View Poll Results: What is the near-term future of the DPRK

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • It will fall into chaos as a result of renewed famine and poverty, resulting in military crackdowns.

    3 15.79%
  • There will be a military coup that displaces the current leadership, hopefully soon.

    4 21.05%
  • It will continue to remain a closed society, technologically dormant and otherwise insignificant.

    12 63.16%
  • The leadership will eventually make a misstep, forcing military action from the United States.

    0 0%
Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 551

Thread: North Korea: 2012-2016

  1. #61
    Council Member Icepack6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Since KN has retracted from the Armistice, I believe there is an opportunity for moving Red Flag from Nellis to Osan AB, ROK. This would make Russia nervous, as the winds blow westerly from North Korea across Hokkaido Island to points northeast. Watch this space for reports of a large, fire-breathing atomic dinosaur.

  2. #62
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icepack6 View Post
    Since KN has retracted from the Armistice, I believe there is an opportunity for moving Red Flag from Nellis to Osan AB, ROK. This would make Russia nervous, as the winds blow westerly from North Korea across Hokkaido Island to points northeast. Watch this space for reports of a large, fire-breathing atomic dinosaur.

    You got my vote....if the wittle fellar wants a nuclear weapon we should give him one or two....those neutron ones that only kill people,don't want to hurt any of the little critters roaming around there.

  3. #63
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    My question would be, how much do we really need to worry about this, even if they do decide to attack? I have not been to Korea but I have a number of friends who have and by all accounts the ROK army is a very professional competent force. Add to that the fact that China doesn't want to deal with all the fallout of a war on the peninsula and will not tolerate KN slinging WMDs around. I don't think that they can afford to not become militarily involved. On top of all that add the fact that for all their bluff and bluster the KN army appears to be largely starving conscripts with antiquated equipment and substandard training. While I'm sure that we would provide some air and naval cover, I'm just not convinced that we would need to provide any significant ground forces.

    SFC W

  4. #64
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldstreamer View Post
    Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening.
    I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  5. #65
    Council Member Hacksaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Lansing, KS
    Posts
    361

    Default In Re: Uboat

    The answer to your question is that it depends...

    Are the ROKs a first rate Army??? Yes and no... BCT and below they are excellent... Div and above - not nearly as proficient...

    Would the US need to committ ground forces??? Maybe, maybe not... If the NK launch all their stuff... air could kill vast majority of heavy equipment (highway of death to the nth power)... and the counterfire fight would eventually attrit indirect fires to the point that ROK forces could certainly restore the international border.... but, if the NK conduct a limited attack and the ROKs/Coaltion want to go north...we better have a whole lot more than the ROK Army and air superiority...

    Terrain favors the defender in the extreme on the Peninsula... as I stated earlier in this thread... what kept me up at night wasn't defeating a NK attack... rather it was going North into a defense dug into granite with templated TRPs and fields of fire painted onto the walls....

    bad bad bad juju

    Slumbering peacefully in Kansas
    Hacksaw
    Say hello to my 2 x 4

  6. #66
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Windsor, near London.
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.
    Fair one. Prediction's always a dangerous sport. But going off past experience, rewarding bullies and lunatics always empowers them (back to Saddam and April Summer's ambiguous messages to him in 1991). Where as good old fashioned bullying, of the sort conspicuously absent in our dealings with..er..Korea and Iran, tends to yield results. Bcause the lines are thus clear. If we reward unreasonable behaviour we incentivise it. And, of course, all the while these nutters are spreading the WMD risk with characters like AQ Khan and the Iranians - because we haven't gripped them early.

  7. #67
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Based on his past experience, Kim probably believes that he can threaten, bluster, and rattle some sabers, resulting in the west will sign an agreement to give him something, in this case food. He can then renege on whatever he promised to do.

    The problem this time around is that we might actually do something - stop and search shipping to and from NK. He desperately needs the foreign currency from arms sales to purchase food. Given his health, some rumors I've read of a rise in influence of the armed forces, he could just be desperate enough this time around to follow through on his threats.

    A lot of the behavior we've seen before. What's new, and a bit ominous, is the repudiation of the Armistice, and that he isn't raising the stakes in a transparent effort to get food.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  8. #68
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Zhejiang, China
    Posts
    24

    Default A permanent solution for North Korea

    Confucian culture is all about respect to one's superiors. All Confucian cultures are more centralized than their respective Western Communist or capitalist counterparts. Sometimes, Confucian societies can be pushed to defer to foreign rule: for instance, Japan and South Korea have adopted capitalist and democratic systems. Neither of these cases were really homegrown, the result of indigenous protest, but rather come from deliberate US policies. From these examples, the first thing required is a show of strength to establish status. The second, more subtle step then is a show of mercy, or an attempt at nation-building. Japan was a good example of that, and it is one of the most famous applications of such a policy (the other being Germany.) Besides this one model, which would only work in very specific political circumstances, this strategy has also worked when it wasn't even really intended. Nixon's rapprochement to China may not have been meant as a signal for them to keep their political system, but it did give them 'face' enough to open up to the world and start down the path to development. It may be unclear if that made China more or less of a threat down the road, today, but it was clearly the moral approach to take, as it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

    This is going to have to be the end result of the North Korea situation. Every Confucian society of geopolitical importance which has developed has done so as a result of American interference of some sort. (Taiwan, the only one which didn't originate from American designs, is kind of the exception that proves the rule, as their influence in the region has steadily been declining for practically as long as it's existed.) The only question is, how? There's no Taiwan here - selling South Korea to them would be crazy. So how do you make the first diplomatic overtures?

    I actually have my own answer to that question, but I won't disclose it just yet, just to get people thinking the way I am. What I'm thinking of is quite political, and once I mention it then the thread will probably go off topic.

  9. #69
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default A few remarks about mainland China

    Orange Dave, what you apprea to be talking about is the importance of education for moral development of the individual so that the state can be governed by moral virtue rather than by the use of coercive laws.

    Taiwan has absolute freedom of religions whereas China is still an enigma when it comes to not allowing free and open, unfettered practice of religion.

    Ever since the Ike years as President in the 1950s I well remember, I was a teenager then, the Qumoy and Matsu Islands challenges by Communist China militarily, which failed ultimately.

    China has come a long way since the Nixon days and today the US economy owes China for helping keep our national debtd afloat. The defacto capitalism model for world trade by China has defanged many of the past negative habits of China, I agree. But the issue of freedom of all religions inside mainland China still haunts it, as evidenced recently with Muslim riots in far Western China.

    The Deputy Dean of "the" main Medical College of China was visiting the Medical College of Alabama, a part of the University of Alabama at Birmingham campus, in the late 1980s. As the administrator of the VA's Medical Research & Development Division at that time I was asked by our local US medical school dean to take the Chinese Deuty Dean of their main Medical College to lunch.

    During lunch the Chinese MD told me that his son was a premed student then at UAB, hoping to be admitted to the Medical College of Alabama in a few years. Secondly he told me that mainland China was (and I suspect still is) very backward internally, this was circa 1989) still very backward, with it's people still eating rice out of iron bowls.

    Just to balance some remarks today about mainland China which economically is our main stay in terms of our national debt today.

  10. #70
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default North Korea -- and Iran -- want respect

    as they define it. POTUS visits both; aid flows prompting a counterflow of love and decency. Development ensues. They all live happily ever after.
    . . .

    Thus two more nations are added to the long list of those who dislike the US for several reasons, not least that they responded to power by wanting acknowledgment and 'respect' from that power and demeaned themselves or were demeaned by needing,wanting or taking his aid. All these nations act nicely in public while working, sometimes feverishly, sometimes casually, behind the scenes to trip the big guy -- not necessarily kill him, just trip him and cut him down to size...

    Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.

  11. #71
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Zhejiang, China
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Iran is a different question. US policy debates tend to mention them in the same breath, but I'm not convinced they themselves think of themselves of having anything to do with each other.

    The US, both privately and publicly, could justify taking this path with North Korea, and a different path with Iran, because North Korea off the bat has a better outlook for success, according to the 'Asian Tiger' model. Nevertheless, this strategy has already been applied in Iran, under the Clinton administration, but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway. What I'm thinking of here is a historical apology for the Korean War, based on more effective ways the US could have won the Cold War.

    Letting the Communists take control of all of Korea would not have been less effective, as long as the US demonstrated the strength and will to take over the country if it wanted to. Perhaps it could have made a landing with its troops, and then immediately negotiated a deal aimed at breaking this united Korea off from the Soviet Union, akin to the Sino-Soviet split. The fact that this kind of political sophistication, not to mention the necessary foresight, didn't exist at the time is irrelevant. And of course a lot of problems would also have been solved if the US simply fought the war more effectively and defeated the North, but we can't exactly say that.

    Interesting you mention Germany and Japan. More interesting may be their pay back -- when it occurs.
    Umm, what kind of time scale are you thinking of here? Tens, or hundreds, of years?

    George, I understand what you're saying about how much China hasn't yet opened up. But would you not say that Nixon's diplomacy was an overall success - particularly compared to the expectations at the time?
    The Sage King does not take pleasure in using the army. He mobilizes it to execute the violently perverse and punish the rebellious. Using righteousness to execute unrighteous is like releasing the pent-up river to douse a torch, or pushing a person teetering at the edge of a cliff. Success if inevitable. War is not a good thing: it damages many things, and it is something Heaven cannot accommodate. It should only be a last resort, and only then will it accord with Heaven.

    -Huang Shi Gong

  12. #72
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes, no and not really...

    Quote Originally Posted by orange dave View Post
    Iran is a different question. US policy debates tend to mention them in the same breath, but I'm not convinced they themselves think of themselves of having anything to do with each other.
    Agree; the only similarity is in the quest for international respect and a perverse and probably incorrect sense that US 'acceptance' is tantamount to such respect.
    The US, both privately and publicly, could justify taking this path with North Korea, and a different path with Iran, because North Korea off the bat has a better outlook for success, according to the 'Asian Tiger' model.
    Having spent four years in Korea, including a couple as the tiger was developing and after it was pretty well grown plus a couple in Iran prior to the '79 revolution, I disagree -- the 'Middle East Lion' could be Iran; it has a better chance at that than any other in the region to include Iraq even with our help (which isn't likely to be forthcoming).
    Nevertheless, this strategy has already been applied in Iran, under the Clinton administration...
    Clinton visited Iran? I missed that totally...

    Overtures were made by Clinton and flummoxed by Congress as had occurred with overtures by Reagan, the difficulty in relations with Iran (as with Cuba and North Korea) is in the Congress, WH overtures to fix that even under George W. Bush (his Father didn't even really try), were routinely deflected by Congressional hard liners -- as were possible overtures to China by Johnson before Nixon. Dick and Henry just pulled an end run. Good for them. Most Administrations aren't that ballsy.
    ...but not North Korea, rendering that point irrelevant anyway.
    Few points are irrelevant in international relations; too many variables to summarily dismiss anything.
    What I'm thinking of here is a historical apology for the Korean War, based on more effective ways the US could have won the Cold War.
    Heh, you're correct about derailing the thread, I suspect. I'll let that go for now but will agree with you that there were far more effective ways for the US to have handled the Cold War. I do not agree with use of the word 'win' in that respect as I'm not at all convinced it's over. No bodies have been buried...
    ...And of course a lot of problems would also have been solved if the US simply fought the war more effectively and defeated the North, but we can't exactly say that.
    Having been there at the time, I can agree that the war could have been fought far more effectively -- we tried to fight a land war in northern Europe while in Asia (a bad habit of ours...) -- I will also point out that defeat of the 'North' would have entailed a lengthy irregular postwar cleanup problem that would easily have rivaled Viet Nam. Oh -- and that you seem to, as MacArthur tried to, ignore the Chinese...
    Umm, what kind of time scale are you thinking of here? Tens, or hundreds, of years?
    A few score for Germany, whatever it takes for the far more patient Japan to include "hundreds." Both with the caveat that time will cure some of that as the world modifies and anger fades, thus the desire and thus the capability will diminish over time but either would take advantage of any opportunity or weakness to achieve to offset their known population decline which will adversely affect their ability for payback which a good many in both nations think is deserved.
    Last edited by Ken White; 08-05-2009 at 07:46 PM.

  13. #73
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Zhejiang, China
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Having spent four years in Korea, including a couple as the tiger was developing and after it was pretty well grown plus a couple in Iran prior to the '79 revolution, I disagree -- the 'Middle East Lion' could be Iran; it has a better chance at that than any other in the region to include Iraq even with our help (which isn't likely to be forthcoming).

    Clinton visited Iran? I missed that totally...
    I'm talking specifically about historical apologies. The presidential visit is nice pomp, but it only comes on top of some kind of major policy change.

    I believe Madeleine Albright apologized to Iran for overthrowing the Shaw in 1953(?) or so. Apologies have a particular resonance in North Korea, where as you will remember we managed to get away with apologizing for the intrusion of the USS Pueblo on paper while simultaneously denouncing that same agreement verbally. Apologies have greased many diplomatic wheels here, unlike with Iran, as far as I know.
    The Sage King does not take pleasure in using the army. He mobilizes it to execute the violently perverse and punish the rebellious. Using righteousness to execute unrighteous is like releasing the pent-up river to douse a torch, or pushing a person teetering at the edge of a cliff. Success if inevitable. War is not a good thing: it damages many things, and it is something Heaven cannot accommodate. It should only be a last resort, and only then will it accord with Heaven.

    -Huang Shi Gong

  14. #74
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Can't ever find a Mikhail when you need one...

    Quote Originally Posted by orange dave View Post
    I'm talking specifically about historical apologies. The presidential visit is nice pomp, but it only comes on top of some kind of major policy change.
    Or it could be in itself the announcement of a policy change...

    However, I believe there is a problem with your solution.

    It is not that I and my generation who fought in Korea strongly doubt that we have anything -- that's a specific AND an all inclusive we plus a very inclusive anything -- to apologize for; we're old, departing this mortal coil on a daily basis and have no political clout so our opinion is basically immaterial. So forget us.

    The US Congress is another matter entirely.

    Regardless of which party the President who broached the idea of an apology might belong to, the other party would have a field day with the concept.
    I believe Madeleine Albright apologized to Iran for overthrowing the Shaw in 1953(?) or so. Apologies have a particular resonance in North Korea, where as you will remember we managed to get away with apologizing for the intrusion of the USS Pueblo on paper while simultaneously denouncing that same agreement verbally. Apologies have greased many diplomatic wheels here, unlike with Iran, as far as I know.
    Since I remember drawing cold weather gear in preparation for deployment from Fort Bragg to Korea, yes, I recall the Pueblo 'apology' quite well.

    I suspect however, that an apology for a war gets into far shakier ideological and legal territory. If one apologizes, does one then owe reparations? If, so in what amount? Regardless of the legalities, what of world opinion (which I don't give a fig about but which worries some)? Do many in Congress subscribe to a belief that we owe North Korea an apology given the practical fact that they invaded the South weighed against the unprovable assertion that if only we'd done the Cold War differently, it might not have happened?

    So, I see your point, don't disagree it might work. Might. Barely might. The problems with it would, I believe, be US domestic and would be legal-type practical as well as ideological. So I suspect a Presidential risk analysis would come to the same conclusion and the idea would be rejected unless there were very positive signs that the potential benefit to the US would out weigh the costs. I doubt such signs will appear anytime soon.

    Note also that doesn't even address Chinese (They had more people killed in Korea than did the North Korean Army) concerns. Will they alos want /get an apology? Nor South Korean and Japanese concerns. Or the UN, who underwrote that war -- or the Brits and Australians and other who fought there...

    As for Madeline apologizing to Iran, she did indeed -- and I acknowledge that as you note, Iran and North Korea are different. Your idea of the President doing it would resonate with North Korea -- as would an apology from Clinton instead of his female SecState have resonated with Iran, in the event it was a meaningless gesture form one of the worst secretaries of state seen in my long life. She ties with Alexander Haig for loser of the 20th Century.

    My personal belief is that both nations would take a Presidential apology, use it to their benefit in various ways and modify their behavior very little if at all -- probably for the worse if at all. Those currently in power in both nations are not about to give that up. Another generation; perhaps. Maybe a Gorbachev-like person and economic dire straits may align. Until then, I expect little change from either nation. Both are really similar only in two things: wanting 'respect' -- and to keep their quite different power structures in place.
    Last edited by Ken White; 08-06-2009 at 04:29 AM.

  15. #75
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Zhejiang, China
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Since I remember drawing cold weather gear in preparation for deployment from Fort Bragg to Korea, yes, I recall the Pueblo 'apology' quite well.

    I suspect however, that an apology for a war gets into far shakier ideological and legal territory. If one apologizes, does one then owe reparations? If, so in what amount? Regardless of the legalities, what of world opinion (which I don't give a fig about but which worries some)?
    That's the thing. The apology is that the Korean War was a strategic, rather than a moral, mistake. The only costs this would impose on the US would be what it has already had to put up with. However, as a practical matter, if the US did want the North Korean economy to start growing, it would have to provide the seed aid, which really wouldn't be that big of an economic obstacle, as much as a political obstacle.

    Also, this isn't really an apology to anyone, but rather to ourselves. So maybe a better way to think of this would be a congressional panel convened to investigate how well containment schemes work or something - there are others going on in Somalia and Eastern Europe, for instance. A kind of strange topic, but its real purpose wouldn't have to be kept too secret (in fact, that would kind of defy the point.) This question might then lead wherever the commission takes it. Something mundane like that could then be engineered to 'serendipitously' spin out of control (perhaps through leaks,) culminating in an apology after North Korea (and maybe China) after they (obstinately on their own volition) ask for it.

    That would take even more careful engineering on the domestic than the international end, and it admittedly contains a lot of unknowns. What would be the impetus for a congressional panel on the use of containment? I would think if Somalia collapsed or did something spectacular in the next couple of years, that could provide an opportunity. Whatever happened, it would require a lot of creativity on the part of a lot of people to dilute the political risk to acceptable levels.
    The Sage King does not take pleasure in using the army. He mobilizes it to execute the violently perverse and punish the rebellious. Using righteousness to execute unrighteous is like releasing the pent-up river to douse a torch, or pushing a person teetering at the edge of a cliff. Success if inevitable. War is not a good thing: it damages many things, and it is something Heaven cannot accommodate. It should only be a last resort, and only then will it accord with Heaven.

    -Huang Shi Gong

  16. #76
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Don't agree on Congressional panel

    The people of North Korea are simply too close to the reality of democracy and a free enterprise system that enriches the consumerism driven economy model down to the grassroots level as they see being daily enjoyed by their blood kin in South Korea.

    North Koreans want food, clothing, fuel, and much, much more. Free TV programming, abundant, modernized housing, cars, affordable fuel to drive the cars with, in short, the hugely successful way of life now found in South Korea, Japan and even in China today.

    I'd stay focused on the wants and needs of the masses and look for a change, which should be soon, in the top civil and military leadership of N. Korea in the hope and with the goal that the new leadership group, too, might like to become titans of a then newly growing economy and system at least of the mainland China model.

    China could and would surely help promote and fund, for interest back on their money of course, such a change over in North Korea's economy.

    No, this doesn't happen overnight, but it has to start sooner vs. later or never. It is inevitable but we can help speed up it's start up via China. My two cents.
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 08-06-2009 at 03:34 PM.

  17. #77
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That is a thing, no question...

    Quote Originally Posted by orange dave View Post
    ...The only costs this would impose on the US would be what it has already had to put up with.
    I doubt that would be true. I think there are many hidden costs there -- and I'm not talking solely fiscal...
    Also, this isn't really an apology to anyone, but rather to ourselves. So maybe a better way to think of this would be a congressional panel convened to investigate how well containment schemes work or something...
    Congress is a monumental waste of time and taxpayer money. They are venal and more concerned with their party than they are with the good of the nation. Every commission they have created in the memory of living man has been a farce and done more harm than good. The political infighting that would go on in a commission as you suggest would make the US a bigger laughing stock worldwide than we already are thanks to too many such schemes.
    Whatever happened, it would require a lot of creativity on the part of a lot of people to dilute the political risk to acceptable levels.
    Exactly -- and that is in shorty supply; critically short -- that's why it is not a viable idea.

    That and the hidden costs.

  18. #78
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Zhejiang, China
    Posts
    24

    Default

    George: a couple of thoughts. North Korea has been opening up to the world in recent years, exposing people to this kind of material lifestyle. At the same time, its leadership has been becoming more corrupt. With some skill (which we can assume they posses,) they can just play this off as the outside world causing the corruption, thus justifying their continuing with an independent approach. (After all, it's only the elite that are afforded the luxury of international contact.) We're opening up because we're being forced to, they can say, and look at the consequences. We can handle interacting with other cultures if we must, but in general it's best to avoid it whenever possible.

    Also, a change in leadership does not signify a change in foreign policy. The closest historical precedent to what you seem to be thinking of is Deng Xiaoping taking control of China. He was probably more pro-market all along, but that position was made viable by Nixon's deal with regards to Taiwan - under Mao. Without such a deal, China never would have split with Russia, and so its ability to open up its markets would be constrained. While domestic policy could benefit from new leadership, it's foreign policy that we're more concerned with, and no North Korean leader is going to give up the position that the country has worked so long and hard to attain, which gives them the possibility of nuclear coercion of the US, without something in return.
    The Sage King does not take pleasure in using the army. He mobilizes it to execute the violently perverse and punish the rebellious. Using righteousness to execute unrighteous is like releasing the pent-up river to douse a torch, or pushing a person teetering at the edge of a cliff. Success if inevitable. War is not a good thing: it damages many things, and it is something Heaven cannot accommodate. It should only be a last resort, and only then will it accord with Heaven.

    -Huang Shi Gong

  19. #79
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default We simply disagree, pleasantly

    I am not so pessimistic as you, and think practical human needs and potential consumer demands will infatuate whoever next group of leaders in N. Korea will be.

    Even the existing N. Korean leadership understand they are too dependant on missles and A-bomb technology to generate foreign exchange for their impoverished nation.

    We will soon see what comes next in N. Korea but my bet is on change, economically driven, over some mumbo-jumbo Congressional Committee mess that they, and I, will laugh at should it happen.

    Understand everyone is entitled to their point of view, and that is mine...factoring in my few years when young as an International Banker, Asia Section, old Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. in NYC, now merged into JP Morgan Chase Bank and some time as a Congressional staffer under the late House Democratic Whip Armistead Selden, D-AL, who was later Principal Under Secretary of Defense under President Nixon then President Carter's US Ambassador to New Zealand.

    Cheers and let's wait and see.
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 08-06-2009 at 07:27 PM.

  20. #80
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Addressing the original post...

    Quote Originally Posted by orange dave View Post
    Confucian culture is all about respect to one's superiors. All Confucian cultures are more centralized than their respective Western Communist or capitalist counterparts. Sometimes, Confucian societies can be pushed to defer to foreign rule: for instance, Japan and South Korea have adopted capitalist and democratic systems. Neither of these cases were really homegrown, the result of indigenous protest, but rather come from deliberate US policies.
    Not precisely homegrown, though certainly evolved in a uniquely indigenous fashion... and certainly not, in either case, constituting "foreign rule".

    One might debate the extent to which North Korea can be described as a "Confucian culture".

    Quote Originally Posted by orange dave View Post
    Nixon's rapprochement to China may not have been meant as a signal for them to keep their political system, but it did give them 'face' enough to open up to the world and start down the path to development. It may be unclear if that made China more or less of a threat down the road, today, but it was clearly the moral approach to take, as it brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
    Are you implying that Nixon's move was the sole cause of China's "start down the path of development"? I think you might find on examination that there was a good more to it than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by orange dave View Post
    Every Confucian society of geopolitical importance which has developed has done so as a result of American interference of some sort. (Taiwan, the only one which didn't originate from American designs, is kind of the exception that proves the rule, as their influence in the region has steadily been declining for practically as long as it's existed.) The only question is, how? There's no Taiwan here - selling South Korea to them would be crazy. So how do you make the first diplomatic overtures?
    Japan was a developed industrial power well before the US got involved, and I think the case for claiming that "American interference" caused Chinese development is sketchy at best. I don't see any real historical evidence to support the idea that US interference is a necessary element to produce development in an East Asian state.

Similar Threads

  1. North Korea 2017 onwards
    By AdamG in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 07-08-2019, 01:56 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •