State Implosion -- A New Twist In North Korea

[DanS]

I never said 10 million, I said 6 million. The CIA puts NK @ 22m, Afghanistan @ 28m as of July '02. This includes the return of refugees, which pushed Afghanistan's population growth to 3.4% in '02, one of the highest growth rates in the world.

[DanS]

then perhaps you can call attempts by the Chinese to stop such a similar situation for themselves unprincipaled

I never said that the Chinese position was unprincipled. Rather, the South Korean position is unprincipled. In effect, their policy is to prop up the NK government because it would be expensive for them to deal with the consequences otherwise.

Could I ask you to read my posts more carefully next time?

[ranskaldan]

The problem on the other hand is: what would these "consequences otherwise" be? Is an imploded North Korea really better, for both North Koreans and South Koreans alike?

South Korea's sunshine policy is right in one very important respect -> what North Korea needs is indeed "food, fuel, and trading partners", because that is the only way North Korea can jump out of despotism into affluence. South Korea has done it; Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan all did it in the same way; China is doing it right now. On the other hand, states in the same region that have imploded (China up to the 70's, Indonesia now) have demonstrated their ability to spray their bloody guts onto all their neighbours.

[DanS]

The problem with stressing this approach is that several decades of despotism lie between here and there. So many lives and billions of dollars have been spent so that SK can live in freedom. Economics was always a secondary concern, at least by the US. In light of this, it is unprincipled for SK to make a strict dollar burden calculation, especially with their brothers in NK. To me, it looks like they're getting cold feet wrt making unification happen.

The NK needs a new government. The "food, fuel and trading partners" can be dealt with much more easily then.

[ranskaldan]

The idealistic approach, of course, would be to bring down the current NK government, and install a democratic government that allows free trade. Yes, but how realistic is that? How many lives will be lost in the ensuing power vacuum? How badly will the state be torn apart -- and where would those missiles fly once the NK military is rended into factions? More importantly, with the country in shambles and whipped into a frenzy, what democratic leader will emerge?

This "several decades of despotism", unfortunately, may be the only way NK can elevate itself out of the current mess. Not the current starve-the-people-and-build-nukes despotism, of course; NK is surrounded by countries whose dictators, while in power, did a lot better.

[Arrian]

I just read an article that, though it doesn't necessarily speak to the main topic at hand, does offer some perspective on NK thinking/attitudes.

link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16054

Very, very odd. And very, very sad.

-Arrian

[Felch]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
How many lives will be lost in the ensuing power vacuum? How badly will the state be torn apart -- and where would those missiles fly once the NK military is rended into factions? More importantly, with the country in shambles and whipped into a frenzy, what democratic leader will emerge?

Who gives a ****? We gave them fuel, in exchange for not making nukes. They made nukes. They owe us for all the oil we gave them, when they were acting in bad faith. Until they pay us back, they shouldn't get anything from us other than a pounding.

Seriously, you all are basing your views on the assumption that America is always wrong. Sometimes we are wrong. We were wrong to trust North Korea. We're wrong to be focusing on Iraq. We're wrong to negotiate with the gangsters in Pyongyang. If we dealt with them as they deserve to be treated, razing cities, plowing salt into their fields, et al., we would be in the right.

[Arrian]

If we dealt with them as they deserve to be treated, razing cities, plowing salt into their fields, et al., we would be in the right.

Too much CivIII. I've been there. Easy, there, killer.

-Arrian

[Felch]

It's in Civ III because it's from Roman history. Rome lasted one or two millenia (Depending on what you count), so I figure it's a good policy to follow their methods. Besides, I hate people who rip folks off, and especially people who go out of their way to rip you off.

[Arrian]

Actually, given what ended up happening to the Romans, I don't think it would be bright to emulate them.

-Arrian

[Felch]

Eh, they lasted a damn sight longer than us. You can't seriously believe that we'll last more than a thousand years.

Although I agree, razing cities isn't a good thing, it's certainly more fearsome than hand-wringing about potential civilian casualties. And if we hope to rule the world, it's better to frighten our enemies than make them feel secure.

[Arrian]

Sigh. What ever happened to the "walk softly" part of "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sigh. What ever happened to the "walk softly" part of "Walk softly and carry a big stick"?

I'm sure that he favors walking softly. That way our enemies won't hear us coming when we beat them senseless with the "big stick."

PS It's "talk softly" IIRC.

[Arrian]

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

-Arrian

[ranskaldan]

I shall keep that image in my head.