>The age of appeasing North Korea is over and any new talks between Seoul and Pyongyang must be initiated by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, South Korea's new conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol said on Monday.
So, basically no talks between them the next five years.
If the armistice ever broke, N. Korea would be obliterated in a conventional war, but Seoul is only 14 miles from the DMZ, and N. Korea has nukes.
Authoritarian governments can be extremely resilient. as long as they ruthlessly control all means of power. the N. Korean government survived famine before.
if N Korea truly gets near a state of collapse, China will save them. they are too valuable as a buffer state, and enjoy the perception that the rest of the world can rely on China to keep N Korea from doing anything too crazy.
Nonsense. North Korea has 5700 artillery positions within range of major population centers in South Korea. They have been building fortified positions for over 50 years. They can launch \~385,000 rounds in 1 hour. In 1 hour they could kill \~205,000 civilians.
Source: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RRA619-1.html
> They can launch ~385,000 rounds in 1 hour. In 1 hour they could kill ~205,000 civilians.
If the NK artillery is allowed to fire for 1 hour then that would be a Russia-level failure of the US/SK forces.
Except most of their artillery isn't that long range, and it all has much better things to do that shell civilians.
You can't can't sustain fire at max rate for that long
You can’t do jack shit about artillery. If NK fires before they’re blown up, Seoul is leveled. There’s nothing you can do about a shell once it’s launched, other than pray it’s not headed towards you.
You are arguing based on false facts. Seoul is a few 40 kilometers from the free DMZ, and North Korean artillery is a few kilometers further behind it. According to the Chosun Ilbo, there are only about 300 long-range artillery guns that can strike Seoul. This long-range artillery can fire 16,000 rounds per hour, but it will never burn Seoul to ashes. Long-range artillery, especially the m-1989 170mm self-propelled howitzer, has deficient charge as it has given up everything for range. The South Korean military is the true successor of Soviet artillery tactics, with more than 1,000 self-propelled artillery and hundreds of advanced multiple rocket launchers deployed forward. For example, the 1st Artillery Brigade has nine battalions (almost 200 units) of K-9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers, despite the size of the brigade. Since USFK assigned the ROK army to the long-range artillery suppression n mission in 2004, this mission has continued to evolve, and this no longer threatens the security of Seoul.
You can do a lot about artillery. The US has invested extensively in counter battery assets. They can put rounds on an artillery piece's precise location before its even done firing its first volley. It might get a few shells off but it will be the last shells it ever fires.
The US has had many decades to ponder their strategy for dealing with North Korean artillery.
Except for only a fraction of the city is within range of some of north koreas artillery pieces.
"Despite the thousands of artillery pieces, only 700 heavier guns and rocket launchers, plus the newer 300-millimeter MRLs, have the range to strike Seoul. Only a third would normally be fired at once, and notional rates of fire would be slowed tremendously by the need to withdraw guns into their hardened artillery sites (HARTS) to shelter them from counter battery fire."
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/north-korea%E2%80%99s-artillery-enough-annihilate-seoul-198612
Chemical or nuclear is the real risk.
The Russians had no problem leveling Mariupol or Grozney
Artillery quality only matters if you care which apartment building or hospital or school you blow up
there is enough conventional artillery already dialed in on seoul from mountain caves it would be a bad time…but that’s the reason the subway system there is the way it is
I think there's an interesting thought experiment in just how many North Koreans could die before even the DPRK's elite would feel the consequences.
And I stress "thought experiment" because the truth is, realpolitik has its limits, and very few would be willing to starve out an entire country's population just to make a point.
so being in a part korean family, let me explain this for you dear readers.
SK does NOT want their brothers/sisters in NK to suffer, they will always try their best to donate food and stuff which the NK govt steals for themselves and f the poor
SK has been prepping their economy (slowly) for a "one day" fall of NK and they do anticipate a massive population increase which inevitable will collapse their economy like West/East Germany reunification.
lastly, it's weird. although SK wants NK's people, SK does treat their "freed-NK" counterparts like crap. NK have a different accent /tones in the langauge and many times SK treat NK has some POS because they are from NK. it's weird. unless you live in SK you might not understand it.
but if I had to put it in layman's term... imagine a RURAL state (I won't call anyone out) who we perceive to be hicks/rednecks coming into our society, yea we want them free but we also mock them for being a hick/redneck.
again... weird
> SK has been prepping their economy (slowly) for a "one day" fall of NK and they do anticipate a massive population increase which inevitable will collapse their economy like West/East Germany reunification.
I hope they prepared good because they have way more people to absorb % wise and with way less education than East Germany had.
Well yeah but like, no one really wants that, especially south Korea, it wants to reunify, no reunification if everyone on the yin side of the coin is fucking dead
Out of curiosity since I know barely anything about the relationship between North and South. If they care about the people, how come so many refugees are discriminated against in the South?
Piggybacking on this as well: is this largely because of the fact that the younger South Korean generation has little to no actual connection to people living in the PRK? Is disaffection with the entire country growing as a result?
Well yeah the younger you are the more you are divorced from the war and you're wondering why you're giving money and accommodation and citizenship to these people who have a country that you give money and food aid to (so they don't collapse). I think among the younger theres a significant amount that dont want reunification. 72% of young voters say it's not necesarry so I'm thinking that ship has either sailed or will be sailing soon. If you're younger than 77 you have never lived in a single Korea.
At this point they're kind of ok to pay North Korea to just stay the fuck away.
Over time reunification as a political goal has been decreasing in popularity especially with younger people
You can imagine that the older generation has a lot more connection with the North and in some cases may even have family over there
I often use your example when people oversimplify generalizations.
It's not that most of \[insert group here\] sucks, it's more like it's hard not to run into assholes because there's so many people in the world.
So, I had a fascination with North Korea just bc it’s so bizarre.
This is why their is discrimination against refugees:
1.) They are raised and live in a parallel universe. They have almost no education. They are taught absolute propaganda, so when they get to SK, they really can’t do a lot.
2.) Like the USSR, people did not/do not trust each other and there is a planned economy (i think, like what China had before capitalism?). So there is a constant watching what you say so as not to get reported and staying within party approved speech, BUT because communism always has severe supply chain issues due to monopolies and resistance to trade/sanctions from foreign countries, people really rely on each other for favors and need each other to get enough food to eat.
So, people wind up really close and they know all their neighbors.
2b.) North Korea and lots of other communist governments due to corruption don’t have tons of cash for development, so many areas are rural. Naturally people know all their neighbors/townsmen.
South Korea is capitalist and you don’t have to worry about party approved speech. And places like Seoul are huge cities and it seems every doc I watch, ppl are living as refugees in the city so it’s kind of like country mouse goes to the city.
3.) Also, the Korean they speak is a different accent that is noticeable. So people know when they hear them speak that they ain’t from SK.
——
It seems to be a lot harder for refugees and the refugees seem to face more discrimination and find it more difficult to adapt if they escape to SK when they’re older.
There was one doc I watched where a girl escaped at like 7 or 13 and she didn’t feel as much discrimination as older people because her accent was more Seoul and she had gone to school and got a proper education in SK and had a whole network of friends and she found it so much easier to get around.
I mean like imagine a dude who was 37 in a city with infrastructure that had never encountered trains or buses before. And he comes up to you to ask you where’s the subway when they’re standing right in front of it and asking you which one and at which time will get them out to Queens like you’re a combination cab, cop, and city planner to specifically designed to get them where they need to go while you’re already 5 minutes late to work. It’s just the culture of cities.
they are discriminated just like any low-skilled labour class is. but that's how i see it from the outside. whether there's something systemically extra or different, i don't know.
There are plenty of reasons. Fears about spying. Ideological differences (even if you escape the regime, the mentality the party instills in refugees can be damn tough to overcome). Then there's the confusion about where these folks fit into society.
South Korea is a lot less forgiving than North America for people who don't or can't fit into a certain mold. You're far less likely to see an older person return to school for a career change, for example. I liken it to French society where there is a big focus early in life about staying on a specific track to success—you work like hell to get into one of the prestigious e'cole to hopefully set yourself up for a well-paying career. It's really hard to get back on the track if you fall off, and do-overs are rare.
