This makes me nervous and I fear that Kim Jung Un will have to do something big in order to save face. I hope we make him feel that he has a non-violent way to posture for his people as that's really what this is all about: posturing.
Honestly I don't get this sentiment. NK isn't some rationalistic actor. The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve. This goes beyond mere saving face, or diplomacy. This is simply about maintaining and expanding power. That is sometimes you need to be confrontational. Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill. Preferably before it's too late.
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.
That's assuming that NK is just building the deterrent to stay in power. Another possibility is that they would seek to increase their power against other, non-nuclear armed nations. Many of NK's historical actions such as kidnapping foreign citizens [0] or the abominable treatment of prisoners like Otto Warmbier cannot be explained simply by a rational desire for regime survival. We don't really know what their end game is.
I agree completely. Contrast those rogue nations with Pakistan - who has nukes - and it's a strong argument. Pakistan regularly taunts India with the same threats and they still get megabucks in aid.
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.
It looks like currently their estimation is that the West is too weak to oppose them and by taking a bellicose stance they can extract concessions, payments and other benefits. This is basically a blackmail/hostage situation.
> 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.
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.
They always were belligerant, untrustworthy, lying bullies.
Yes, and that's worked out great for the Kims for almost 70 years now. We haven't exactly given them an incentive to change or reform.
It's impossible to exaggerate how badly we botched our handling of Libya in particular. After watching what happened to Gaddafi, there was literally no other option for Kim besides an all-out push to develop nuclear arms.
Iran, not being a country populated exclusively by idiots, will be doing the same.
The US simply cannot be trusted regardless of what party is at the helm, and that's a huge problem for us as well as anyone we're doing international business with.
South Korea seems to be doing just fine, and the US seems to be honest about the contempt with which it views the North Korean regime, so I don't really see the purpose of the equivocation you're trying to set, here.
No they’re not. The only reason they are still there is because China wants them there. And they are being very dumb by making China angry.
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.
China isn't angry at NK for building nukes. They're angry because now they have to be given that the U.S. wants them to be "or else". I'm not sure that the "or else" is real, but China has a lot to lose, while NK only has Kim to lose, so I expect China will continue attempting to appear angry at NK.
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 has plenty of rural areas anyway, and NK population is 2% of Chinese population.
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'm not saying they couldn't do it - unlike South Korea, China doesn't care too much for the welfare of the population beyond the basic subsistence level, and has enough resources to avoid outright starvation in NK if they took over. I am saying there's no reason for them to take over, because they now already have all the benefits of control with none of responsibilities of it. It would be literally stupid for them to do it unless they face the imminent danger of either losing control (thus Korean War) or having a hot and possible nuclear war on their borders (thus agreeing to put the leash on Kim, for a suitable price of course).
China has historically tolerated NK because it doesn't want to share a border with a US ally. China intervened in the Korean War precisely because the UN forces came too far north, in spite of China warning them to stay clear.
So this is why maybe the sudden change of heart. All fun and games watching Uncle Sam get poked in the eye until it appears he is going to have troops on your border if it keeps up.
At this point it's in China's actual interest to resolve the situation. They'd probably like to resolve the situation with with the stick poker intact but that doesn't appear to be acceptable anymore. I'm guessing they are hoping Kim cools it down just enough and they can wait it out until the political climate in the US changes and then business as usual.
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 stay in existence mostly because nobody wants to take the responsibility for 25 million people that are stuck 70 years behind. The West is in no shape to do any nation-building, neither financially nor ideologically, South Korea has no resources to stomach such huge influx of the population with such huge economic disparity (it's like US would get 150 million immigrants from extremely poor country all at once), and China is completely fine with the position of NK being a permanent toxic dumpster fire and China being seen as the only power being able to manage it and thus being irreplaceable and everyone's savior.
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.
Put another way. They're not going to play ball. Things cannot be solved diplomatically. Unless you call breaking all diplomatic promises, and developing nukes diplomacy.
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.
