State Implosion -- A New Twist In North Korea

[DanS]

On your last point, we have never went at it with short-term profit in mind. Never. We have to protect our allies' lives and livelihoods as much as possible, true. But that should be looked at as a risk weighed against other risks, where the relative probability modifier is crucial. But proping up NK would 100% guarantee decades of despotism for the NK. I'm inclined against this right off the bat.

#1 -- SK would guarantee that they will take refugees off of China's hands. They have an obligation to do this right now, but haven't asked that hard for Chinese cooperation. I understand that asking China to not enforce a treaty is a big deal.

#2 -- Just let the situation ride for a while. This doesn't need to involve the SK military, just as the reunification of Germany didn't. I just see Kim Jong Il as the worst case. Even a military right-winger would be better.

You know, I keep going back to Germany because it is a successful example. This can be done peacefully. The risks have to be weighed, of course.

#3 -- SK can and will afford it. It's a first-world country. The US will help.

#4 -- The US doesn't benefit by having a strong military force in the region. And the potential downsides you mention are risks, not facts. The risks can be mitigated.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
On your last point, we have never went at it with short-term profit in mind. Never. We have to protect our allies' lives and livelihoods as much as possible, true. But that should be looked at as a risk weighed against other risks, where the relative probability modifier is crucial.

Well, that's of course the idealistic case. But on the other hand, much American foreign policy is based entirely on profit - long- or short-term.

#1 -- SK would guarantee that they will take refugees off of China's hands. They have an obligation to do this right now, but haven't asked that hard for Chinese cooperation. I understand that asking China to not enforce a treaty is a big deal.

How many? That's a lot of poor, confused, pissed-off people. They aren't going to be docily and quietly herded into refugee camps.

#2 -- Just let the situation ride for a while. This doesn't need to involve the SK military, just as the reunification of Germany didn't. I just see Kim Jong Il as the worst case. Even a military right-winger would be better.

You know, I keep going back to Germany because it is a successful example. This can be done peacefully. The risks have to be weighed, of course.

East Germany was probably the best-off communist country out there. Even then, Germany experienced massive difficulties in the decade following reunification.

North Korea is utterly wrecked, on the other hand. SK will need to dilute half of their wealth into a hellhole. In the meantime, they will also need to rule NK as a military dictatorship.

#3 -- SK can and will afford it. It's a first-world country. The US will help.

Why not let the NK's do it themselves? There is not a single country in the region that wouldn't pressurize NK to stop b****ing and start trading already. And all 4 of NK's neighbours - all 4 - have made it. Given NK's relative small size, they can make the leap in 10 years and reunify in 20.

The problem, of course, is Kim Jong-Il's stubbornness. That's where the Sunshine Policy comes in - so that he can take notice of the four blinding examples staring him in the face.

#4 -- The US doesn't benefit by having a strong military force in the region. And the potential downsides you mention are risks, not facts. The risks can be mitigated.

Those are very possible "risks" under such a scenario.

[DanS]

Well, that's of course the idealistic case.

It's not idealism. It's our money and I don't want good money chasing after bad. Giving concessions to NK won't make this regime God-fearing democratic capitalists. It's a fantasy.

But on the other hand, much American foreign policy is based entirely on profit - long- or short-term.

Our foreign policiy in the immediate vicinity of NK includes SK and Japan, where it was not based at all on profit, strictly construed.

so that he can take notice of the four blinding examples staring him in the face

He must not be too quick on the uptake...

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, that's of course the idealistic case.

It's not idealism. It's our money and I don't want good money chasing after bad. Giving concessions to NK won't make this regime God-fearing democratic capitalists. It's a fantasy.

There isn't exactly much of a choice. Your only other choices are to invade - which will be disastrous - and to not do anything.

Our foreign policiy in the immediate vicinity of NK includes SK and Japan, where it was not based at all on profit, strictly construed.

What is it based on, then?

He must not be too quick on the uptake...

Not as slow as you think either.
Kim has been willing so far to experiment with industrial zones, road/rail links, and the like.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
As Seeker pointed out, the only way to go is to let them get rich. Right now, they have nothing to lose. People having nothing to lose are the most deadly in the world.

Sure, they have something to lose. Their regime. This is dear to them, although it's not worth two wooden nickels rubbed together for my own account.