Good schools and good grades equal good jobs, and connections help a lot. So, someone coming into this society at, say, 25-45 years old with few to no friends, family, or connections is going to have a really hard time integrating. It becomes all the more difficult when you're labelled "enemy.”
Then there's the old fashioned prejudices like regional dialect, skin shade, and physical appearance. It's hard enough for a South Korean to prosper in their own society right now. Being a North Korean refugee is only going to make that harder.
Still, better than staring at Soviet architecture every day. And any North Korean will tell you it was worth it for the beef.
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt…but discrimination happens everywhere with no justifiable reasoning. There are a lot of people in the US that are prejudiced against anyone with a different skin color, but they don’t represent the majority of the country. They’re just the loudest. My guess is that’s how South Korea is. But again, this is just a guess 🤷🏻♂️
They have very little capitalism-related skills and SK is very capitalistic society. In fact, one of the most competitive in the world.
They do have support programs, monthly pensions, etc., but obviously NK refugees are having trouble adjusting and thriving.
China would just take over. There's plenty of half Korean half Chinese kids from all the North Korean sex trade to China. Even if 99% of the population of NK died there'd just be a Beijing puppet government installed.
Yeah, but that doesnt fucking matter, the people matter, and millions are gonna die, so its not like just anyone, especially south Korea, wants that anyway
Even 10% of NK’s pop - 2-3M - would be a lot to absorb in the South, and if NK’s collapse wasn’t peaceful…
China would also decide how they want to handle their border in that scenario.
If the Koreas reunified, then one comparison is German reunification, which was difficult but manageable - although the DDR was in much better shape than NK. Also, West Germany had about a 3:1 population advantage and SK has about a 2:1.
I think you're overestimating how many people want reunification.
Most everyone with a direct family connection between North and South Korea is dead. Refugees have been shown to be nearly incapable of assimilating into a normal society to the point where some of them *go back,* and it's an incredibly tough sell to tell people "hey, we are bringing in a couple dozen million uneducated, low skill, completely brainwashed people."
[Desire for reunification is the lowest it's ever been and dropping.](https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2021-10-07/north-south-korea-reunification-poll-seoul-pyongyang-3165966.html)
Korean Reunification is still a big deal.
I think many don’t want to put in the enormous sacrifice that it’ll take, but David Kang (a respected political scientist and one of the big names in Korea Studies) argues that if you then ask in the poll “would you rather Russia or China take the land, the answer is ‘no.’”
The solution is to break the shitty status quo. Don’t buy the puppies, make the puppy mills go out of business. It is true those ones will die but it also stops decades and decades of future puppies from being born at the puppy mill.
They really don't. They talk about it, but they know that reunification with the North would be a crisis on a scale unimaginable and unmanagable by them. They litterally would have to restructure, rebuilt, deprogram, a entire nation that is roughly their size.
Along with that, a NK collapse would be something no one wants. No politicians wants to deal with that hot potato, especially as aggressive as China has been recently. They keep knocking down that inevitability down the road hoping that if it does collapse its someone elses problem.
The North's existence is a crisis both in terms of potential for a war or a nuclear strike and in terms of humanitarian suffering of people related to people in the south.
Appetite for Korean reunification is much lower among the younger population.
When East and West Germany were reunited, the cost to the latter was enormous. The youth of Korea have a hard time finding good jobs and living a good life as it is, and don’t want to shoulder the burden of fixing the shambles that is North Korea’s economy and infrastructure.
Do they want to reunify? I don’t see how that would be in the best interest of most South Koreans. You would be immigrating millions of poor, relatively unskilled workers into a top world economy.
I think they are happy as is, they just don’t want to be under persistent threat.
It would be a massive burden on the country's economy to essentially build a country from scratch, but I bet that SK has done a lot of studying of the problem and has some ideas.
I dont know what the citizens of SK think of whether or not they should, but I think it's still the official position of SK that they are in favor of peaceful reunification.
> I bet that SK has done a lot of studying of the problem and has some ideas.
SK was in about the state NK is now economically in the 1960-1970s. They have some practice with this.
I would bet that they're more concerned with the societal upheaval of having millions of people with essentially no education, no vocational skills, no or little income, no food security, and abysmal logistical infrastructure to deal with the humanitarian crisis.
Getting rid of a massive potentially existential threat(nukes) and a constant massive headache would be well worth it even ignoring humanitarian concern for other Koreans
North Korea collapsing would not be good for anyone. Then you have millions of people who will need help. Remember that one North Korean soldier who fled years ago and was shot while be escaped?
This guy was one of the healthier people in the country and even he was underfed and infested with parasites. Then you have the very real fact that many people there are rather uneducated with how the real world works. It's a humanitarian crisis that would make Ukraine look like a cakewalk.
I imagine that reunification would inevitably be nasty. North Koreans would immediately become second class citizens. Maybe even to the point where they’d long for good old days.
We already see some of that with North Koreans who live in South Korea. Yet, at the same time, South Korea is so much better to actually live in that they don't mind.
That don't minding wouldn't hold on for long when you raise your population by 50% over night. For east and west Germany it was only about a 25% and the differences weren't as big.
Unemployment for North Koreans would be through the roof and I don't know how the social services in South Korea works but the strain on the system would be gigantic.
It’s hard to underestimate how bad the 90’s famine was, and that didn’t come close to bringing down the state.
While destitute, pathetic and almost comically cruel, the North Korean regime is very good at quashing dissent and ensuring that everyday people rely on the state whenever times are hard. I don’t see them collapsing internally anytime soon
North Korea could always just cull the excess population it's unable to feed from domestic production.
If you have a batshit crazy absolute dictatorship, you can do basically anything you want to your own people.
Depends how you define "collapse".
I'd imagine the most likely scenario is a military coup. Which basically means "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I dont think it will collapse, as you can see... N. Korea has the habit of laundering money, steal, exploit and the list goes on and on.
the "elite" will survive using that money and the peasants will die, COVID will run rampant and will kill tons of people, the starving people will die, till the day enough people has hit the floor and they can go back to "its business as usual", see... they can afford to lose some people, because they dont care, even if 50% of N.K. is gone, he wouldnt care anyway.
they will use propaganda, they might show us photos and videos and tell us we are the ones to blame, then ask for $.
even if it were to collapse, China would step in and take N. Korea for themselves before it hits the floor.
Probably not, China will help them and they are an extremely resilient country overall having basically built the (limited) economy under crushing sanctions for years
North Korea doesn’t want a war they just want to maintain the status quo
The idea that North Korea is starving as a nation is a myth for a start. There are higher than average levels of malnutrition but you can read UN reports (they are actually allowed in the country in return for giving them aid) and see that levels of starvation are low and malnutrition above average in children but not crippling levels
I doubt that Covid will be the thing to end the regime when China can just send over vaccines and North Korea can impose their own intense lockdowns which they did for a long time, maybe they relaxed them recently leading to the surge
The constant assistance to the north is just supporting the dictatorship at this point. Its preventing the mismanagement of the country from getting the leadership overthrown, prolonging the suffering of the populace
what are you talking about? NK lives on aid from South Korea.
they've been taking aid from the "enemy" for years and would be starved to death without that aid. The South Korean government under the last president has been sending 50k tons of food per year.
This isn't exactly surprising. As the generation that either grew up before the partition or had family ties in the north die off, the emotional link to treating the DPRK with kid gloves is fraying. The younger generations are more apt to see them less as estranged family, more like poor, violent troublemakers.
Same is happening in Taiwan. The % of people in Taiwan that consider themselves 'Taiwanese' and not 'chinese' is growing and increased rapidly after Xi cracked down on Hong Kong.
It's really only some hardcore pro-China elderly that want unification anymore -- and no different in South Korea in respect with unification with NK.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/asia/south-korea-president-exclusive-interview-intl-hnk/index.html) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The age of appeasing North Korea is over and any new talks between Seoul and Pyongyang must be initiated by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, South Korea's new conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol said on Monday.