So by that definition it seems that the USA would not be considered a rational actor since the head of the nation and the majority in congress are pretty much the opposite of predictable and willing to uphold their word.
Be that as it may. The USA, China, UK, India, etc. are all far more rational actors than NK. So your assertion is irrelevant as even if it is true the US is far more likely to be rational on the geopolitical stage.
Personally I would trust the USA on its word far more than I would NK. I don't know about you.
Perhaps true, but also completely off topic. It makes you look like you're just looking for an excuse to score points, rather than contributing to the conversation we're having.
> 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.
No it isn't.
A rational actor is one who acts rationally.
If survival and self-interest is your goal then lying and breaking agreements might be a perfectly rational approach.
You’re redefining the term “rational” to mean “honorable”. A rational actor is someone who acts in their own self-interest.
North Korea acting unpredictably and dishonestly has little inherently to do with the rationality of those actions, and there are strong arguments to be made that those actions are rational from the perspective of the North Korean ruling class.
>What else is their development of nuclear arms about?
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...
They already have parity, because they hold Seoul hostage with conventional weapons. Otherwise, there'd be no problem to talk about. But they also have every reason to seek more leverage.
> What they actually want is to win, and emerge "victorious" in the face of US "oppression".
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.
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".
Libya was a failure of President Obama to honor a deal made by President Bush.
Qaddafi gave the U.S. his centrifuges and other equipment, which in turn laid bare the A. Q. Khan network and Iran's program, and also helped the U.S. and Israel hack Iran's program to slow it down. And just what did Qaddafi get for his troubles? He got killed.
After that betrayal no one will make any deals like that with the U.S. again. To say that President Obama's Libya adventure was destructive is to put it mildly.
Or perhaps, the US has a vested interest in a divided and unstable Korea to have an excuse to maintain lots of military bases in the region, because China. And Russia.
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.
I agree. They don't want to lose power, if anything they want to expand it. We can call it "survival mode", but I don't think their desperation can be solved by diplomacy. So what is the solution? More diplomacy? More failed agreements? More broken promises?
China is very interested in a peaceful region. They have demonstrated very little interest in belligerence outside their claimed territory and a great deal of interest in stable export markets that give them trade advantages.
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.
The issue of reunification in Korea still has significant support. Especially among the older generation, but even if we include the younger generation the support for reunification still exceed 60%.
I mean what do you want to do with NK? Leave it be? Laissez faire? Let it develop nukes as a "deterrent"? Let it be aggressive? This will not end will for the region if something isn't done, and SK is reminded that on a daily basis.
The problem is that nobody knows, and nobody wants to be responsible for figuring it out, implementing it, and paying all the costs. We're all hoping somebody else will fix the problem for us.
The US blames China. China predictably blames the US. South Korea vacillates between being hot and cold towards its Northern brother, yet neither approach has solved the issue. Meanwhile, Russia is all too happy to no longer be associated with the problem in the eyes of the global public, despite its own key role in getting us into the current mess.
You're right that reunification still has majority support in SK, but will that be true in 20 years' time once a unified Korea can no longer remembered by anyone still living?
It seemed to me his point was that China probably doesn't want to annex NK because of the economic and developmental hassle involved. Not wanting to annex NK does not mean that he automatically condones a rampant NK.
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.
Why would the US care? At this point, the situation is an anchor around our neck. Talks behind our backs are unlikely to happen due to SK's deep distrust of China, whose fault it is that Korean war ended in stalemate (after US intervention), as well as SK's deep military integration with the US.
The Kim dynasty has shown zero inclination to give up power, which would make such a concept a nonstarter. If DPRK could be solved by all parties other than the Kim regime (say, by decapitation of the regime and containment of the resultant chaos), it would be a done deal. Everyone's been hoping the regime would collapse before becoming a credible nuclear threat, but that hasn't happened and the temperature keeps rising.
I think we ultimately will live to see this play out. I have to assume it's being negotiated even now, because it will be require unprecedented coordination to defuse NK without massive civilian deaths in Seoul or a refugee crisis in Manchuria.
