Taking away Kim Yong Un's toys

[DrZoidberg]

North Korea regularly struggles to feed it's people. Which is bizarre in a world where poor people typically struggle with the problems of obesity, not a lack of food.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56685356

How bad does it need to get before the global community invades it and shoots Kim Yong Un in the head? It's not like there'll be a massive problem with reintegrating it into the modern world afterwards. South Korea is working out just fine and dandy. It'll be a repeat of the German re-unification. That went well.

It won't be a repeat of the Korean war, because that was a proxy war between the west and the two communist super powers of that age. While China will want to protect North Korea (they see it as within their sphere of influence). But they're in no way allied. Since the end of the cold war relations between them has been strained. Likewise, relations with Russia has also become strained. Russia isn't going to defend them unless Putin gets something out of it. N Korea has nothing Russia wants.

I get the impression that both China and Russia thinks their historical close ties to North Korea is somewhat of an embarrassment now.

I can see a scenario where the entire world leans on North Korea and there's an engineered swift and bloodless coup. And the UN comes in to clean up the mess afterwards.

I can see many scenarios for this. The only unacceptable one is for the rest of the world to idly stand around twiddling our thumbs while the North Korean people starve. I find that unacceptable.

 

[Cycad]

Hi Zoidbrg

Historically China always reacted against any interference in what they considered their sphere of influence. Interfering in Korea would be a massive stupidity worse than the extension of the Nato Pact in Poland, bordering Russia, while the Warsaw pact was dissolved.

Besides : interfering in a country with a nuclear force seems rather delicate. I dont believe a swift and bloodless coup has good enough odds to prevent a detonation of a nuclear device on the border of China and Japan.

We simply dont know that Korea did not set up a last ditch contingency plan with a few fanatics to detonate a device in case of exactly a palace revolution.

And yes, that geopolical realism is dramatic for the population of North Korea. As always is for the people on the bottom of the food chain.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hi Zoidbrg

Historically China always reacted against any interference in what they considered their sphere of influence. Interfering in Korea would be a massive stupidity worse than the extension of the Nato Pact in Poland, bordering Russia, while the Warsaw pact was dissolved.

Besides : interfering in a country with a nuclear force seems rather delicate. I dont believe a swift and bloodless coup has good enough odds to prevent a detonation of a nuclear device on the border of China and Japan.

We simply dont know that Korea did not set up a last ditch contingency plan with a few fanatics to detonate a device in case of exactly a palace revolution.

And yes, that geopolical realism is dramatic for the population of North Korea. As always is for the people on the bottom of the food chain.

True. North Korea is toast. The west would be wise to be very careful prodding China - the next super invader. The world should rally around soverign countries being threatened by China - not North Korea.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the entire political infrastructure solely hung around Kim Jong Un's neck, then killing him would magically save North Korea. But as with all things, it isn't that simple, and the guns aimed at Seoul, South Korea also add a sort of "don't screw with North Korea in such violent ways' vibe to 'em. North Korea went through this before, and 'survived'. Look at Myanmar, and that junta has survived. Despot authoritarian governments manage to get away with this stuff if 1) they lack resources we want and 2) have something to keep others out. North Korea has both of those going for it. The Kim dynasty is solely about sustaining the Kim dynasty, screw the nation. And the nation has thusly been screwed for decades.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If the entire political infrastructure solely hung around Kim Jong Un's neck, then killing him would magically save North Korea. But as with all things, it isn't that simple, and the guns aimed at Seoul, South Korea also add a sort of "don't screw with North Korea in such violent ways' vibe to 'em. North Korea went through this before, and 'survived'. Look at Myanmar, and that junta has survived. Despot authoritarian governments manage to get away with this stuff if 1) they lack resources we want and 2) have something to keep others out. North Korea has both of those going for it. The Kim dynasty is solely about sustaining the Kim dynasty, screw the nation. And the nation has thusly been screwed for decades.

But in Myanmar's case, wasn't it the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi sucked as a leader? She was just as authoritarian as the Junta she was supposed to replace. Tried to reform and modernize a country and just ended up creating a massive mess instead. Robert Mugabe springs to mind. Eventually the armies patience ran out over her mismanagement and they had her removed. Based on what I've seen, that's how it looks like to me. The junta in power before, were a junta, and a dictatorship, but in retrospect they weren't kleptocratic. They seemed to have done a decent job in running the country (as well as communist dictators can do). Something Aung San didn't do.

Kim Jong Un is a lunatic

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hi Zoidbrg

Historically China always reacted against any interference in what they considered their sphere of influence. Interfering in Korea would be a massive stupidity worse than the extension of the Nato Pact in Poland, bordering Russia, while the Warsaw pact was dissolved.

Besides : interfering in a country with a nuclear force seems rather delicate. I dont believe a swift and bloodless coup has good enough odds to prevent a detonation of a nuclear device on the border of China and Japan.

We simply dont know that Korea did not set up a last ditch contingency plan with a few fanatics to detonate a device in case of exactly a palace revolution.