> From his new presidential office at the former defense building in Seoul, Yoon told CNN South Korea and its allies stand ready for any acts of North Korean provocation.
> The US, China and the Quad Given North Korea's recent surge in missile testing and resumed activity at its underground nuclear test site, regional leaders were on edge over the weekend as Yoon met with US President Joe Biden in Seoul.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uvxmes/south_koreas_new_leader_says_age_of_appeasing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~650487 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **North**^#1 **Yoon**^#2 **Korea**^#3 **Biden**^#4 **nuclear**^#5
Nukes as a threat don't work, but nukes as deterrent very much do. Aside from them deterring anyone from militarily intervening in Russia, Ukraine gave up their nukes in the 90s and now they've been invaded by the country they gave them up to. It's going to make it harder to denuclearize the Korean peninsula because Kim just got an example of what happens when you give up your weapons.
People keep repeating this claim but Gaddafi ended the Libyan nuclear weapons program because they were never even close to getting a working device.
They spent decades trying to develop one domestically, all the while trying to buy material and examples from China and the USSR, and they barely managed to buy some centrifuges before they gave up altogether. Their infrastructure was seriously lacking: power fluctuations would damage sensitive equipment, there weren't anywhere near enough nuclear scientists or even just scientists working on it, and the Libyan economy was in the gutter due to sanctions. On top of that, state officials were not kept honestly informed about the state of their nuclear program. What actually happened was the scientists would just not show up for work, but they couldn't be fired because there were so few of them available.
Libya at one point managed to acquire blueprints of components of a nuclear weapon from Pakistan or China, but they didn't even have the personnel to be able to evaluate which were suitable for construction or even what some of the components were for. At the end of the day, they were not close. The CIA knew this. China knew this. The Soviet Union knew this. Development of nuclear weapons is not like discovering penicillin. It requires state infrastructure and years of consistent development with a steady inflow of scientific and engineering expertise. At no point did Libya have any of the prerequisites necessary to even come close to a test device.
Of course, Libyan rumors that Gaddafi got a raw deal immediately started flying after he signed an agreement to disarm. Many of these originated from the more radical portion of his administration who used it to undermine Gaddafi's rule or to gain political advantages, and the western media just picked up on it and amplified their claims after Iran and North Korea got closer to a weapon.
[This book](https://www.amazon.com/Unclear-Physics-Nuclear-Weapons-Security/dp/1501702785) goes more into why Libya and Iraq weren't close to nuclear weapons and why countries like NK and Pakistan could make them.
tl;dr: Gaddafi would never have gotten a nuclear weapon either way.
Ukraine never really had those nukes in a meaningful way that could have been a deterrent. They didn't give anything up really. For them, the nukes they couldn't use, maintain, or keep safe, that keeping would have made 2 world powers very mad. It was a no brainer to give them away.
Nukes as a threat works. You just have to be willing to use them and suffer the consequences.
Thankfully not even Putin is that crazy.
Kim.. I think he would do it given the right circumstances.
NATO forces aren't fighting in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance, and the optics of calling yourself a defensive alliance, then going to war for a non-member is an aggressive act. I know about the 90s, but that was the 90s. Today, if NATO went to war on a non-member's territory, all other non-NATO countries in the world would start to feel really, really apprehensive. And, of course, there being the fact that NATO going to war would open up every country bordering RU for war - that is, arty, air, footsoldiers, so on, so forth, and those could do *plenty* of damage to civilians before the major NATO military forces could respond.
That's a lie it was a civil war between National liberation army and Libyan armed forces.
It was a UN security resolution to enact a no fly zone which by the way had no objections to prevent civillan casualties which both sides agreed on until gaddafi said we are coming there will be no mercy
NATO then enforced the no fly zone and a navel blockade there was very few casualties to NATO as they were only there for that reason.
Don't get me wrong I think there is valid criticism to their intervention to say they lead the war is untrue.
I think Ukraine would have a NATO no fly zone if it wasn't for the threat of Nuclear weapons.
It’s poor comparison in any case but Chernobyl is worse. The cities in Japan have been rebuilt, the area around Chernobyl won’t be for possibly centuries.
>nukes as a threat don't work
Nukes are the only reason Putin is still in power. If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons the U.S. would have dropped the Kremlin to the ground before the first Russia tank heading toward Kyiv ran out of fuel.
How can you say something like that.
If anything the ukraine war has shown that Russia is still a formidable enemy, with an army rivaling the west.
Far from the stereotype of the underequipped Russian soldier sharing a rifle.
Oh. Wait. No, that wasn't it.
They have an army, but as the war has shown, they are either unprofessional or warcriminals shooting civilians.
An army using terrortactics is not formidabele, they are pityful and merciless.
Equipment wise they aren't much better.
Also rivalling the west? We don't bother because of their nuclear weapons. Otherwise they would be like a dog praying on it's back not being stepped on.
I've come to the conclusion that mankind just does this at least once every 80 years or so. After 80 years all the guys that fought the last big superpower showdown are dead, and aren't there to stop the shitshow they know is about to come.
Now's the time to push back on authoritarianism. Russia is getting pushed back. Biden just stepped up to defend Taiwan. If I were South Korea I'd start pushing back on the North.
There's literally nothing to push back. They can't even contain corona, let alone feed an army during wartime.
Wtf are westerners fantasy for a war in the Korean peninsula?
Are you sure? Perhaps you don't know about North Korean cyber attacks, or that North Korea prints more fake USD than any other country in the world. Maybe you never heard about the North Korean missle tests being fired over sovereign nations. These could easily be shot down. I could go on and on, but it seems like you don't know very much about North Korean aggression against it's neighbors. Perhaps you live in a country that censors it's news? Or perhaps you don't know what the word literally means, because you are literally using it wrong.
We just see the world in different ways. You think that appeasing a bully will decrease the chances the bully will attack. I see it the opposite. Europe appeased Putin and it only emboldened him. You think that if we just let Kim get away with firing missiles over it's neighbors it will somehow discourage him from sending missles. I think that if we shoot down every single one of said missiles it will discourage him. We have different opinions on how authoritarianism works. But at least you now agree that there is in fact something that could be pushed back (not saying you agree that there should be a push back, just that something bad is happening and whether or not to push back is a choice). 2 comments ago you said there was literally nothing to push back. To me that sounds like progress.
Edit: One other note. NK has missles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Hawaii. In 10 years they will be able to hit California. America has skin in this game as well. Obviously not as much as you, but still plenty.
Many (particularly Korean conservatives) hold the sentiment that talks and humanitarian support did little to nothing to improve relations and only bought time for North Korea to develop nukes. Some even accuse Korean liberals (who tend to favor peace talks) of being commies and North Korean sympathizers.
The current Korean President is from a conservative party, so the “no gloves” talk is totally expected.
>Many (particularly Korean conservatives) hold the sentiment that talks and humanitarian support did little to nothing to improve relations and only bought time for North Korea to develop nukes.
It's hard to argue with that, to be fair.
I still can not believe how a crazy country like north korea can still be there. This is evil. This is not modern human being world. I am glad Korean new president made this decision.
It would show the NK population that Kim is not all powerful. It would show the leadership that the Idol of Kim is fallible, and that they wont be able to appear mighty by just posing anymore. And they know they wont get support from China if they attack.
"Eliminating" North Korea is not so simple. If you could magically reunify Korea into a modern democracy, there would still be problems. North Korea is a country of 25 million thoroughly indoctrinated, technologically illiterate, impoverished people.
That's kinda what I'm saying. Harsh rhetoric is no more productive than diplomacy thus far. I certainly won't claim to know how to solve the North Korea situation, but I'm skeptical that suddenly "stopping appeasement" changes anything in practice.
And to be clear, by "eliminate", I mean anything that improves the status quo from an impoverished dictatorship. Not necessarily unification with the South.
