North Korea

It is still funny enough that I want to believe it.

For sheer Rule of Funny

Apparently, The Times confirm this.

Nice try, midget.

Well it does add "impossible to confirm the information independently"...

It hasn't confirmed anything. If you read a story about NK in a Western newspaper which contains the phrase "as reported in the Chosun Ilbo" or some combination thereof, what that means is that the newspaper's Asia correspondent has translated (or, more likely, got a friend to do it, as most of them can't read Chosŏn'gŭl) a story in the Ilbo for them. The Ilbo has a history of getting things wrong. It's not a remotely reliable source.

edited 1st Oct '14 12:39:48 PM by Achaemenid

Still too funny not to believe.

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past him. Totalarian leaders tend to have an inclination towards appearing mighty & imposing. Especially when their true stature is lacking. ^note : Well, them and Sarkozy

And Best Korea, specifically, has a long history of having its troops (especially border guards) wear heel shoes.

Didn't his dad also wear heels?

At night, when the lights over NK are out, they all engage in cross-dressing acts and sing their equivalent of Liza Minelli songs.

The lights over North Korea are always out, unless you're in the capital or a death camp.

I wouldn't be so sure - does anyone have the latest imagery? Western media is generally bad at reporting genuine improvements within NK; hence why the starvation myth is so persistent.

This◊ is from December 2012.

Well, they can light Pyongyang at least.

Honestly, I doubt that every small farmhouse, oil-lamp generated light is going to show-up on satelite images.

Given Best Korea's residence in The Tyson Zone, the secret crossdressing thing is entirely plausible. Likely, maybe not, but plausible.

Well, in case of a Korean reunification North Korea certainly has one "advantage" over the forder GDR: In East Germany, we had to fix the existing rotting infrastructure which was often more expensive than simply building it: In North Korea they can simply build everything up from scratch.

I know all of this is just theoretical, but as far as I know, there are some plans being made in case of a Korean reunification, so does anyone know where the capital of a reunited Korea would be supposed to be?

Seoul was capital of the united Korea prior to the Japanese invasion, and had been for centuries. The capital of a United Korea will most likely remain Seoul. For one thing, it is at the centre of the country's modern infrastructure.

That makes certainly sense, I think even the (South) Korean constitution refers to Seoul as the capital of Korea.

But I wonder if perhaps for symbolical reasons a city between North and South Korea could be chosen like e.g. Kaesong? I mean in the case of a peaceful reunification such a symbol could help to close the divide between North and South.

PS: I love your signature.

I wonder what would happen to Pyongyang with a reunification. Without being the capital, what good is it?

Kim Themed Family Park

It's a fairly large city, with a river passing through it, situated in a central location within the country. It can become a major administrative centre.

Yeah but while the rest of NK just needs infrastructure to be built and wouldn't suffer as badly from GDR syndrome, the same isn't true for Pyongyang, which is why I'm wondering about it.

Also curious if thats preventing the city elites from dropkicking the kims, knowing that any alternative will be worse for them, either in terms of their lives or their livelihood.

The trouble with moving the capital post-reunification is that Seoul will remain the economic and cultural heart of Korea, and that isn't likely to change.

What people don't seem to grasp is that Seoul is huge. Pyongyang is an anthill compared to Seoul - Seoul is the second-largest city in the world. It's bigger than NYC, Shanghai, Delhi, Jakarta. It's five times the size of Berlin. Moving the capital won't change any of that. So it would be purely cosmetic.

Now, I suppose you could make the case that a legislature should be moved as a symbolic move - but reunification is going to be expensive enough as it is. Still, if we're going to pick a new capital of a new united Korea, I'd pick Panmunjom.

Whilst Pyongyang is a fairly modern city, a lot of the stuff in it has been thrown up and is in absolutely shoddy condition. I'm dubious as to whether the Ryugyong or Yanggakdo hotels, for instance, would be allowed to host human habitation under South Korean building regs.

@Zarastro

Thanks I'm going to change it in a couple days tho.

edited 2nd Oct '14 7:53:43 AM by Achaemenid

Yeah, Seoul's metropolitan area has a population larger than North Korea's.

If you have Günter Wewel, you also need some Ivan Rebroff. His rendition of Ochi Chernye is the bomb.

edited 2nd Oct '14 7:56:56 AM by LogoP

Oh I'm not arguing against moving the capital to Seoul or anything. I'm wondering what to do with Pyongyang afterwards.

If the previous attempt to re-unify Korea is any indication, that problem will take care of itself...

edited 2nd Oct '14 8:19:31 AM by Achaemenid