If the country implodes, so will the regime. There is no difference.

Originally posted by DanS
Only economic prosperity will bring political freedom.

Nope. This is one of the lies propounded by the Chinese communists. You need look no further than India to see otherwise.

According to the CIA Factbook 2002, the GDP per capita, adjusted by PPP, is $4300 for the PRC, and $2500 for India. What about India?

Originally posted by DanS
I am not the RoK government, so I don't have the inside details. However, DPRK is a lot closer to RoK than the US. It really behooves them if the North Koreans don't snap.

You haven't really defined what "snapped" would entail.

What do you think? What will people with nothing to lose do lose faces certain death?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Uncle Sam, however, has deep enough pockets to make it fly in the aftermath.

I agree that it wouldn't be pretty, I'm just saying there'd be no loss of influence, cos nobody else would write a big enough check.

Why would the US care? Gazillions of tiny countries over around the world imploded over and over again, and the US didn't lift a little finger. Why would they care - if they can't get a friendly government in?

[DanS]

What about India?

It shows that political freedom can exist without prosperity. So your comment that "[o]nly economic prosperity will bring political freedom" is false. There are plenty of other dirt poor countries out there that are reasonably democratic.

[Velociryx]

UR: One word for why the US would care.

China.

Like it or not, *ready* or not....they're coming.

Their troubles at home won't be an infinite pool, and don't kid yourself....China has a long memory and plenty of territorial axes to grind.

Watch and see.

Chief among them, is that China WANTS the US out of the region. We're their own personal boogy man, and from the Chinese perspective, it is the US who is responsible for keeping China from flexing her muscles fully in the region.

-=Vel=-

[cia]

Irrespective of troops Velociryx, the fact that China has no navy and the US does keeps them up at night. It's hard to defend thousands of miles of coastline even if they had the whole region and the US wanted to "come over".

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
What about India?

It shows that political freedom can exist without prosperity. So your comment that "[o]nly economic prosperity will bring political freedom" is false. There are plenty of other dirt poor countries out there that are reasonably democratic.

I think what UR means is that "political freedom" without the necessary economic prosperity is no better than tyranny.

[Velociryx]

::nodding:: I agree with what you're saying. The thing is, China WANTS to be the next big kid on the block. Everything they do sugessts this. And they have long viewed our presence in Asia as a roadblock to that. Few things would please China more than for the US to disappear entire from the region.

Of course, the US doesn't really want that to happen, and one of the keys to maintaining a strong Asian presence is the willingness to spend the necessary coin to keep things going its way.

Thus, my earlier point.

-=Vel=-

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR: One word for why the US would care.

China.

Like it or not, *ready* or not....they're coming.

Their troubles at home won't be an infinite pool, and don't kid yourself....China has a long memory and plenty of territorial axes to grind.

Watch and see.

Chief among them, is that China WANTS the US out of the region. We're their own personal boogy man, and from the Chinese perspective, it is the US who is responsible for keeping China from flexing her muscles fully in the region.

-=Vel=-

In our modern world of malls and airports, who needs to "flex muscles"? America didn't exactly need to invade Canada to beat Canada into submission.

[Velociryx]

Rans...in a perfect world I agree with you! But in a perfect world, we could do away with armed forces entirely, true? Until that day though, armed forces = muscles....and insurance.

-=Vel=-

[DanS]

I think what UR means is that "political freedom" without the necessary economic prosperity is no better than tyranny.

And I disagree. Tyrrany is much worse.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Rans...in a perfect world I agree with you! But in a perfect world, we could do away with armed forces entirely, true? Until that day though, armed forces = muscles....and insurance.

-=Vel=-

Well, I agree that superpowers like the US, etc, do need to invade now and then to assert their power and put down troublesome governments. But all in all, the modern world doesn't require or encourage superpowers to be fighting to the death with each other or lesser minions. This is because

1) The allies of modern superpowers, in our world of malls and airports, fall in line because of economic and diplomatic profit. They don't even need to be threatened - if they have any brains, they'd stick close to the big kid on the block.

2) Modern superpowers can't fight each other anyways, since no one fights a war with a 100% self-destruction rate. Until a country becomes reasonably sure that it can stop 90%+ of all nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks, there will be no China-US wars, Tom Clancy-like scenarios, etc.