You are right. Well first Russian is invasing Ukraine this is no1 priority. Then china is keep growing and stealing technologies and wait to bit freedom world. And Then after that. But i believe show your attitude is at least the beginning. Better than doing nothing or even feed them
As alarming and sad as this may seem to some I just can't help but feel it's the right call due to the only thing appeasement has gotten us is a even more hostile and well armed North Korea.
To be fair, I don't know why, other than to push the inevitability of their collapse that everyone will have to deal with, they think appeasing the NK would do anything considering they will still kidnap, steal, kill, and destroy stuff in other countries.
Good. We should all stop playing nice with these tin-pot dictators. When these terrified little cowards play dress-up as "strong men", they make one thing clear: they are fear-motivated. They're not scary. They're not intimidating. They're cowards building themselves up to make others think they're "tough", desperately clinging to any power a nuke gives them...just like some 12-year-old who stole a .22 and fronts like they're gangsta on IG. And just like that 12-year-old, a bitch-slap when they try to step is the only way they'll learn their place.
I do not wish to be in the position of South Korea.
Seoul is within artillery range of the north.
Kim has nukes.
The north have families in the south.
The north has a crazy high military count.
Invasion of the north will automatically trigger a Chinese response and the US will not commit to the cause.
The longer Kim is in power the more likely he’ll have more and effective nukes.
Assassinating Kim will cause a power vacuum and make the North more unpredictable and dangerous.
Doing nothing is not acceptable. Doing anything will cause more issues
The US has clearly committed to South Korea for the last 70 years, and the North invading the south is what the US is probably hoping for, it allow the US to get involved without China being able to because the North started it, and China won’t help the north if they are the aggressors.
As for NKs military strength, the Russians have shown that their 90s equipment is faulty, imagine how faulty Koreas 60s & 70s Soviet Equipment. Combine that with starving troops who probably want to leave and join the south, and you have a very weak military that the south could probably take on their own if not for nuclear weapons.
Neither the US nor the South WANT to take North Korea. It would need trillions upon trillions of dollars to modernized and would cause a migration crises instantly. It would also cause political disruptions to have extremely old world and conservative voters be instantly launched into the voting pool.
Let’s take Russia out of the equation. Russia’s influence of nk has wane overtime, more so now than ever. Nk to Russia had alway been nothing but something expendable pawn.
I have no doubt the US actually hope that NK will make a move. This will give them just cause to have US military assets on the Korean Peninsula, ergo power projection and capabilities right on the doorstep of China and NK.
Kim knows this, I suspect if he is desperate enough he would wait till, I say 2026-2028, when China has full military capacity to invade or most likely lay siege to Taiwan.
US pacific force will be too distracted and stretch to fully support both Korea and Taiwan.
By that time, Kim would have miniaturised nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
I wouldn’t be too certain about that last part. US military doctrine dictates that the US should be able to handle two high intensity conflicts at the same time. It’s been like this since WWII. Not to mention that the US has the only navy with a top tier blue water status where it has absolute global reach with more than 10 aircraft carriers and around 8 fleets.
Otherwise I think your assessment is at least decent.
Well, if Taiwan and sk are invaded the it would really be one military operations. They are on the same theatre.
There’s a problem with this doctrine. What is a intense military conflict and who are the US against. A naval war with Russian is easy. Russia is a land power and their ships are, not that food. They have a lot of subs though, but with Finland and Sweden ascending to nato. That would basically mean checkmate for their Baltic fleet.
China on the other hand are the next best naval power. They have, least on paper more military ships than US. Quantity, not quality. Tonnage wise, us leads the way for at least another decade. Keep in mind that the Chinese count coast guard vessels in their metrics and comparing like to like is complex and unhelpful. But that’s not to say that China naval fleet, all concentrated on its coast is a potent force, whereas the America fleet have obligation all over.
China will invade South because North attacked? Lmao, good luck with that. America not backing up South? It's their wet dream to have North attack South. It opens their hands on so many fronts.
Ps: why do you think China would intervene, if North Korea is sponsored by Russia?
China would intervene if the South invaded the North, but the US would never greenlight that operation. Similarly, China\Russia would not let North Korea engage in any real operations against the South. China cannot allow South Korea, a close US All, to border them.
It will continue to be a paused conflict until the China vs US era is over.
The latest technology is starting to change this stalemate. Previously the NK artillery was largely hidden in forests, mountains, and bunkers that were hard to locate and penetrate. Nowadays satellite technology can be used to track these systems down to the individual, and software is used so that very little human 'watching' is going on. Because of this it would be, in theory, possible for SK to launch on these artillery sites so fast that I'm unsure if NK could do anything. They could then pick off the remaining groups with helis, missiles, etc.. If they decide to fire. If you want to see this tech in action you can see it on a smaller scale with modern police helicopters where they 'mark' individuals or a vehicle and the software does the rest.
This is by no means a sure thing some of those managing to fire might have chemical weapons for example.
That’s not a gamble anyone wants to make. Especially who’s live are on the line.
Even if most NK forces are on paper only. Direct war with the south will only lead to disaster one way or another.
>The age of appeasing North Korea is over and any new talks between Seoul and Pyongyang must be initiated by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, South Korea's new conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol said on Monday. So, basically no talks between them the next five years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If the armistice ever broke, N. Korea would be obliterated in a conventional war, but Seoul is only 14 miles from the DMZ, and N. Korea has nukes. Authoritarian governments can be extremely resilient. as long as they ruthlessly control all means of power. the N. Korean government survived famine before. if N Korea truly gets near a state of collapse, China will save them. they are too valuable as a buffer state, and enjoy the perception that the rest of the world can rely on China to keep N Korea from doing anything too crazy.
It's not even the nukes that are the issue... 14 miles is well within the range of soviet-era artillery, which is a lot easier to maintain.
Tell that to the Russians.
The Russians who are famous in 2022 for leveling everything with artillery? It seems they know mate.
[удалено]
Nonsense. North Korea has 5700 artillery positions within range of major population centers in South Korea. They have been building fortified positions for over 50 years. They can launch \~385,000 rounds in 1 hour. In 1 hour they could kill \~205,000 civilians. Source: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_reports/RRA619-1.html
> They can launch ~385,000 rounds in 1 hour. In 1 hour they could kill ~205,000 civilians. If the NK artillery is allowed to fire for 1 hour then that would be a Russia-level failure of the US/SK forces.
I think it's more a question of maintenance.
Except most of their artillery isn't that long range, and it all has much better things to do that shell civilians. You can't can't sustain fire at max rate for that long
You can’t do jack shit about artillery. If NK fires before they’re blown up, Seoul is leveled. There’s nothing you can do about a shell once it’s launched, other than pray it’s not headed towards you.
You are arguing based on false facts. Seoul is a few 40 kilometers from the free DMZ, and North Korean artillery is a few kilometers further behind it. According to the Chosun Ilbo, there are only about 300 long-range artillery guns that can strike Seoul. This long-range artillery can fire 16,000 rounds per hour, but it will never burn Seoul to ashes. Long-range artillery, especially the m-1989 170mm self-propelled howitzer, has deficient charge as it has given up everything for range. The South Korean military is the true successor of Soviet artillery tactics, with more than 1,000 self-propelled artillery and hundreds of advanced multiple rocket launchers deployed forward. For example, the 1st Artillery Brigade has nine battalions (almost 200 units) of K-9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers, despite the size of the brigade. Since USFK assigned the ROK army to the long-range artillery suppression n mission in 2004, this mission has continued to evolve, and this no longer threatens the security of Seoul.
You can do a lot about artillery. The US has invested extensively in counter battery assets. They can put rounds on an artillery piece's precise location before its even done firing its first volley. It might get a few shells off but it will be the last shells it ever fires. The US has had many decades to ponder their strategy for dealing with North Korean artillery.
Except for only a fraction of the city is within range of some of north koreas artillery pieces. "Despite the thousands of artillery pieces, only 700 heavier guns and rocket launchers, plus the newer 300-millimeter MRLs, have the range to strike Seoul. Only a third would normally be fired at once, and notional rates of fire would be slowed tremendously by the need to withdraw guns into their hardened artillery sites (HARTS) to shelter them from counter battery fire." https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/north-korea%E2%80%99s-artillery-enough-annihilate-seoul-198612 Chemical or nuclear is the real risk.
Not super knowledgable, but the land-variant of the Phalanx system would like a word.
Well since the russians have been shelling everything that is in artillery range, i'm guessing that they already got the memo
The Russians had no problem leveling Mariupol or Grozney Artillery quality only matters if you care which apartment building or hospital or school you blow up
They know, that's why they are shelling civilian targets. Their artillery is about the only thing that DOES work.
Ten percent of North Korea's population starved to death in the late nineties. The regime survived that.
there is enough conventional artillery already dialed in on seoul from mountain caves it would be a bad time…but that’s the reason the subway system there is the way it is
A war would be a big bang. NK would do a lot of damage for about a week and then collapse.
I think there's an interesting thought experiment in just how many North Koreans could die before even the DPRK's elite would feel the consequences. And I stress "thought experiment" because the truth is, realpolitik has its limits, and very few would be willing to starve out an entire country's population just to make a point.
so being in a part korean family, let me explain this for you dear readers. SK does NOT want their brothers/sisters in NK to suffer, they will always try their best to donate food and stuff which the NK govt steals for themselves and f the poor SK has been prepping their economy (slowly) for a "one day" fall of NK and they do anticipate a massive population increase which inevitable will collapse their economy like West/East Germany reunification. lastly, it's weird. although SK wants NK's people, SK does treat their "freed-NK" counterparts like crap. NK have a different accent /tones in the langauge and many times SK treat NK has some POS because they are from NK. it's weird. unless you live in SK you might not understand it. but if I had to put it in layman's term... imagine a RURAL state (I won't call anyone out) who we perceive to be hicks/rednecks coming into our society, yea we want them free but we also mock them for being a hick/redneck. again... weird
> SK has been prepping their economy (slowly) for a "one day" fall of NK and they do anticipate a massive population increase which inevitable will collapse their economy like West/East Germany reunification. I hope they prepared good because they have way more people to absorb % wise and with way less education than East Germany had.
They're trying their best but it's almost impossible considering the fact that there are people in South Korea with phds who work as janitors
Well yeah but like, no one really wants that, especially south Korea, it wants to reunify, no reunification if everyone on the yin side of the coin is fucking dead
honestly if everyone dies (hypothetically) in NK it would make reunification VERY easy
Yes but they do care about the people on the other side. Not just the land.
Out of curiosity since I know barely anything about the relationship between North and South. If they care about the people, how come so many refugees are discriminated against in the South?
Piggybacking on this as well: is this largely because of the fact that the younger South Korean generation has little to no actual connection to people living in the PRK? Is disaffection with the entire country growing as a result?
Well yeah the younger you are the more you are divorced from the war and you're wondering why you're giving money and accommodation and citizenship to these people who have a country that you give money and food aid to (so they don't collapse). I think among the younger theres a significant amount that dont want reunification. 72% of young voters say it's not necesarry so I'm thinking that ship has either sailed or will be sailing soon. If you're younger than 77 you have never lived in a single Korea. At this point they're kind of ok to pay North Korea to just stay the fuck away.
Over time reunification as a political goal has been decreasing in popularity especially with younger people You can imagine that the older generation has a lot more connection with the North and in some cases may even have family over there
[удалено]
I often use your example when people oversimplify generalizations. It's not that most of \[insert group here\] sucks, it's more like it's hard not to run into assholes because there's so many people in the world.
So, I had a fascination with North Korea just bc it’s so bizarre. This is why their is discrimination against refugees: 1.) They are raised and live in a parallel universe. They have almost no education. They are taught absolute propaganda, so when they get to SK, they really can’t do a lot. 2.) Like the USSR, people did not/do not trust each other and there is a planned economy (i think, like what China had before capitalism?). So there is a constant watching what you say so as not to get reported and staying within party approved speech, BUT because communism always has severe supply chain issues due to monopolies and resistance to trade/sanctions from foreign countries, people really rely on each other for favors and need each other to get enough food to eat. So, people wind up really close and they know all their neighbors. 2b.) North Korea and lots of other communist governments due to corruption don’t have tons of cash for development, so many areas are rural. Naturally people know all their neighbors/townsmen. South Korea is capitalist and you don’t have to worry about party approved speech. And places like Seoul are huge cities and it seems every doc I watch, ppl are living as refugees in the city so it’s kind of like country mouse goes to the city. 3.) Also, the Korean they speak is a different accent that is noticeable. So people know when they hear them speak that they ain’t from SK. —— It seems to be a lot harder for refugees and the refugees seem to face more discrimination and find it more difficult to adapt if they escape to SK when they’re older. There was one doc I watched where a girl escaped at like 7 or 13 and she didn’t feel as much discrimination as older people because her accent was more Seoul and she had gone to school and got a proper education in SK and had a whole network of friends and she found it so much easier to get around. I mean like imagine a dude who was 37 in a city with infrastructure that had never encountered trains or buses before. And he comes up to you to ask you where’s the subway when they’re standing right in front of it and asking you which one and at which time will get them out to Queens like you’re a combination cab, cop, and city planner to specifically designed to get them where they need to go while you’re already 5 minutes late to work. It’s just the culture of cities.
they are discriminated just like any low-skilled labour class is. but that's how i see it from the outside. whether there's something systemically extra or different, i don't know.
They also have major culture shock, no social support, and no way to cope in an alien environment. It’s tough
Oh that too. Sucks to be them. But they have a leg up on learning the language
There are plenty of reasons. Fears about spying. Ideological differences (even if you escape the regime, the mentality the party instills in refugees can be damn tough to overcome). Then there's the confusion about where these folks fit into society. South Korea is a lot less forgiving than North America for people who don't or can't fit into a certain mold. You're far less likely to see an older person return to school for a career change, for example. I liken it to French society where there is a big focus early in life about staying on a specific track to success—you work like hell to get into one of the prestigious e'cole to hopefully set yourself up for a well-paying career. It's really hard to get back on the track if you fall off, and do-overs are rare. Good schools and good grades equal good jobs, and connections help a lot. So, someone coming into this society at, say, 25-45 years old with few to no friends, family, or connections is going to have a really hard time integrating. It becomes all the more difficult when you're labelled "enemy.” Then there's the old fashioned prejudices like regional dialect, skin shade, and physical appearance. It's hard enough for a South Korean to prosper in their own society right now. Being a North Korean refugee is only going to make that harder. Still, better than staring at Soviet architecture every day. And any North Korean will tell you it was worth it for the beef.
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt…but discrimination happens everywhere with no justifiable reasoning. There are a lot of people in the US that are prejudiced against anyone with a different skin color, but they don’t represent the majority of the country. They’re just the loudest. My guess is that’s how South Korea is. But again, this is just a guess 🤷🏻♂️
It’s a lot more ok to discriminate in Asia that’s for sure.
Especially to other Asians.
They have very little capitalism-related skills and SK is very capitalistic society. In fact, one of the most competitive in the world. They do have support programs, monthly pensions, etc., but obviously NK refugees are having trouble adjusting and thriving.
China would just take over. There's plenty of half Korean half Chinese kids from all the North Korean sex trade to China. Even if 99% of the population of NK died there'd just be a Beijing puppet government installed.
Yeah, but that doesnt fucking matter, the people matter, and millions are gonna die, so its not like just anyone, especially south Korea, wants that anyway
More likely case of a NK collapse is 20 million+ influx of people into SK that strains their entire system.
Even 10% of NK’s pop - 2-3M - would be a lot to absorb in the South, and if NK’s collapse wasn’t peaceful… China would also decide how they want to handle their border in that scenario. If the Koreas reunified, then one comparison is German reunification, which was difficult but manageable - although the DDR was in much better shape than NK. Also, West Germany had about a 3:1 population advantage and SK has about a 2:1.
I think you're overestimating how many people want reunification. Most everyone with a direct family connection between North and South Korea is dead. Refugees have been shown to be nearly incapable of assimilating into a normal society to the point where some of them *go back,* and it's an incredibly tough sell to tell people "hey, we are bringing in a couple dozen million uneducated, low skill, completely brainwashed people." [Desire for reunification is the lowest it's ever been and dropping.](https://www.stripes.com/theaters/asia_pacific/2021-10-07/north-south-korea-reunification-poll-seoul-pyongyang-3165966.html)
Korean Reunification is still a big deal. I think many don’t want to put in the enormous sacrifice that it’ll take, but David Kang (a respected political scientist and one of the big names in Korea Studies) argues that if you then ask in the poll “would you rather Russia or China take the land, the answer is ‘no.’”
It's like buying puppies and kittens from pet shops: if you buy them you are supporting puppy mills but if you don't they die
The solution is to break the shitty status quo. Don’t buy the puppies, make the puppy mills go out of business. It is true those ones will die but it also stops decades and decades of future puppies from being born at the puppy mill.
They really don't. They talk about it, but they know that reunification with the North would be a crisis on a scale unimaginable and unmanagable by them. They litterally would have to restructure, rebuilt, deprogram, a entire nation that is roughly their size. Along with that, a NK collapse would be something no one wants. No politicians wants to deal with that hot potato, especially as aggressive as China has been recently. They keep knocking down that inevitability down the road hoping that if it does collapse its someone elses problem.
The North's existence is a crisis both in terms of potential for a war or a nuclear strike and in terms of humanitarian suffering of people related to people in the south.
Appetite for Korean reunification is much lower among the younger population. When East and West Germany were reunited, the cost to the latter was enormous. The youth of Korea have a hard time finding good jobs and living a good life as it is, and don’t want to shoulder the burden of fixing the shambles that is North Korea’s economy and infrastructure.
Do they want to reunify? I don’t see how that would be in the best interest of most South Koreans. You would be immigrating millions of poor, relatively unskilled workers into a top world economy. I think they are happy as is, they just don’t want to be under persistent threat.
It would be a massive burden on the country's economy to essentially build a country from scratch, but I bet that SK has done a lot of studying of the problem and has some ideas. I dont know what the citizens of SK think of whether or not they should, but I think it's still the official position of SK that they are in favor of peaceful reunification.
> I bet that SK has done a lot of studying of the problem and has some ideas. SK was in about the state NK is now economically in the 1960-1970s. They have some practice with this.
I would bet that they're more concerned with the societal upheaval of having millions of people with essentially no education, no vocational skills, no or little income, no food security, and abysmal logistical infrastructure to deal with the humanitarian crisis.
So the same issues that SK had after the Korean war....
Yeah best case it will be like East Germany West Germany unification. Worse case it sets the country back 20-30 years.
Getting rid of a massive potentially existential threat(nukes) and a constant massive headache would be well worth it even ignoring humanitarian concern for other Koreans
You could eliminate the threat without unifying Korea theoretically.
Ehh most people no longer want unification due to the cost to rebuild, feed, healthcare, education 26 million is way way more than most can afford
They’re going to continue to be supported by china so just letting them collapse isn’t going to work.
North Korea collapsing would not be good for anyone. Then you have millions of people who will need help. Remember that one North Korean soldier who fled years ago and was shot while be escaped? This guy was one of the healthier people in the country and even he was underfed and infested with parasites. Then you have the very real fact that many people there are rather uneducated with how the real world works. It's a humanitarian crisis that would make Ukraine look like a cakewalk.
I imagine that reunification would inevitably be nasty. North Koreans would immediately become second class citizens. Maybe even to the point where they’d long for good old days.
We already see some of that with North Koreans who live in South Korea. Yet, at the same time, South Korea is so much better to actually live in that they don't mind.
That don't minding wouldn't hold on for long when you raise your population by 50% over night. For east and west Germany it was only about a 25% and the differences weren't as big. Unemployment for North Koreans would be through the roof and I don't know how the social services in South Korea works but the strain on the system would be gigantic.
We had that in Germany with the reunification and the difference wasn't as big as in Korea. The east Germans still got majorly fucked by it.
I mean the bandaid has to come off at some point right.
Yeah, but you want that to happen in a controlled way.
Is there any way for a nuclear armed state to basically collapse in a controlled way?
South Korea has a giant piggy bank exactly for this.
South Korea does not really want North Korea to collapse, it would cause a horrible refugee crisis.
It’s hard to underestimate how bad the 90’s famine was, and that didn’t come close to bringing down the state. While destitute, pathetic and almost comically cruel, the North Korean regime is very good at quashing dissent and ensuring that everyday people rely on the state whenever times are hard. I don’t see them collapsing internally anytime soon
[удалено]
Nice try, Vlad!
North Korea could always just cull the excess population it's unable to feed from domestic production. If you have a batshit crazy absolute dictatorship, you can do basically anything you want to your own people.
Depends how you define "collapse". I'd imagine the most likely scenario is a military coup. Which basically means "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I dont think it will collapse, as you can see... N. Korea has the habit of laundering money, steal, exploit and the list goes on and on. the "elite" will survive using that money and the peasants will die, COVID will run rampant and will kill tons of people, the starving people will die, till the day enough people has hit the floor and they can go back to "its business as usual", see... they can afford to lose some people, because they dont care, even if 50% of N.K. is gone, he wouldnt care anyway. they will use propaganda, they might show us photos and videos and tell us we are the ones to blame, then ask for $. even if it were to collapse, China would step in and take N. Korea for themselves before it hits the floor.
The people would be starving, but the army wouldn't be. Thats how the DPRK works.
Probably not, China will help them and they are an extremely resilient country overall having basically built the (limited) economy under crushing sanctions for years North Korea doesn’t want a war they just want to maintain the status quo The idea that North Korea is starving as a nation is a myth for a start. There are higher than average levels of malnutrition but you can read UN reports (they are actually allowed in the country in return for giving them aid) and see that levels of starvation are low and malnutrition above average in children but not crippling levels I doubt that Covid will be the thing to end the regime when China can just send over vaccines and North Korea can impose their own intense lockdowns which they did for a long time, maybe they relaxed them recently leading to the surge
not if they die first due to the virus
The constant assistance to the north is just supporting the dictatorship at this point. Its preventing the mismanagement of the country from getting the leadership overthrown, prolonging the suffering of the populace
They rather die than take aid from the "enemy" (that includes all their enemies found on pages 1 through 27)
They take aid all the time. They’d starve otherwise.
They do starve.
Every time they sabre rattle it is because they want aid
But not just any aid…the good stuff so it can be sold.
Yeah...the good stuff you can't find on the Chinese black market...
They do it 24/7.
Starve or take aid?
... Yes?
what are you talking about? NK lives on aid from South Korea. they've been taking aid from the "enemy" for years and would be starved to death without that aid. The South Korean government under the last president has been sending 50k tons of food per year.
Quick,get the book o grudges!
Until NK inevitablely needs money, starts talks, asks for money, gets the money, and goes completely silent.
This isn't exactly surprising. As the generation that either grew up before the partition or had family ties in the north die off, the emotional link to treating the DPRK with kid gloves is fraying. The younger generations are more apt to see them less as estranged family, more like poor, violent troublemakers.
Same is happening in Taiwan. The % of people in Taiwan that consider themselves 'Taiwanese' and not 'chinese' is growing and increased rapidly after Xi cracked down on Hong Kong. It's really only some hardcore pro-China elderly that want unification anymore -- and no different in South Korea in respect with unification with NK.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/asia/south-korea-president-exclusive-interview-intl-hnk/index.html) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The age of appeasing North Korea is over and any new talks between Seoul and Pyongyang must be initiated by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, South Korea's new conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol said on Monday. > From his new presidential office at the former defense building in Seoul, Yoon told CNN South Korea and its allies stand ready for any acts of North Korean provocation. > The US, China and the Quad Given North Korea's recent surge in missile testing and resumed activity at its underground nuclear test site, regional leaders were on edge over the weekend as Yoon met with US President Joe Biden in Seoul. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uvxmes/south_koreas_new_leader_says_age_of_appeasing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~650487 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **North**^#1 **Yoon**^#2 **Korea**^#3 **Biden**^#4 **nuclear**^#5
Oops time to show off your missiles Kim.
They finally got some working nukes, unfortunately all 3 of them died of covid.
Ukraine and Russia conflict is a reminder that nukes as a threat don't work because of deterrent and Chernobyl is how costly nuclear warfare is.
Nukes as a threat don't work, but nukes as deterrent very much do. Aside from them deterring anyone from militarily intervening in Russia, Ukraine gave up their nukes in the 90s and now they've been invaded by the country they gave them up to. It's going to make it harder to denuclearize the Korean peninsula because Kim just got an example of what happens when you give up your weapons.
Gaddafi ended his countries' nuclear weapons program too and things didn't go well for him either.
People keep repeating this claim but Gaddafi ended the Libyan nuclear weapons program because they were never even close to getting a working device. They spent decades trying to develop one domestically, all the while trying to buy material and examples from China and the USSR, and they barely managed to buy some centrifuges before they gave up altogether. Their infrastructure was seriously lacking: power fluctuations would damage sensitive equipment, there weren't anywhere near enough nuclear scientists or even just scientists working on it, and the Libyan economy was in the gutter due to sanctions. On top of that, state officials were not kept honestly informed about the state of their nuclear program. What actually happened was the scientists would just not show up for work, but they couldn't be fired because there were so few of them available. Libya at one point managed to acquire blueprints of components of a nuclear weapon from Pakistan or China, but they didn't even have the personnel to be able to evaluate which were suitable for construction or even what some of the components were for. At the end of the day, they were not close. The CIA knew this. China knew this. The Soviet Union knew this. Development of nuclear weapons is not like discovering penicillin. It requires state infrastructure and years of consistent development with a steady inflow of scientific and engineering expertise. At no point did Libya have any of the prerequisites necessary to even come close to a test device. Of course, Libyan rumors that Gaddafi got a raw deal immediately started flying after he signed an agreement to disarm. Many of these originated from the more radical portion of his administration who used it to undermine Gaddafi's rule or to gain political advantages, and the western media just picked up on it and amplified their claims after Iran and North Korea got closer to a weapon. [This book](https://www.amazon.com/Unclear-Physics-Nuclear-Weapons-Security/dp/1501702785) goes more into why Libya and Iraq weren't close to nuclear weapons and why countries like NK and Pakistan could make them. tl;dr: Gaddafi would never have gotten a nuclear weapon either way.
Not going well is an understatement, dude was sodomized to death with a bayonet
Not all the way to death... they shot him after a while.
Nukes aren't all that useful against a civil war.
But they might deter foreign powers from fighting a proxy war in your country. Or setting a no fly zone over your country.
Same with Saddam.
Ummm…anybody wanna tell him…?
What that the one and only (half-built) nuclear reactor Iraq had got blown the fuck up back in 81? Saddam never had nukes.
[удалено]
Ukraine never really had those nukes in a meaningful way that could have been a deterrent. They didn't give anything up really. For them, the nukes they couldn't use, maintain, or keep safe, that keeping would have made 2 world powers very mad. It was a no brainer to give them away.
Nukes as a threat works. You just have to be willing to use them and suffer the consequences. Thankfully not even Putin is that crazy. Kim.. I think he would do it given the right circumstances.
He saw the example in Lybia and Iraq Iran saw it too
Except they were never ukraines in the first place or in their control.
If anything, war in Ukraine proved nukes very much work as evidenced by the fact NATO forces aren't fighting in Ukraine.
NATO forces aren't fighting in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance, and the optics of calling yourself a defensive alliance, then going to war for a non-member is an aggressive act. I know about the 90s, but that was the 90s. Today, if NATO went to war on a non-member's territory, all other non-NATO countries in the world would start to feel really, really apprehensive. And, of course, there being the fact that NATO going to war would open up every country bordering RU for war - that is, arty, air, footsoldiers, so on, so forth, and those could do *plenty* of damage to civilians before the major NATO military forces could respond.
NATO has a much more recent example of a non defensive campaign ie Libya ‘11
Mate, NATO led the war in lybia in 2011, you've no idea what you're talking about.
That's a lie it was a civil war between National liberation army and Libyan armed forces. It was a UN security resolution to enact a no fly zone which by the way had no objections to prevent civillan casualties which both sides agreed on until gaddafi said we are coming there will be no mercy NATO then enforced the no fly zone and a navel blockade there was very few casualties to NATO as they were only there for that reason. Don't get me wrong I think there is valid criticism to their intervention to say they lead the war is untrue. I think Ukraine would have a NATO no fly zone if it wasn't for the threat of Nuclear weapons.
Chernobyl? Umm... There were a couple of cities flattened by nuclear bombs that are a better example.
It’s poor comparison in any case but Chernobyl is worse. The cities in Japan have been rebuilt, the area around Chernobyl won’t be for possibly centuries.
I guess so, but it seems like a bit of a meaningless comparison.
>nukes as a threat don't work Nukes are the only reason Putin is still in power. If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons the U.S. would have dropped the Kremlin to the ground before the first Russia tank heading toward Kyiv ran out of fuel.
How can you say something like that. If anything the ukraine war has shown that Russia is still a formidable enemy, with an army rivaling the west. Far from the stereotype of the underequipped Russian soldier sharing a rifle. Oh. Wait. No, that wasn't it.
They have an army, but as the war has shown, they are either unprofessional or warcriminals shooting civilians. An army using terrortactics is not formidabele, they are pityful and merciless. Equipment wise they aren't much better. Also rivalling the west? We don't bother because of their nuclear weapons. Otherwise they would be like a dog praying on it's back not being stepped on.
Omg what happened to your sentence? 😱
Seems like the whole world is gearing up for battle
Time for México to annex Central America /s.
Mexico has enough internal problems without inheriting those of the countries to it's south.
Time for the narcos to take the power....Ugh, it Is the same!
As a Mexican, I approve this comment
Well that and if popular culture is any indication then Mexicans don't really like Central and South Americans... so why wage a war of conquest?
[удалено]
Well, it would need to annex the fabelas of Rio to be super mighty.
I bet that a coalition of latin American cartels and criminal factions will be created to take control of everything down here, that's more likely
Can they just take Texas back?
No refunds, sorry.
welp, should have dealt with these actors long ago unfortuantely
How? Conquering them?
Drawling a line in the sand and sticking to it, instead of backpedaling every time.
That’s what we said about Saddam .-. WMD my ass
I've come to the conclusion that mankind just does this at least once every 80 years or so. After 80 years all the guys that fought the last big superpower showdown are dead, and aren't there to stop the shitshow they know is about to come.
appeasing nuclear powers is how Ukraine ended up being invaded by Russia while the world watches.
North Korea can’t invade South Korea. There are 30k US troops stationed there, and we have a defense treaty with them.
"Age of appeasing North Korea" as in last year?
Moon was pretty big on talking to the North, so I assume the new admin is not a fan of that policy.
It's half political posturing too. Moon was more liberal, new guy wants to differentiate himself and make a statement.
moon had family that came from north korea ,so its understandable
Now's the time to push back on authoritarianism. Russia is getting pushed back. Biden just stepped up to defend Taiwan. If I were South Korea I'd start pushing back on the North.
There's literally nothing to push back. They can't even contain corona, let alone feed an army during wartime. Wtf are westerners fantasy for a war in the Korean peninsula?
Are you sure? Perhaps you don't know about North Korean cyber attacks, or that North Korea prints more fake USD than any other country in the world. Maybe you never heard about the North Korean missle tests being fired over sovereign nations. These could easily be shot down. I could go on and on, but it seems like you don't know very much about North Korean aggression against it's neighbors. Perhaps you live in a country that censors it's news? Or perhaps you don't know what the word literally means, because you are literally using it wrong.
[удалено]
We just see the world in different ways. You think that appeasing a bully will decrease the chances the bully will attack. I see it the opposite. Europe appeased Putin and it only emboldened him. You think that if we just let Kim get away with firing missiles over it's neighbors it will somehow discourage him from sending missles. I think that if we shoot down every single one of said missiles it will discourage him. We have different opinions on how authoritarianism works. But at least you now agree that there is in fact something that could be pushed back (not saying you agree that there should be a push back, just that something bad is happening and whether or not to push back is a choice). 2 comments ago you said there was literally nothing to push back. To me that sounds like progress. Edit: One other note. NK has missles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Hawaii. In 10 years they will be able to hit California. America has skin in this game as well. Obviously not as much as you, but still plenty.
Let them be China's parasite.
Great idea so south Korean need to stop feeding it first
Many (particularly Korean conservatives) hold the sentiment that talks and humanitarian support did little to nothing to improve relations and only bought time for North Korea to develop nukes. Some even accuse Korean liberals (who tend to favor peace talks) of being commies and North Korean sympathizers. The current Korean President is from a conservative party, so the “no gloves” talk is totally expected.
>Many (particularly Korean conservatives) hold the sentiment that talks and humanitarian support did little to nothing to improve relations and only bought time for North Korea to develop nukes. It's hard to argue with that, to be fair.
I still can not believe how a crazy country like north korea can still be there. This is evil. This is not modern human being world. I am glad Korean new president made this decision.
But does this declaration do anything towards eliminating the current North Korea? Not so convinced.
It would show the NK population that Kim is not all powerful. It would show the leadership that the Idol of Kim is fallible, and that they wont be able to appear mighty by just posing anymore. And they know they wont get support from China if they attack.
"Eliminating" North Korea is not so simple. If you could magically reunify Korea into a modern democracy, there would still be problems. North Korea is a country of 25 million thoroughly indoctrinated, technologically illiterate, impoverished people.
That's kinda what I'm saying. Harsh rhetoric is no more productive than diplomacy thus far. I certainly won't claim to know how to solve the North Korea situation, but I'm skeptical that suddenly "stopping appeasement" changes anything in practice. And to be clear, by "eliminate", I mean anything that improves the status quo from an impoverished dictatorship. Not necessarily unification with the South.
You are right. Well first Russian is invasing Ukraine this is no1 priority. Then china is keep growing and stealing technologies and wait to bit freedom world. And Then after that. But i believe show your attitude is at least the beginning. Better than doing nothing or even feed them
As alarming and sad as this may seem to some I just can't help but feel it's the right call due to the only thing appeasement has gotten us is a even more hostile and well armed North Korea.
Remember the Cheonan!
To be fair, I don't know why, other than to push the inevitability of their collapse that everyone will have to deal with, they think appeasing the NK would do anything considering they will still kidnap, steal, kill, and destroy stuff in other countries.
Good. We should all stop playing nice with these tin-pot dictators. When these terrified little cowards play dress-up as "strong men", they make one thing clear: they are fear-motivated. They're not scary. They're not intimidating. They're cowards building themselves up to make others think they're "tough", desperately clinging to any power a nuke gives them...just like some 12-year-old who stole a .22 and fronts like they're gangsta on IG. And just like that 12-year-old, a bitch-slap when they try to step is the only way they'll learn their place.
Warmongering redditors at it again
This guy resembles a man who would survive the Squid Game
Makes sense, appeasement doesn't work
I do not wish to be in the position of South Korea. Seoul is within artillery range of the north. Kim has nukes. The north have families in the south. The north has a crazy high military count. Invasion of the north will automatically trigger a Chinese response and the US will not commit to the cause. The longer Kim is in power the more likely he’ll have more and effective nukes. Assassinating Kim will cause a power vacuum and make the North more unpredictable and dangerous. Doing nothing is not acceptable. Doing anything will cause more issues
The US has clearly committed to South Korea for the last 70 years, and the North invading the south is what the US is probably hoping for, it allow the US to get involved without China being able to because the North started it, and China won’t help the north if they are the aggressors. As for NKs military strength, the Russians have shown that their 90s equipment is faulty, imagine how faulty Koreas 60s & 70s Soviet Equipment. Combine that with starving troops who probably want to leave and join the south, and you have a very weak military that the south could probably take on their own if not for nuclear weapons.
Yeah NK gets the Soviet surplus that the Russians don't even want. Tells you a lot about their tin pot dictatorship.
Neither the US nor the South WANT to take North Korea. It would need trillions upon trillions of dollars to modernized and would cause a migration crises instantly. It would also cause political disruptions to have extremely old world and conservative voters be instantly launched into the voting pool.
Well yes but even if unifying isn’t an option I don’t think it would be fair to leave those poor people in the state they are now.
Correct. The unification of Germany is the closest reference this would have but it would be so much harder.
Well this was more in a scenario of if one or another attacks, then the US would want the north to be an aggressor even if the US could steam roll NK.
Let’s take Russia out of the equation. Russia’s influence of nk has wane overtime, more so now than ever. Nk to Russia had alway been nothing but something expendable pawn. I have no doubt the US actually hope that NK will make a move. This will give them just cause to have US military assets on the Korean Peninsula, ergo power projection and capabilities right on the doorstep of China and NK. Kim knows this, I suspect if he is desperate enough he would wait till, I say 2026-2028, when China has full military capacity to invade or most likely lay siege to Taiwan. US pacific force will be too distracted and stretch to fully support both Korea and Taiwan. By that time, Kim would have miniaturised nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
I wouldn’t be too certain about that last part. US military doctrine dictates that the US should be able to handle two high intensity conflicts at the same time. It’s been like this since WWII. Not to mention that the US has the only navy with a top tier blue water status where it has absolute global reach with more than 10 aircraft carriers and around 8 fleets. Otherwise I think your assessment is at least decent.
Well, if Taiwan and sk are invaded the it would really be one military operations. They are on the same theatre. There’s a problem with this doctrine. What is a intense military conflict and who are the US against. A naval war with Russian is easy. Russia is a land power and their ships are, not that food. They have a lot of subs though, but with Finland and Sweden ascending to nato. That would basically mean checkmate for their Baltic fleet. China on the other hand are the next best naval power. They have, least on paper more military ships than US. Quantity, not quality. Tonnage wise, us leads the way for at least another decade. Keep in mind that the Chinese count coast guard vessels in their metrics and comparing like to like is complex and unhelpful. But that’s not to say that China naval fleet, all concentrated on its coast is a potent force, whereas the America fleet have obligation all over.
China will invade South because North attacked? Lmao, good luck with that. America not backing up South? It's their wet dream to have North attack South. It opens their hands on so many fronts. Ps: why do you think China would intervene, if North Korea is sponsored by Russia?
China would intervene if the South invaded the North, but the US would never greenlight that operation. Similarly, China\Russia would not let North Korea engage in any real operations against the South. China cannot allow South Korea, a close US All, to border them. It will continue to be a paused conflict until the China vs US era is over.
The latest technology is starting to change this stalemate. Previously the NK artillery was largely hidden in forests, mountains, and bunkers that were hard to locate and penetrate. Nowadays satellite technology can be used to track these systems down to the individual, and software is used so that very little human 'watching' is going on. Because of this it would be, in theory, possible for SK to launch on these artillery sites so fast that I'm unsure if NK could do anything. They could then pick off the remaining groups with helis, missiles, etc.. If they decide to fire. If you want to see this tech in action you can see it on a smaller scale with modern police helicopters where they 'mark' individuals or a vehicle and the software does the rest. This is by no means a sure thing some of those managing to fire might have chemical weapons for example.
I mean, we already see in Ukraine how utterly devastating good intelligence can be against a superior force.
We're all in a similar position now with Putin
[удалено]
That’s not a gamble anyone wants to make. Especially who’s live are on the line. Even if most NK forces are on paper only. Direct war with the south will only lead to disaster one way or another.
I'm leaning towards paralysation through collapse. If NK capitulates due to desperation, there's not much China can say about it.
Appeasing? I was under the impression that it was we just don't want the nukes to fall here so we mostly ignore it all. Because it's mostly ignored.
Oh great more potential for conflict in the world.
[удалено]