And yes, that geopolical realism is dramatic for the population of North Korea. As always is for the people on the bottom of the food chain.

True. North Korea is toast. The west would be wise to be very careful prodding China - the next super invader. The world should rally around soverign countries being threatened by China - not North Korea.

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic. So I'm cool with it. The problem with China is that it's China. It'd be a fair fight. So WW3. That's going to hurt.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hi Zoidbrg

Historically China always reacted against any interference in what they considered their sphere of influence. Interfering in Korea would be a massive stupidity worse than the extension of the Nato Pact in Poland, bordering Russia, while the Warsaw pact was dissolved.

Besides : interfering in a country with a nuclear force seems rather delicate. I dont believe a swift and bloodless coup has good enough odds to prevent a detonation of a nuclear device on the border of China and Japan.

We simply dont know that Korea did not set up a last ditch contingency plan with a few fanatics to detonate a device in case of exactly a palace revolution.

And yes, that geopolical realism is dramatic for the population of North Korea. As always is for the people on the bottom of the food chain.

True. North Korea is toast. The west would be wise to be very careful prodding China - the next super invader. The world should rally around soverign countries being threatened by China - not North Korea.

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic. So I'm cool with it. The problem with China is that it's China. It'd be a fair fight. So WW3. That's going to hurt.

Well, I think that WW3 will be started when China attacks a sovereign country, while the west is simply defending. I do not think that there is any chance that democratic countries will invade a Chinese protected country to "set it free".

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic. So I'm cool with it. The problem with China is that it's China. It'd be a fair fight. So WW3. That's going to hurt.

Well, I think that WW3 will be started when China attacks a sovereign country, while the west is simply defending. I do not think that there is any chance that democratic countries will invade a Chinese protected country to "set it free".

I'm not so sure. China is playing the long game. They annoy everybody and make ridiculous territorial demands and then wait for the world to be in a crisis so it doesn't have the energy to resist China. And by the time they're ready to put up a fight, it's the new normal. Like what Putin did in Crimea. So I don't believe in that scenario.

The way Great Britain took over India was for British private companies to invest heavily in India, and then when local princes threatened the company British troops would move in to defend British investments. I can see the same development in Africa now. We'll see how that plays out.

 

[Cycad]

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic.

The problem is that countries are seldom if never invaded in order to start democracy. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya pop in my mind.
Besides that, who are we to decide what another country needs ? That is th opposite of democracy

 

[funinspace]

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic. So I'm cool with it. The problem with China is that it's China. It'd be a fair fight. So WW3. That's going to hurt.

Well, I think that WW3 will be started when China attacks a sovereign country, while the west is simply defending. I do not think that there is any chance that democratic countries will invade a Chinese protected country to "set it free".

I'm not so sure. China is playing the long game. They annoy everybody and make ridiculous territorial demands and then wait for the world to be in a crisis so it doesn't have the energy to resist China. And by the time they're ready to put up a fight, it's the new normal. Like what Putin did in Crimea. So I don't believe in that scenario.

The way Great Britain took over India was for British private companies to invest heavily in India, and then when local princes threatened the company British troops would move in to defend British investments. I can see the same development in Africa now. We'll see how that plays out.

Any effort to topple the Kim dynasty, would take months of preparation, much like the US did with Iraq for 6 months. And if the US tried to do it rapidly, it would incur a casualty rate that most Americans would be upset by. Any invasion would also have get SK on board, which is unlikely.

It would be painfully obvious to China what was going on, and it would only take them weeks to prepare their counter moves (what ever they would be). Even if NK is no longer important to China, they could perceive it as another backyard thing that they couldn't walk away from as the US stomps around once again. Additionally, the gap between the US and China in military capabilities isn't nearly so wide as it was in the 1950's.

A better solution IMPOV, in the world of 'if I were king', would be to privately negotiate with China. And offer to remove all US forces from the peninsula if they topple the Kim dynasty and make sure their nuclear weapons programs are all removed.

 

[Cycad]

A better solution IMPOV, in the world of 'if I were king', would be to privately negotiate with China. And offer to remove all US forces from the peninsula if they topple the Kim dynasty and make sure their nuclear weapons programs are all removed.

That is IMO the safest solution provided China would agree to a Korean reunification and full autonomy after the coup.
Not the installation of a kind of puppet regime under chinese control (like the actual Iraqi government for example)
This would certainly be the cheapest solution for the US and probably the best for the vast majority of the NK people

 

[Elixir]

You lost me at:

North Korea regularly struggles to feed it's people.

No, they don't "struggle to feed" their people. They starve their people.
Everything you say following the premise that they struggle to feed the people that they are continually and conscientiously starving, is claptrap.
Except that WW3 would suck. That's true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't take China protecting North Korea to make any sort of invasion a very bad idea.

The problem is that in effect Seoul is being held hostage. There are North Korean artillery emplacements that can shell the city.

A palace coup by somebody sane would be a very good thing.

(And note that there is no border between China and Japan!)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the entire political infrastructure solely hung around Kim Jong Un's neck, then killing him would magically save North Korea. But as with all things, it isn't that simple, and the guns aimed at Seoul, South Korea also add a sort of "don't screw with North Korea in such violent ways' vibe to 'em. North Korea went through this before, and 'survived'. Look at Myanmar, and that junta has survived. Despot authoritarian governments manage to get away with this stuff if 1) they lack resources we want and 2) have something to keep others out. North Korea has both of those going for it. The Kim dynasty is solely about sustaining the Kim dynasty, screw the nation. And the nation has thusly been screwed for decades.

But in Myanmar's case, wasn't it the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi sucked as a leader? She was just as authoritarian as the Junta she was supposed to replace. Tried to reform and modernize a country and just ended up creating a massive mess instead. Robert Mugabe springs to mind. Eventually the armies patience ran out over her mismanagement and they had her removed. Based on what I've seen, that's how it looks like to me. The junta in power before, were a junta, and a dictatorship, but in retrospect they weren't kleptocratic. They seemed to have done a decent job in running the country (as well as communist dictators can do). Something Aung San didn't do.

Kim Jong Un is a lunatic

What? Aung San Suu Kyi really has never been in power power. The military has been running the show for decades.

 

[Treedbear]

How about if the world's leaders get together and offer complete amnesty and even significant guarantees of a safe and comfortable life to the top military leaders and their families if they stage a coup? The first thing that would happen is that Kim would start executing everyone who looked sideways at him.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic.

The problem is that countries are seldom if never invaded in order to start democracy. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya pop in my mind.
Besides that, who are we to decide what another country needs ? That is th opposite of democracy

I believe in Enlightenment values. I think all humans have the same basic needs. If we accept that then we do have the right to decide what another country needs.

The 1848 revolutions in Europe all failed. Yet they propelled most of Europe on a trajectory towards democracy. Without the 1848 revolutions it would likely not have happened.

I'm aware the chances of an invasion successfully transforming a country to democracy is slim. It usually needs gradual reforms over a long time.

But that won't happen unless there's a knife to the throats of dictators. The threat of invasions can provide that knife.

If a dictator stubbornly refuses to treat their own people with respect, I think invasion is justified. The knowledge that that is a likely outcome will act as a warning to any dictator.

In the 60's dictators knew that as long as they kissed American or Russian assets, they had a free pass to do whatever they wanted to their own people.

We got the dictators we deserved. It's no coincidence that we got a wave of democratisations following the end of the cold War.

How the international community acts is important.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You lost me at:

North Korea regularly struggles to feed it's people.

No, they don't "struggle to feed" their people. They starve their people.
Everything you say following the premise that they struggle to feed the people that they are continually and conscientiously starving, is claptrap.
Except that WW3 would suck. That's true.

That's a fair point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How about if the world's leaders get together and offer complete amnesty and even significant guarantees of a safe and comfortable life to the top military leaders and their families if they stage a coup? The first thing that would happen is that Kim would start executing everyone who looked sideways at him.

I think we already have that. It's pretty universal. Following a revolution the new leaders need people who know how to run a country. So what usually happens in a revolution is that the educated elites near the top of the power pyramid stays. A revolution acts as a cheese slice only removing the top most layer of the power structure.

That's why there's a huge difference between communist revolutions that removed everybody educated and those that kept things as they were. The first kind inevitably triggered immediate mass starvation.

It was one of the things many reacted to after the fall of the Nazi government. Nearly all the top Nazis kept their jobs and prestige. Only a handful were removed, tried and punished. But it worked. If the occupiers hadn't done that it would have turned into utter chaos.

 

[Cycad]

I believe in Enlightenment values.
I think all humans have the same basic needs.
If we accept that then we do have the right to decide what another country needs.
zip

I believe in Enlightenment values.
So do I
I think all humans have the same basic needs.
So do I
If we accept that, then we do have the right to decide what another country needs.
Non sequitur.

A worn out sophism that justified the invasion and destruction of many countries in order
- to bring the real god
- to bring civilization
- to end oppression
- to bring democracy
etc

It always turned out that the only reason was to serve the interests of the invader.
Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are the three latest ones where the vast majority of people were way better of before than after the invasion. Except obviously for a small minority that became filthy rich from the exploitation of their own people.

 

[Treedbear]

I think democratic countries have a perpetual free pass to invade non-democratic countries, if the goal is to make it democratic.

The problem is that countries are seldom if never invaded in order to start democracy. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya pop in my mind.
Besides that, who are we to decide what another country needs ? That is th opposite of democracy

I believe in Enlightenment values. I think all humans have the same basic needs. If we accept that then we do have the right to decide what another country needs. ...

Sometimes we decide a country needs democracy and sometimes we decide they don't. It seems that whatever we decide it isn't based on what is good for the other country but what is good for our own countries. What I question is our right to decide what price that country must pay in order to become a democracy. I weep when I think of the devastation we inflicted on Vietnam and the continuing tragedy of land mines. There's a valid argument that we can intervene if it's a matter of our own survival. But the idea that invading a country is for their own good is a ploy. A disguise for ulterior motives.