As far as I know, China does not want NK territory. The last thing they need is an extremely insular ethnic group to integrate. They want containment of NK and less US presence in Asia. They also want Taiwan, but I think a much diminished US presence on the peninsula would be more than enough for them.
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.
> They have a very good idea of how far they can annoy everyone else before it starts to hurt them,
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.
They HAD a very good idea. Kim Jong Ill and Kim Il Sung knew what they were doing through experience. Kim Jong Un hasn’t had the time to get good at that which could be a BIG risk.
> Honestly I don't get this sentiment. NK isn't some rationalistic actor.
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.
> 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.
I don't believe this. I think China wants to avoid the refugee crisis that would ensue on their doorstep if North Korea collapsed.
No, it's all about him developing a nuclear deterrent that will guarantee the survival of his regime and its ability to extort aid from other countries.
He can't actually do anything serious, because he understands that this instance it will be over. His power is only in menacing the world, like the dog barking on a leash. If he crosses the line he loses it. The world had to start pressuring North Korea long time ago. It must be an effort of all countries in the UN to make North Korea abandon its political regime and reunite South Korea. There should be all sorts of blockades, but also food humanitarian help. There should be programs helping people leave NK, amnesty programs for all officials who give up etc. That sort of large scale global pressure, and it had to start 20 years ago, when they only started nuclear development. But Russia and mostly China aren't helping and make all the effort futile, instead using NK in political games. And now we have horrible gang of people with nuclear weapons, ready to terrorize the world.
Almost certainly the Chinese alerted Kim of their plans and have talked it over with NK, so they probably have some sort of idea of what his response will be. Wouldn't surprise me if they hedged it in some way to make him feel more secure.
Will it really be enforceable though? It seems relatively easy for firms in China to change names, create shells, etc
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.
The enforcement of regulations in China is frighteningly efficient and effective, while the issue at hand is foremost in the minds of leaders. The government insists on retaining personal control over the country, and weakens the country's autonomous systems, which means it must spend some of a limited amount of attention to address any given issue. The moment the Eye of Sauron turns to look at a particular problem, everything immediately falls into order. The moment it turns away to something else, everyone gets up to their old shenanigans. It's the trade-off of retaining personal control.
In this case, these NK firms will certainly be a topic of focus, and likely remain so for quite a while.
On getting back to their old shenanigans, this is such a deeply rooted concept in China that it inspired a phrase that has remained in common use for 700 years. "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian_gao,_Huangdi_yuan
Not just a war, a massive humanitarian crisis. If the NK government were to disappear how many needy people would flood over their border and cause massive resource issues?
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).
'humanitarian crisis' - isn't NK already the very example of 'humanitarian crisis'? just that NK gov. is good at 'containing' its people & let then starve...
The Pyongyang wind rose indicates that a lot of the fallout will be carried N, NW, and W -- i.e. to the Chinese territory. I doubt they would welcome nuking so close to their borders.
That's something I hadn't considered, but it strikes me as the most reasonable approach, and (I might be entirely off on this one!) one befitting a culture that really understands the concept of honor/'saving face'.
It seems like KJU needs an enemy to stay in power to justify his rule, so he can’t back down on his nuclear program. But now the options are narrowing even more for him, and if he abdicated it doesn’t have anywhere to go. So he may just force a war...
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.
War? Please describe a scenario where Seoul doesn't get obliterated in the first 30 minutes of fireworks starting.
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.
Most North Korean artillery can't reach beyond the northern suburbs of Seoul.
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.
I have a hard time believing that the artillery would ever get the chance. There's maybe ten square miles where they could place artillery to successfully bombard Seoul. The entire area could easily be destroyed or remotely turned into a minefield by a cruise missile salvo or judicious application of artillery fire from a handful of batteries. I can't imagine there aren't plans in place to handle this concern very rapidly should tensions rise to that point.
Even assuming that there isn't a concentrated effort to destroy these emplacements quickly, it seems the amount of damage they could cause would be fairly limited by operational constraints[1]
There are plans, yes. Lots of artillery, but it's aging, and as was pointed out earlier, the number of pieces they possess that can actually reach Seoul (the 203mm Koksan) is not very great.
As soon as they open fire, the counter-battery game begins. You can be sure the allies have photographed and analyzed every strip of dirt along the DMZ, looking for prepared positions so they can anticipate where the guns are and where they'd move to after a salvo. They'd be tracking the rounds as they come in and plotting where it originated from. 72 hours is a good estimate for how long that artillery battle would last; same estimate I've seen elsewhere.
But the concern of casualties are not necessarily from shells impacting, but the panic and disruption in order that comes from it. NK can cause enormous hardship just by flinging a few shells. They can hide many of their batteries and string out the battle by revealing pieces on day 3, 4, etc,. Even if they get destroyed, and even if they only get a few shells off, you'll have a news report saying shells are still falling on Seoul, and it will be a tremendous morale hit.
But the window is closing on how well the NK artillery will continue to be a credible threat, hence the rush for nuclear weapons.
Unless they throw nuclear/hydrogen bombs at Seoul. Then, no. You are over-estimating the power of artillery. At best, they can destroy some buildings, stop infrastructure from functioning for some time and kill people in the "thousands".
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.
If it's a conventional war and China has his back there's no guarantee he'd be overthrown or even killed. Assad is alive and well after all these years.
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.
He'd be destroyed for sure, but he'd do a lot of damage as he goes.
If he feels backed into a corner, why wouldn't he just take as many people with him as possible?
And how would that work out exactly? What would his party do if he tried to pack up and leave? What would his military do? He has their support because he's an important figurehead (by virtue of his bloodline alone) and acts within the interests of those holding him in power.
If KJU tried to "go rogue" (especially if it meant betraying his own country) he'd be dead within a heartbeat. Accidents happen.
I'm curious... what would prevent him from something like plastic surgery and fleeing before things get too bad?
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.
I've been wary about the Chinese gov's honesty after the economic reparations after THAAD deployment in Korea. (NK made nukes, so US deployed THAAD to defend against NK nukes, and PRC gov. got angry for some defense-only 'weapon')
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.
> NK nukes, and PRC gov. got angry for some defense-only 'weapon'
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.
then the Chinese gov. should have forced NK to give up its nukes in the first place. It can, but didn't, so US and Korea have the reason to deploy THAAD.
Chinese gov. should explain why it let NK have nukes before blaming 'power balance'
I don't know about the economy at large, but this will certainly be more than an inconvenience to many of the Kim family's wealthy and influential friends.
This is borderline off-topic, maybe a bit naive even, but I can't help but ask as I'm genuinely curious and don't know.
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?
I was watching a portion of Michael Malice with Joe Rogan[0]. Michael wrote "Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il". He actually mentions the upper class in NK.
It's over 2 and a half hours long, but I like Rogan's interviews they go by pretty fast.
In East Bloc under Russian occupation the privileged class (party officials, high ranking bureaucrats, top of military command, security service/interior ministry, government run company directors etc) had access to special chain of shops full of western goods with special prices, additionally they were rewarded with cars/flats/homes/summer cabins at substantial discounts, automatically skipped all queues/lists/quotas, used special government owned hospitals/hotels/resorts for free, not to mention had get out of jail unless you murder someone important card, the list goes on and on.
I think it will. The regime gets much of the hard currency it needs to run the 'gift economy' from foreign operations.
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.
Most of his behavior is junk behavior and can be ignored. Obviously, if he does something harmful, that should not be ignored, but most everything else can and should be. Give him no response that he can use to put in front of his people; Nothing he can use to spin to show how powerful he is. Ignore it. Take the control away from him.
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.
Historically Korea had been a loyal vassal state of China for thousands of year. China had defended Korea against various barbarians from Mongolia plateau, Japan(multiple times) and America more recently.
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.