Man, he's executed people using anti aircraft guns. The general you speak of - would rather defect to South Korea and provide information than try to take him out.
North Korea
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
even if there is arranging those meetings would be difficult and you would have to be 100% sure of success in the coup otherwise its not just you but your family thats feked - and i also suspect pert of becoming a general is that they are pretty certain of their loyalty to the regime - anythings possible i guess but i suspect it would be pretty difficult to achieve - perhaps a "decapitation strike" if somebody could give an accurate location at a certain time could be done but again what would the generals reaction be to that... for all we know it could be full on attack just as likely as a leader more open to negotiate
There must be an objective, observable truth somewhere, though? In the case of North Korea I think the cause and effect are fairly straightforward, like yourself, but the motives underpinning it should be called into question if you look at the same situation in the context of Iran. The resultant questions over the motives aligned with the overarching strategic expansion is dangerous and destabilising...right? That's how I understand the broader context of China's proposal and of the US' seeming rejection of it.
Does it not concern you that one of the major sticking points in implementing a proposal by the two regional powers most closely involved in the conflict is the US' reluctance to take a step back in terms of their military actions? When placed into the broader context I think it's pretty worrying myself, but you're much more well-versed on the subject than I am so I'm interested in seeing it from a US-perspective.
Just want to see that reading a bunch of stories about NK then going to bed only to have a wave of thunderstorms pass through is s great way to have some pretty scary dreams
You have to consider that US troops are in the ROK as a result of a mutual defense treaty, so any threat toward the ROK is also viewed as not only a threat to an ally, but also a legal mechanism whereby the U.S. is obliged to participate in the ROK's defense. This is obviously problematic in terms of the DPRK's desire to reunite the country under its own terms, but that's something they are just going to have to live with as the south are more than within their own rights to sign treaties with any countries they want.
As are the north with their China defence agreement... which makes the whole situation a bit serious to be fair
Given that the north are a totalitarian state, the Chinese would be wise to not continue feeding them.
But they are literally feeding millions of people with their imports.. . Starving civilians is not diplomatic pressure... it's genocide
Is there any possibility that WW3 develops out of this mess?
Probably more chance than any other time in the last 40 years or so I guess... Still hopefully a thin chance though
That would require at least a handful of nations standing with N. Korea, can't see anyone doing that right now.
They can also feed their people by repurposing their resources to feed civilians and not relying on the Chinese to spoonfeed them. Its Kim's responsibility to show some leadership in this regard.
We all know he won't
Stopping the shipment of food will starve civilians
Stopping the shipment of energy will freeze civilians
Kim is a fat kid who allegedly uses anti aircraft guns to gun down people who fall asleep ... we both know it won't be him and the army suffering if food and energy supplies are cut
That's Kim's problem not that of the ROK, China, or the U.S.
Honestly I think the idea that China would somehow defend NK based on the past is a bit inaccurate. China coming to the aid of NK occured during a time where long range bombers were the primary way of delivering nuclear weapons, having a land shield was an effective way of protecting yourself, it would give you far more notice of an incoming attack. Further, it happened during the whole US vs Soviet Union escalation, Stalin was as big a player as anyone in persuading China to back NK. I don't see in 2017 what exactly China would have to gain, land shields are no where near as important as they once were and Kim is not exactly providing to be a particularly helpful ally for China, he's causing far more headaches than he is solving.
Providing it was made clear that the US would remove THAAD etc after the threat had been neutralised, that no US bases would be set up within what is currently North Korea and that it would be South Korea in the immediate aftermath primarily dealing with the situation, I really struggle to see what logic could bring China to start a full-scale conflict.
https://qz.com/962995/the-war-in-syria-has-been-great-for-north-korea/
https://qz.com/962995/the-war-in-syria-has-been-great-for-north-korea/
Your post understandably got lost in between all the news of rockets being launched, but yes, another complicating factor in this matter. Plenty of experts have claimed that the Assad regime would've fallen a long time ago if it weren't for their weapon transactions with North Korea.
And reversely by all accounts it's been great business for North Korea too. And then there's the business dealings with the African allies... Their reported methods of smuggling/exporting read like a spy novel at times.
“It’s a gold mine for North Korea,” said Bruce Bechtol, a political science professor at Angelo State University in Texas who’s penned a handful of books on the country. “This is the best thing that’s ever happened to North Korea—as long as Syria doesn’t fall, which could happen.”
What a contemptible attitude... it's ok to knowingly starve thousands of people because you can blame somebody else.
Honestly have a word with yourself and remember your argument is basically it's ok to starve kids because Kim is a prick
that's Kim you are talking about right? Because that is what the NK government has been doing for decades, starving, sending to slave camps, killing, their own citizens but blaming it all on the US.
Talk about contemptible attitudes, am I right?
Kim is indeed a prick... you stop the food imports they have and you know he won't change and the inevitable outcome is hundreds of thousands of civilians starve... and raoul has been saying there should be a total embargo...Its not antithetical to find both contemptiblethat's Kim you are talking about right? Because that is what the NK government has been doing for decades, starving, sending to slave camps, killing, their own citizens but blaming it all on the US.
Talk about contemptible attitudes, am I right?
But to be honest you seem a lot more upset over this hypothetical embargo, then the real starvation that is being imposed willfully upon the people of North Korea by their very own government. Sort of weird don't you think?
Of course the embargo would be in place because of the actions of the NK Government therefore, they are the ones who ultimately shoulder the responsibility, placing themselves above the well being of their people (not unlike lots of other leaders no matter where they are located). So yeah it still comes down to the NK Government being the problem and bringing all this upon their people.
I'm more bothered about stopping people starving than proportioning blame that much is true
I don't see that as part of any solution
When people don't have food at all then they will start a revolution, they don't have nothing to lose and if is no food to the militar....
Kim's population is Kim's resonsibility, full stop. If he creates the conditions whereby his people starve (as the Kim dynasty have been consistently doing for 6 decades) then its on them.
Your sudden interest in preventing starvation apparently doesn't include removing Kim from power and allowing Korea to reunify as a Democracy so everyone has access to a better life.
I think a unified and democratic korea along with a generally demilitarized peninsula would be great... I don't see starving people helping with that though
I don't see any plan that can achieve that at the moment... I hope diplomacy can find one but I still don't see starving people as a help in anyway to that and that will be the result of a full embargo
Only people starving right now are being starved by Kim.
And considering you told Raoul he had a contemptible attitude and he needed to have a word with himself, yeah you were concerned with pointing fingers at somebody.
But you don't seem to take issue with the millions who have been starved by the Kim clan in recent decades. Sometimes you have to accept that a war is necessary to advance long term change. Humans will die so far more humans can benefit.
It would be his fault, but it wouldn't be solely his responsibility. The existence of humanitarian aid and the support it receives from vast portions of the world is evidence that we take responsibility for the acts of others, often victims of totalitarian regimes, in the interests of society at large.
It might well be that millions of North Koreans dying of starvation as a direct result of sanctions is a lesser evil than any of the other options, but that's a different conversation.
And yet the reason he receives such aid is strictly due to conditions created by him, his Dad and his Grandfather. Ultimately, the Kim family are responsible for the conditions ordinary North Korean's have to endure.
If any outside power is responsible for the human suffering in NK, it's China. They could have and should have prevented Kim from starving the population, while going nuclear.
Well, like I said it's speculation - I'm no military expert. Surely a pre-emptive attack on DPRK would prioritise their long range weapons as targets? Or maybe as you say, the risk is too great. Surely far less risky than allowing Kim to produce a hundred or so warheads over the next few years.
I agree with you that it might be naive to assume that they don't have an operational nuke(s) ready for use against ROK. This might sound even more naive, but surely the Americans would have a pretty good idea of the probable launch sites from satellite and spyplane information (I'm pretty sure I read the US regularly flies high altitude recon over the North) And whilst you're right in pointing out that the DPRK has long been preparing for the resumption of live fire warfare, so has the south, which easily outmatches them in terms of hardware, logistical ability, and with the US forces already in theater - in manpower too.
As for China, I'm not convinced they'd get involved. America, and the West in general has become too important a trading partner to want war with, albeit in a third party theater. Again, it's just conjecture.
Last edited:
I can't believe people on here are ignorant enough to expect China to starve the citizens of North Korea and create an humanitarian and refugee crisis of epic proportions on their own border.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting the above would be avoided by a Chinese intervention in a military escalation, or that the above would happen if China did not get involved? Either way, North Korea's citizens are already starving and there's already a humanitarian crisis of sorts in the DPRK.
Does China benefit that much from NK? With the way they're expanding, I'd imagine joining forces with them is the last thing they'd want to do. That's bye bye to US and EU relations, probably lots inSouth and Central America too as well as Asia.
That's a limited definition of the word responsible, is my only point. Responsibility also speaks to a sense of obligation, which is the entire reason humanitarian aid exists anywhere in the world and is one of the fundamental values in society - a sense of shared responsibility and a desire to act on that through altruistic means. Shedding that responsibility in any scenario is dangerous. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are tiers of responsibility, and there is only one family to blame (well, maybe Putin would be contrarian on that front), but relinquishing all responsibility isn't necessary or, IMO, helpful.
I'm not quite sure what this means, but ok.
The reason why China are "doing nothing" is because they want to avoid a humanitarian disaster they can ill afford on their border. I don't get it what's so hard to understand about that? If you think about the current plight of NK's population then imagine how much worse it'll be like if NK cannot import any essentials supplies (such as food & medicine) at all from the outside World.
What it means is that if everyone shared the view that the responsibility of atrocities is left solely with the people committing them then the only time they would be stopped would be when it benefited other people's selfish goals. In lots of cases that is sadly true but humanitarian aid is one example of something which is fuelled by a sense of shared responsibility and altruism. Do you feel differently?
That's more of a thought experiment than a tangible strategy. In this case, there is zero debate about who is responsible for the situation inside North Korea.
Another thing there's misunderstanding on is the amount of influence China has on North Korea. When you consider Kim Jong-un has already purged the pro-China leaders from his party then you might come to realize that currently China has as much influence on NK as I have. I suspect that the real trouble makers here are the Russians..