Why it's sane for Kim Jong-il to be mad


Off-Topic Discussions


Why it's sane for Kim Jong-il to be mad

Is this Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's play as well? Not that Ahmadinejad is quite as out there.


I'm not mad, just slighty annoyed.

Dark Archive

President Kim needs to walk a fine line here. On the one hand has has to play his part to the point where the world sees him as weak and unpredictable, but at the same time he must not seem that way to those around him believe the act and move to remove him. He doesn't have to worry about most of the rest of the country because they seem to be mostly isolated from outside sources of information. On the other hand, I think that Ahmedenijad is just as crazy as he acts, because playing nuts does not earn him any points in a setting that is even quasi-democratic and has access to outside media sources.


Is it hip to be square again?

Dark Archive

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Is it hip to be square again?

Only if she blinded you with science.


This seems relevant to the discussion.


Bill Lumberg wrote:
This seems relevant to the discussion.

I'd hit that. No wait...!


David Fryer wrote:
President Kim needs to walk a fine line here. On the one hand has has to play his part to the point where the world sees him as weak and unpredictable, but at the same time he must not seem that way to those around him believe the act and move to remove him. He doesn't have to worry about most of the rest of the country because they seem to be mostly isolated from outside sources of information. On the other hand, I think that Ahmedenijad is just as crazy as he acts, because playing nuts does not earn him any points in a setting that is even quasi-democratic and has access to outside media sources.

I think their two sides to the same coin. Ahmedenijad is playing more to a domestic audience while Kim is playing to an international audience. Essentially North Korea could probably be conquered in a month and it'd stick - give the country to South Korea and have the U.N. promise a hundred billion over 20 years in development funds for the South Koreans to help rebuild and the job is done. Hence Kim has to seem crazy and dangerous enough to advert this threat to his regime.

Iran, on the other hand, can't reasonably be conquered. Its to large with to many people - there'd be no way to effectively occupy it and no prospect of holding it long term. It is however scared of the west, especially of strategic strikes and has a history full of stories of western intervention which resonate with the people. A leader that takes on an anti-western platform can rally a significant segment of the population and one that is seen to be standing up to Israel can garner near universal support in that endeavor. Hence anti-western rhetoric in Iran plays a role domestically in Iranian politics.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

When I lived in South Korea, I used to get freaked out when I watched the American news channels. Then a Korean gave me a hint. He said, "Don't get scared until we get scared." I only saw South Koreans gets scared once and that was after a naval confict in the Sea of China.

The article seems right on. Getting the rest of the world to say bad things about him allows the North Korean media to spin the rest of the world as "picking on us", a very powerful uniting sentiment for a ethnic group/people/nation that has been attacked hundreds of times in their 5,000 year old history.

Dark Archive

Bill Lumberg wrote:
This seems relevant to the discussion.

You bastard, Now I will have to burn that image out with a hot poker.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I think their two sides to the same coin. Ahmedenijad is playing more to a domestic audience while Kim is playing to an international audience. Essentially North Korea could probably be conquered in a month and it'd stick - give the country to South Korea and have the U.N. promise a hundred billion over 20 years in development funds for the South Koreans to help rebuild and the job is done. Hence Kim has to seem crazy and dangerous enough to advert this threat to his regime.

Conquering North Korea would be a mess -- it would be a nightmare economically for South Korea and would ratchet up tensions with China. Who would want to conquer North Korea?


David Fryer wrote:
Bill Lumberg wrote:
This seems relevant to the discussion.
You bastard, Now I will have to burn that image out with a hot poker.

Just find that picture of me in the same outfit. That oughtta cleanse your palette.

Dark Archive

Tarren Dei wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I think their two sides to the same coin. Ahmedenijad is playing more to a domestic audience while Kim is playing to an international audience. Essentially North Korea could probably be conquered in a month and it'd stick - give the country to South Korea and have the U.N. promise a hundred billion over 20 years in development funds for the South Koreans to help rebuild and the job is done. Hence Kim has to seem crazy and dangerous enough to advert this threat to his regime.
Conquering North Korea would be a mess -- it would be a nightmare economically for South Korea and would ratchet up tensions with China. Who would want to conquer North Korea?

I suspect that a unified Korea would have many of the same problems that Germany did after reunification.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

David Fryer wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I think their two sides to the same coin. Ahmedenijad is playing more to a domestic audience while Kim is playing to an international audience. Essentially North Korea could probably be conquered in a month and it'd stick - give the country to South Korea and have the U.N. promise a hundred billion over 20 years in development funds for the South Koreans to help rebuild and the job is done. Hence Kim has to seem crazy and dangerous enough to advert this threat to his regime.
Conquering North Korea would be a mess -- it would be a nightmare economically for South Korea and would ratchet up tensions with China. Who would want to conquer North Korea?
I suspect that a unified Korea would have many of the same problems that Germany did after reunification.

Witnessing German reunification dampened the appetite of many South Koreans for reunification with North Korea. The more liberal saw a "sunshine policy" that encouraged North Korea to develop its markets (the free trade zones, Kumgang mountain tourism, etc.) gained support from those observations.

Scarab Sages

Kim has way cooler hair.


Tarren Dei wrote:


Conquering North Korea would be a mess -- it would be a nightmare economically for South Korea and would ratchet up tensions with China. Who would want to conquer North Korea?

North Korea also wields enough deterrent power to make invading the north a non-starter for South Korea. And that's even before nuclear weapons are factored into the picture.


Tarren Dei wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I think their two sides to the same coin. Ahmedenijad is playing more to a domestic audience while Kim is playing to an international audience. Essentially North Korea could probably be conquered in a month and it'd stick - give the country to South Korea and have the U.N. promise a hundred billion over 20 years in development funds for the South Koreans to help rebuild and the job is done. Hence Kim has to seem crazy and dangerous enough to advert this threat to his regime.
Conquering North Korea would be a mess -- it would be a nightmare economically for South Korea and would ratchet up tensions with China. Who would want to conquer North Korea?

Oh to b clear - you'd need a Chinese stamp of approval otherwise the whole show is no go. China could see it as in their best interests for a variety of reasons mainly dealing with a mis-step by North Korea. If North Korea manages to scare people enough with a test or what not it could damage the economies of Japan and South Korea which is bad for Chinese Exports.

Alternatively China might agree to this as a better alternative then having Japan or South Korea develop increased anti-ballistic technology. Finally the deal could be seen as a better alternative then increased longterm U.S. presence in the area if tensions were to ratchet up and if America signaled some kind of increased commitment to the Peninsula.

Another possibility might just to resolve a thorn that pricks at the wrong time. Envision China involved in some kind of tricky negations, say for oil in the South China Sea, or some such when all of a sudden North Korea gets it into its head to once again rattle the cage of everyone in the area. North Korea may not recognize that they just managed to damage or scuttle an important deal for China but their whole strategy rests of being dangerous and unpredictable and having such a loose cannon randomly going off can easily be seen as counter productive to a China thats increasingly becoming the true final arbitrator of the Pacific Rim.

In fact as Pax Americana declines along the Pacific Rim and is replaced by Pax China its conceivable that China itself might do the deed with support from South Korea. After all a North Korean Nuclear Weapon can be pointed at Beijing as easily as Tokyo. Ultimately North Korea's usefulness to China has long pasted its best before date. These days its increasingly the Chinese that are dealing with the negative ramifications of the unpredictable state then it is America, whose interests in the Pacific Rim, while very significant, don't come close to China's interests in the area. What's good for China and What's good for North Korea were once very much in sync but those days have long passed.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Alternatively China might agree to this as a better alternative then having Japan or South Korea develop increased anti-ballistic technology. Finally the deal could be seen as a better alternative then increased longterm U.S. presence in the area if tensions were to ratchet up and if America signaled some kind of increased commitment to the Peninsula.

Another possibility might just to resolve a thorn that pricks at the wrong time. Envision China involved in some kind of tricky negations, say for oil in the South China Sea, or some such when all of a sudden North Korea gets it into its head to once again rattle the cage of everyone in the area. North Korea may not recognize that they just managed to damage or scuttle an important deal for China but their whole strategy rests of being dangerous and unpredictable and having such a loose cannon randomly going off can easily be seen as counter productive to a China thats...

Those are scenarios I could see developing in ten or twenty years. In that same timeframe, I think that the death of the Dear Leader and an ensuing power struggle within the country could tear the country apart. If I were to put money on self-destruction vs. invasion, I'd probably put money on self-destruction (followed by invasion).


Tarren Dei wrote:
If I were to put money on self-destruction vs. invasion, I'd probably put money on self-destruction (followed by invasion).

No Godzilla?


Tarren Dei wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Alternatively China might agree to this as a better alternative then having Japan or South Korea develop increased anti-ballistic technology. Finally the deal could be seen as a better alternative then increased longterm U.S. presence in the area if tensions were to ratchet up and if America signaled some kind of increased commitment to the Peninsula.

Another possibility might just to resolve a thorn that pricks at the wrong time. Envision China involved in some kind of tricky negations, say for oil in the South China Sea, or some such when all of a sudden North Korea gets it into its head to once again rattle the cage of everyone in the area. North Korea may not recognize that they just managed to damage or scuttle an important deal for China but their whole strategy rests of being dangerous and unpredictable and having such a loose cannon randomly going off can easily be seen as counter productive to a China thats...

Those are scenarios I could see developing in ten or twenty years. In that same timeframe, I think that the death of the Dear Leader and an ensuing power struggle within the country could tear the country apart. If I were to put money on self-destruction vs. invasion, I'd probably put money on self-destruction (followed by invasion).

I agree that your scenario 'its a peace keeping mission!' is probably even more likely then the ones I propose.

I guess my main point is that North Korea, as a state, stopped being useful to its neighbors a while ago (possible exception for Russia which might, possibly, try and use it as a counter balance to China's increased stature in the region) and, unlike many other area's of the world, their is a viable alternative solution. North Korea can be conquered and, if you give it to South Korea, it'll stay that way.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

CourtFool wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
If I were to put money on self-destruction vs. invasion, I'd probably put money on self-destruction (followed by invasion).
No Godzilla?

No Godzilla but ... I'd put money on self-destruction followed by invasion followed by Pulgasari.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
North Korea can be conquered and, if you give it to South Korea, it'll stay that way.

Yes, but you might have to pay them to take it. I agree though, North Korea doesn't have much in the way of friends. The only reason it hasn't been conquered is a conquered North Korea might be more trouble than its worth. Kim Dae-Jung's sunshine policy aimed at rehabilitating North Korea with a mind to a slower form of reunification. Despite the conservative backlash against it within Korea, I still think that was the right way to go.


Tarren Dei wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
North Korea can be conquered and, if you give it to South Korea, it'll stay that way.
Yes, but you might have to pay them to take it. I agree though, North Korea doesn't have much in the way of friends. The only reason it hasn't been conquered is a conquered North Korea might be more trouble than its worth.

Hence the need for 100 Billion over 20 years. Be a rocky road even then as we have seen with Germany.


David Fryer wrote:
Bill Lumberg wrote:
This seems relevant to the discussion.
You bastard, Now I will have to burn that image out with a hot poker.

Send $100,000 to my Swiss Paypal account or there will be more!


Hmmm....changed my mind on a possible Russian stance. I think they gain a lot more by being able to economically integrate their maritime provinces in the booming pacific rim economy then they gain by trying to prop up North Korea as a counter to China. North Korea is 'in the way' more then it is a useful counterbalance.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Hmmm....changed my mind on a possible Russian stance. I think they gain a lot more by being able to economically integrate their maritime provinces in the booming pacific rim economy then they gain by trying to prop up North Korea as a counter to China. North Korea is 'in the way' more then it is a useful counterbalance.

Did we just start playing Risk?

2d6 ⇒ (3, 5) = 8


So North Korea is a nuisance but not worth invading by any of the key players? That about sum it up?


Tarren Dei wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Hmmm....changed my mind on a possible Russian stance. I think they gain a lot more by being able to economically integrate their maritime provinces in the booming pacific rim economy then they gain by trying to prop up North Korea as a counter to China. North Korea is 'in the way' more then it is a useful counterbalance.

Did we just start playing Risk?

2d6

Diplomacy I think.


CourtFool wrote:
So North Korea is a nuisance but not worth invading by any of the key players? That about sum it up?

Probably, unless Kim Jong-Il is really mad enough to do anything that could be seen as an attack. If he keeps to sabre-rattling, nothing will happen.

Regarding the problems with the German reunification (I live about 1 hour away by car from the former frontier, and can well recall the controls visited upon everyone going to West-Berlin), not only are the costs extraordinarily high (estimates vary between 300 billion to 1.6 trillion Euro, and are impossble to determine exactly), but there are more problems to it: after several decades, the industry in the former GDR was so run down that it failed completely with the reunification (the reasons for this are manifold), so unemployment jumped up, and many people went to the western part to search for work, especially the young ones or those with higher education. So, those who remain are out of work, not highly qualified, or are in their old age. (I´m simplifying here, of course). Germany has an overall problem with a low birth rate and folks living ever longer, leading to a shrinking and old society. These problems are even worse in the eastern part.

If I imagine now the regime holding to its power two decades longer, the situation won´t get any better with time - the costs would been even higher, and the economic situation even worde. I can easily see why South Corea is not keen on a reunification anytime soon, even if it were a possibility.

Stefan

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Why it's sane for Kim Jong-il to be mad All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions