Here's a question - to what extent to the people of the North believe the propaganda about their leaders? And to what extent are they grateful or affectionate towards them?
Also, these three articles by Christopher Hitchens are worth reading for any NK-watchers:
"A Nation of Racist Dwarfs
", Slate, January 2001
"Visit to a Small Planet
", Vanity Fair, January 2001
"North Korea, Slave State
", Slate, May 2005.
All of these are old (when he talks of the "Father-Son dynasty" of "Fat Man and Little Boy", he means Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-il), but the country is so time-locked politically speaking that it hardly matters. Anyhow, they are worth it for the historical perspective alone, not to mention Hitchens' electric writing.
Also, more frivolously: Kim Jong Style
edited 30th Jan '13 6:01:35 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI read one of Hitchens' articles above - the others I've read before. To think that it's been over a year since he died. There are few things I would love to hear more than what he would have made of some of the things that have happened since he died.
North Korea's divine dynasty is no longer short of a Trinity, as it was when Hitchens died. I wonder how many deities the North Korean people will have to worship before they get their Reformation. It is tempting to say that the current Leader is also the final one, but North Korea has always been on the brink of collapse so who knows how long it'll last.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
![]()
Technically, any object in orbit is a potential missile, given the kinetic energy it holds.
You know, if I ever happened to be in North Korea for whatever reason, the last thing I would do is eat the food. In a place where successive famines have wiped out any agriculture, where exactly is that "meat" coming from?
As for whether or not people there believe the propaganda, I imagine they would. The scale of their isolation and the control that the state has means that we're now in the, what, third generation of people who have had their entire world-view shaped by that propaganda? A good comparison would be Imperial Japan, where people certainly bought into that kind of cultism right up until the end of World War II.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
It really depends. I think it's half-and-half, sort of.
North Korean refugees in South Korea sometimes speak of how they enjoyed bootleg Korean dramas and media. That also gives them a sense of hope and expectations on the outside world. Still, I think a refugee tends to be surprised when they actually see other countries.
if we were to launch a preemptive war, exactly how large of a scale would the required food relief flights to the civilians be?
millions starve over there, so if we could provide enough to them, we could very well win the peace once the nks military is done in.
the big question would be what we would have to offer china to look the other way.
i'm aware of the threat posed by nk tube, rocket and ballistic missile artillery. but can't saturation of the nk side of the dmz suffice to knock out the launchers before they can fire? (i'm sure we have enough satellite monitoring of the area to have a good idea of their distribution)
like if we put every atacms /gmlrs system we have over there and divert our hellfire predators to help hunt the arty.
as for whatever air & naval power they have, the calcm (unitary penetrator) can deal with their shelters. while softer area (barracks, field deployments) targets we leave to ohio class ssgm (4 subs, 24 lch tubes, 7 cluster bomblet tomahawk each)
instead of risking an assault through the dmz minefields, a landing by marines (using the whole wasp class)
unlike a-stan and iraq, we at least have a large, well-trained military to keep the peace after we decapitate the kim regime. plus, after the nks are dealt with, we can pull our remaining forces out of the country
(it's true that the nks have a million man army, but our weapons excell at wiping out such massie, poorly equiped forces, their tanks are all One-Hit-Point Wonder s, their air defences are worse than North vietnam's) it would cost a lot in munitions though. (bush's "shock and awe" was vastly smaller than past bombing missions. i remember seeing the explosions and laughing at the media's shocked reaction. a handful of explosions doesn't come close to the scale of the 1972 christmas bombing campaign (involving b-52, f-111, f-105, f-4 , a-6, a-7). recreating that would require all our current bombers, b-52, b-1, b-2, f-15e)
but the peace of mind we'd get by ending another part of the cold war, peace for the south koreans, peace & food for the north koreans (civilians, not government/military). is that worth fighting for? plus action is safer than reaction. the last war lead to hundreds of thousands of south korean deaths because the north struck first. we went to war against Ghaddifi for less.
edited 30th Jan '13 3:57:24 PM by Byakuko
"I will strike down all that threaten my clan!"Still, I think a [North Korean] refugee tends to be surprised when they actually see other countries.
I vaguely recall tales of Soviet defectors who were quite surprised at what they saw in the western countries to which they defected, and the USSR wasn't anywhere near as insular as NK.
I suspect that North Koreans who made it to western countries (or, in the case of SK, countries with strong western influences) would have their socks (if any) knocked off.
All your safe space are belong to Trump![]()
It would probably be a fucking nightmare. Firstly, there is no guarantee the population would accept it - the depth of their indoctrination is unknown. Secondly, they'll likely destroy their infrastructure as they retreat - burning fields, poisoning rivers and wells, demolishing factories - similar to Hitler's Nero Decree. Even if (and this is a huge if) they genuinely were arrogant enough not to plan for the possibility of defeat, this is a very mountainous country. A guerilla resistance could last for years, and the sheer number of weapons in that godforsaken country is immense. Fourthly, they may well release their biological and chemical weapons, which could cause problems for years to come, and millions of deaths. Fifthly, this is a country of millions of political fanatics, similar to Imperial Japan during WWII. They will likely resist with the blood of their people - hell, they already have a Home Guard called the Workers and Peasants Red Guard, who are expected to fight Abramses with spears. The "civilian" casualties will be immense, and millions of unburied bodies create health problems in and of themselves.
All of this assumes that A: China does not get involved and B: NK cannot retaliate with its nukes.
Of coure, it may be the case that a quick victory or a long, grinding war will erode NK's confidence in its leaders to the point that loyalty for them collapses, such as in Germany post-WWII. Whatever the case, even a victorious war against the Norks is a potential humanitarian nightmare.
edited 30th Jan '13 4:33:46 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Parteibasically, we could stomp their conventional forces in a matter of days, if not hours. They don't have enough fuel to fight more than a couple days of war.
And yea, a lot of "civilians" will die. millions are in reserves armed with only spears. and, as said above, it'll be like imperial japan, only WORSE. They've been fortifying for more than half a century now.
Honestly, I'm not to worried about the nuke if they launch it via plane or missile. we could probably shoot it down.
What scares me is the thought of a midget sub sneaking up on a invasion force and detonating it. Or worse, several of them going out and hitting major ports. they could probably even attack japan that way.
I'm baaaaaaackI wonder if the command and control structure is centralized enough if it can be decapitated via assassination and cause enough confusion to prevent any sort of directed retaliation....and if done quietly enough if it can prevent the regular population from even knowing about it (since the government wouldn't want to show weakness to the citizens) and thus preventing a stampede of sorts...
I understand the ramifications if such a plan fails of course, but I'm curious if its at least feasible to be successful...
rollin' on dubs
There are two problems:
- The majority of their army would surrender/defect as soon as they went south due to seeing greenery and food without the Kim family regime barking at them.
- the 10% that lives high on the hog now knows that they would have to answer for their crimes. Cue a killem all and Taking You with Me war plan.
Like the Party in 1984, the Norks need isolation and the armistice to keep power. Even if we got their ruling junta, there are many party officals and flunkies who live at the peasant's expense.
We target their weapon systems, air fields and outposts. They target Seoul and other major civilian population centers. They want to rule through fear because that's all they have.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
How the vast majority of North Korea's population think is an enduring mystery. This article
by John Everard, Britain's former ambassador, gives some clues about how their tiny middle-class of mid-level party functionaries thinks - highlights include lending one Northern friend a box set of Desperate Housewives, and having that friend give it back the next day, bleary-eyed, having stayed up all night to watch it. Apparently, the most popular program amongst those with TV sets is the international news. I also found 38north.org
, a site offering detailed analysis of the DPRK. It seems that the high-ups exploit the whole state, the mid-levels put up with it but are desperate for Western media and a glimpse of our lovely decadence. But what do the rural countrysiders, and the low-level industrial workers (who, after all, make up the majority of the population and who Western journalists can never see) think of their regime? Especially given it can and does control all media and education they consume.
However, current news from the Kim family paddock isn't good: The country is under martial law
, and Kim Jong-Un has reportedly told his senior commanders to "prepare for war." I assume he means "be ready for defensive measures ahead of our nuclear test", mainly because the alternative is unthinkable. Even they aren't that nuts. I think.
In other tidbits:
The North Korean embassy in Poland is refusing to pay back a builder for repairs.
Preparations for hiding the upcoming Pyunggye-ri nuclear test intensify.
And Kim Jong-Un smokes in hospitals. Cock-end.
Also, the Economist has a perceptive analysis of the Pyonyang-Beijing connection, illustrated with a funny cartoon.
edited 1st Feb '13 8:35:40 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
rollin' on dubs
The North fears more sanctions, but their bete noir is China cutting them off. China needs the Norks to mess with the US and South Korea and scare Japan.
Without North Korea, China faces Japan and the US and possibly a United Korea aligned with the west. That would scupper their plans to lay claim to the Spratley Islands, the South China sea et al.
Yes the South could take the north, just like a race car driver crashing into the finish line. It's his best time but his car is a wreck.
The North kinda knows it's days are numbered. If lil'Kim can't keep the military and party on the same sheet of music we're gonna have a bad time.
A nuclear test is a good way to scare up foreign aid and try to keep the status quo for the north, or so they think.
China is getting fed up with the Norks, the costs are starting to outweight the bennies. If the South pledged to be neutral and kick the US out if the Norks immploded, China would drop'em in a heartbeat.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
rollin' on dubs
If the Norks imploded and after the US and the South picked up the pieces, what reason would we have to stay? It would be easy to ask the US to leave. Don't wanna piss of China, South Korea would have a large military that no longer has a job and would have to rebuild the North.
When the wall fell, the US Army in Europe was 4 divisions of troops and total strength was over 213,000 soldiers. In 2012, it's 41,000 troops with talk of reductions to 31,000 troops. Not all of them are infantry & armor, lots of Soldiers at the Rear in Europe. And we're part of NATO!
After the Norks fall, if China blustered loudly enough and the South Korean populace is angry enough, and the US is broke enough, most of the USFK would leave. It would be in their best interest to be neutral. Unlike Germany, a united Korea is sandwiched between Japan and China.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
rollin' on dubs

So we have orbital missiles now?
Yayz.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.