly about domestic politics. Kim needs to manufacture a crisis he can lead his people out of, thus proving himself a 'hero' and solidifying his rule.

There has been rumblings (speculation is probably more like it, what am I, some kind of DPRK insider?) that China is becoming more and more exasperated with the Kims. Ideally regime change will come to Korea from within, initiated by China cutting off all support. The trouble, as I understand it, is that even if you have a revolution you're not likely to end up with a democracy of any sort. The only realistic option is a military coup, which will just replace one despot with another. It might take a few regime changes over several years to get a government we like established. And that's several years of various sketchy people clinging to power with their hands on nukes.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #3 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:55 am

Craig wrote:This, like most North Korean hissy fits, is mostly about domestic politics. Kim needs to manufacture a crisis he can lead his people out of, thus proving himself a 'hero' and solidifying his rule.

There has been rumblings (speculation is probably more like it, what am I, some kind of DPRK insider?) that China is becoming more and more exasperated with the Kims. Ideally regime change will come to Korea from within, initiated by China cutting off all support. The trouble, as I understand it, is that even if you have a revolution you're not likely to end up with a democracy of any sort. The only realistic option is a military coup, which will just replace one despot with another. It might take a few regime changes over several years to get a government we like established. And that's several years of various sketchy people clinging to power with their hands on nukes.


China is pivotal, but dislike the kims all they want their play is to keep the North in their sphere. It's in China's interest to do next to nothing. Not sure that is in the West's interests. Do you let the North develop long range nuclear capacity? If not, what do you do about it?

Assuming the North's leadership is not completely delusional (not sure how much that can be a given -and I know it's in their interest to appear to be crazy mofos that just don't care gangsta style), this is all bluff. But a bluff needs an end game. If you estimate that chances of conflict in the foreseable future are significant, you may want to address it sooner rather than latter (ie. In a decade, they could possible target mainland US cities with long range nukes).

Meh, i'm probably bitting on the bait. Chances are they are semi-rational and letting them be will result in no war and just headline news stories from time to time.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #4 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:02 am

Fucken problem children. lord give me patience.

:danson:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #5 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:05 am

Big#D wrote:i'm sure the yanks would just be happier if the chinks took over for the gooks and just made them some sort of outpost / regional government / whatever. the yanks could even give them the southern gooks for good measure and negotiate a similar treaty for the south to have more freedoms similar to hong kong and taiwan / taipei.


That's freaking brilliant!
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #6 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:06 am

Dog wrote:China is pivotal, but dislike the kims all they want their play is to keep the North in their sphere. It's in China's interest to do next to nothing. Not sure that is in the West's interests. Do you let the North develop long range nuclear capacity? If not, what do you do about it?

Assuming the North's leadership is not completely delusional (not sure how much that can be a given -and I know it's in their interest to appear to be crazy mofos that just don't care gangsta style), this is all bluff. But a bluff needs an end game. If you estimate that chances of conflict in the foreseable future are significant, you may want to address it sooner rather than latter (ie. In a decade, they could possible target mainland US cities with long range nukes).

Meh, i'm probably bitting on the bait. Chances are they are semi-rational and letting them be will result in no war and just headline news stories from time to time.


It's in China's interests up until the point where the DPRK get so belligerent their neighbors have to do something about it. If China is convinced that the US will not allow a failed state to exist with nukes and rockets capable of hitting LA, it's no longer in their interests to have that failed state around. Sure, they would ideally keep them as a buffer between their interior and the US+allies, but I think they'd rather let them go entirely than have a possibly nuclear war on their doorstep. Even in a conventional war, they really don't want to deal with millions of Korean refugees on their border.

So at a certain point, it becomes in the Chinese's interest to force a regime change. If the new regime is more open than the last one, which I think it would pretty much have to be, news of the world will trickle in to the country and modern ideas will take root. Nobody can say for sure what the end game will be, but I'm sticking with a bunch of regime changes that eventually ends up with North Koreans demanding a government that is at least conceptually on par with that of the South.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #7 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:11 am

Craig wrote:It's in China's interests up until the point where the DPRK get so belligerent their neighbors have to do something about it. If China is convinced that the US will not allow a failed state to exist with nukes and rockets capable of hitting LA, it's no longer in their interests to have that failed state around. Sure, they would ideally keep them as a buffer between their interior and the US+allies, but I think they'd rather let them go entirely than have a possibly nuclear war on their doorstep. Even in a conventional war, they really don't want to deal with millions of Korean refugees on their border.

So at a certain point, it becomes in the Chinese's interest to force a regime change. If the new regime is more open than the last one, which I think it would pretty much have to be, news of the world will trickle in to the country and modern ideas will take root. Nobody can say for sure what the end game will be, but I'm sticking with a bunch of regime changes that eventually ends up with North Koreans demanding a government that is at least conceptually on par with that of the South.


So America's play here is to ratchet this up until China takes out the Kims?

:danson:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #8 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:18 am

I find it remarkable how much i'm willing to discount korean/asian lives as opposed to north american ones.

:danson:
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #9 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:34 am

Dog wrote:So America's play here is to ratchet this up until China takes out the Kims?

:danson:


That's one option, but I doubt the US have any particular interest in antagonizing China right now. I think the play they're going with is more or less hands off in the hopes that something will change within NK all on it's own or China will manage to get the Kims under control.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #10 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:43 am

Craig wrote:That's one option, but I doubt the US have any particular interest in antagonizing China right now. I think the play they're going with is more or less hands off in the hopes that something will change within NK all on it's own or China will manage to get the Kims under control.


Which was my initial post.

Not sure that's the best play (ie. Kicking the kims problem futher down the road as they build their nuclear arsenal). That regime will not go down easy.

Responses so far have been adequate with the situation, but at the same time a part of me wants North Korea to cross the line and be dealt with sooner rather than latter.
User avatar
Ironchef Chris Wok
Registered Broad
Posts: 2307
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:35 am
Received rep: 1 time
Contact:

Post #11 by Ironchef Chris Wok » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:45 am

I'm not concerned, even though Kim Possible is probably a fucking retard, the old-guard generals will probably just shoot the moron in the head if he got too out of hand.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #12 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:46 am

dempsey_k wrote:There is a baseline amount of jostling whenever dealing with the DPRK, but this is heightened because we aren't playing along. Now, it's not accurate to say nothing ever comes of this game: many (hundreds) Japanese and South Korean people have been killed or abducted by the North Koreans over the decades through these otherwise eyeroll-inducing "games", including some American soldiers at the DMZ. The Korean leadership aren't crazy, they know exactly what they're doing, but there are two unstable factors here that make the situation worse: Chub's new car smell dictates that he acts like a big man bigger than his old man ever did, but it also means he has no experienced grip on ratcheting it down at the appropriate moment to avert disaster.

There's nothing to this if you go by history and the DPRK intentions, but their prodigal son might unintentionally cause an incident or something far worse, given the baseline casualties in this game number anywhere from a dozen to hundreds dying at a time.


What comes to mind is another missile launch over Japan that fails and actually hits a japanese target. Don't know how realistic that is.

I would have sucked at the cold war.

:danson:
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #13 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:49 am

Can the US sustain operations in North Korea and Iran at the same time? I think that would be a substantially larger commitment than Iraq and Afghanistan was.

If the answer to that question is no and the US means it when they say they won't allow Iran to get a nuke, how could they realistically intervene in Korea? It seems to me they might have to pick between having one or the other with nukes and I think they'll pick North Korea.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #14 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:00 pm

dempsey_k wrote:We're not going to war with Iran or NK unless provoked, and if you read not only between the lines but in the official statements, Iran and NK have zero intention of provoking us. We're also pretty committed to containment in both cases, but can't really admit that because that'd cost votes from the bubbas.


That seems obvious enough to me for NK, but what happens when Iran tests a nuke? Does that count as provocation?
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57947
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1840 times
Received rep: 1226 times

Post #15 by Dog » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:09 pm

Would think that with cheap shale gas there would be less need for nuclear power.

:danson:
User avatar
habfan4
Registered Broad
Posts: 10111
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 19 times

Post #16 by habfan4 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:33 pm

Dog wrote:China is pivotal, but dislike the kims all they want their play is to keep the North in their sphere. It's in China's interest to do next to nothing. Not sure that is in the West's interests. Do you let the North develop long range nuclear capacity? If not, what do you do about it?

Assuming the North's leadership is not completely delusional (not sure how much that can be a given -and I know it's in their interest to appear to be crazy mofos that just don't care gangsta style), this is all bluff. But a bluff needs an end game. If you estimate that chances of conflict in the foreseable future are significant, you may want to address it sooner rather than latter (ie. In a decade, they could possible target mainland US cities with long range nukes).

Meh, i'm probably bitting on the bait. Chances are they are semi-rational and letting them be will result in no war and just headline news stories from time to time.


It's in China's interest to get their pet back on a leash, anything short of that invites the US to put more military hardware into China's backyard. The Chinese conundrum with handling the DPRK is that aside from a bloodless coup all the regime change options are ugly for the Chinese. At a minimum, armed conflict will prompt a run on their border with North Korea and potentially much, much worse. It's in everyone's interest to get the situation back to a slow boil.

The Chinese also need to tone down the sabre rattling with their neighbours, particularly Japan. Despite the fact that the Senkaku dust up is more for domestic political consumption within China, I find that particular situation more worrisome.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #17 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:39 pm

The Economist has been running articles for months now saying there's a real possibility of war over the Senkakus. Personally, I don't really see it.
User avatar
habfan4
Registered Broad
Posts: 10111
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 19 times

Post #18 by habfan4 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:52 pm

Craig wrote:The Economist has been running articles for months now saying there's a real possibility of war over the Senkakus. Personally, I don't really see it.


Shinzo Abe's government is making lots of nationalist noises, combine that with ever present nationalist sentiment in China and the history of the two countries and its a problem.
User avatar
habfan4
Registered Broad
Posts: 10111
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 19 times

Post #19 by habfan4 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:54 pm

dempsey_k wrote:There's the saber rattling, and then there's the Chinese people, who are the greatest argument against democratic reforms, because they're so gong ho for action, the civilians are the ones leading confrontation in fishing boats, returning heroes, and others stoking the flames on the Internet. The government sometimes has to say it will teach Japan a lesson just to make the people happy.


You'll get no argument from me on that point. However, state organs and those private institutions within the central government's sphere of influence (i.e. newspapers and academics etc... ) can certainly dial down the rhetoric.
User avatar
freakin
Registered Broad
Posts: 5380
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: Toronto
Received rep: 1 time

Post #20 by freakin » Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:57 pm

This is how the little man in NK gets his dick hard. NK knows if they actually do anything they will be completely wiped out.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #21 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:25 pm

As if this situation isn't messy enough, Anonymous have been getting involved lately, hacking DPRKs social media accounts. Those are some serious balls on some random geeks on the web, thinking it's a good idea for them to mess with international relations with an unstable nuclear power.
User avatar
habfan4
Registered Broad
Posts: 10111
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 19 times

Post #22 by habfan4 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:44 pm

Craig wrote:As if this situation isn't messy enough, Anonymous have been getting involved lately, hacking DPRKs social media accounts. Those are some serious balls on some random geeks on the web, thinking it's a good idea for them to mess with international relations with an unstable nuclear power.


They'll probably have to get in line behind MI6 & the NSA in terms of fucking with the DPRK's networks.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #23 by Craig » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:24 pm

habfan4 wrote:They'll probably have to get in line behind MI6 & the NSA in terms of fucking with the DPRK's networks.


Yeah, but the difference is Anonymous will just do it to publicly rub in the DPRKs face.

I guess the good news here is so few North Korean's have internet access that it won't really matter.
User avatar
Ironchef Chris Wok
Registered Broad
Posts: 2307
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:35 am
Received rep: 1 time
Contact:

Post #24 by Ironchef Chris Wok » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:41 pm

Craig wrote:Yeah, but the difference is Anonymous will just do it to publicly rub in the DPRKs face.

I guess the good news here is so few North Korean's have internet access that it won't really matter.


Does Anonymous not know the DPRK KIDNAP PEOPLE???
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29905
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 364 times
Received rep: 171 times

Post #25 by mayoradamwest » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:48 pm

embracedbias wrote:When you play a game of thrones you win or you die


Needs more incest.
User avatar
Haddock
Registered Broad
Posts: 9117
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Moulinsart
Received rep: 1 time

Post #26 by Haddock » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:48 pm

Image
User avatar
Ironchef Chris Wok
Registered Broad
Posts: 2307
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:35 am
Received rep: 1 time
Contact:

Post #27 by Ironchef Chris Wok » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:53 pm

anybody think anything is going to happen?
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29905
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 364 times
Received rep: 171 times

Post #28 by mayoradamwest » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:02 am

Ironchef Chris Wok wrote:anybody think anything is going to happen?


Dance off.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #29 by Craig » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:08 am

China doesn't back NK to the extent that they would get involved in a military conflict with the Americans over it. They like them as a buffer between their land borders and those of the US and their allies, but the whole point of that strategy is it minimizes the chance of having a ground war near their own turf. Why would they fight to protect that advantage, when the whole point of it is to avoid that fight?

Plus, they've withdrawn most of their support for the DPRK anyway. The Chinese signing on to the last round of sanctions is one of the main things that led to this latest hissy fit by the Kims.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69109
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 709 times
Received rep: 800 times

Post #30 by AD » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:39 am

I would have repped MAW's deleted post in this thread.
User avatar
habfan4
Registered Broad
Posts: 10111
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 19 times

Post #31 by habfan4 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:48 am

Perhaps if we add Kim Jong-un to the Broads banner right next to his late father Kim Jong-il this entire mess will go away.
User avatar
habfan4
Registered Broad
Posts: 10111
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Has given rep: 1 time
Received rep: 19 times

Post #32 by habfan4 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:59 am

Big#D wrote:i'm not sure there's enough room.


We also need to add in Pope Francis.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69109
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 709 times
Received rep: 800 times

Post #33 by AD » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:09 am

Big#D wrote:it's too bad he deleted it. we'll never know for sure whether you're telling the truth.


I'm gonna undelete it. Rep it. And then delete it again (to respect his wishes)
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69109
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 709 times
Received rep: 800 times

Post #34 by AD » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:09 am

Banana wrote:I'm gonna undelete it. Rep it. And then delete it again (to respect his wishes)


Necrophiliarepping
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29905
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 364 times
Received rep: 171 times

Post #35 by mayoradamwest » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:22 am

Banana wrote:I'm gonna undelete it. Rep it. And then delete it again (to respect his wishes)


I don't remember what I said. :(
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29905
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 364 times
Received rep: 171 times

Post #36 by mayoradamwest » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:25 am

Just steal it and post It as yourself banane, I went to change the wordingodt interest and have up. Probably too hyped to be any good now anyways. Much like Bieber.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39658
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 420 times

Post #37 by Craig » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:25 am

mayoradamwest wrote:I don't remember what I said. :(



Ironchef Chris Wok wrote:anybody think anything is going to happen?


Dance off.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69109
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 709 times
Received rep: 800 times

Post #38 by AD » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:27 am

Craig wrote:Dance off.


The timing's all off now.. it would only be funny... oh, about 15 posts ago.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29905
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 364 times
Received rep: 171 times

Post #39 by mayoradamwest » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:30 am

lol, dance off. :rolleyes:
User avatar
Murphy
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 97 times
Received rep: 16 times

Post #40 by Murphy » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:16 pm

embracedbias wrote:When you play a game of thrones you win or you die


Not enough incest.

Return to “bleetbloop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest