I think I stated earlier (and someone said it before me), that the uncle was a likely rival for power. It looks like theya re goign to share power. noone seems to be sure what this means. but it probably means that Jong Un’s days in power are a transition period.
Wait, so you think that the Norks could attack Seoul, and by threatening to obliterate Tokyo, stop the US from reacting to the destruction of Seoul?
Total nonsense.
According to Reuters, there’s not going to be any more one-man dictatorship; Jong-un will have to share power with his uncle and the generals, he’ll be nominal head of a collective leadership.
With such small focuses of power changing hands big change is possible. Could make things better for N Koreans or worse. We’ll just have to wait and see for now.
Or we could invade and liberate the country from a horrible government of oppression. Naw, they don’t have any natural resources we really care enough about controlling.
Call it the try-and-see-umvirate.
That, and we already failed at it once, and have two failing wars on our hands already.
But yeah, sure, let’s liberate them!
Which if we go by the stability of other historical Triumvirates will lead to one party getting eliminated and the other two in a civil war sooner or later.
BTW, interesting report suggests that Kim Jong-Il might have been murdered by the Army potentially because he had just agreed to suspend Uranium enrichment and renegotiate in the six party talks again.
Boy, doesn’t that make you feel optimistic?
regardless of any succession, some kind of standoff between the military and the ruling family was inevitable. The “military first” policy has been a disaster for NK’s internal economy, they’ve played the threaten and get aid angle for about as long as they can.
They either divert resources away from the military, or use that massive army they have. You can bet the generals that would get sidelined are pushing for option b).
Yeah, then why the fuck do we care if they get the nuke? You don’t think nuclear capability is an effective deterrent to retaliation if North Korea limits an invasion of South Korea to conventional warfare?
Do you ascribe any chance to North Korea attacking South Korea because if not, then there is about 50 years of military strategy on the korean peninsula that has been a monumental waste of time, energy and resources.
So North korea invades South Korea and takes over Seoul and lobs a few empty missiles over Tokyo the same day just to remind us that they can hit Tokyo with a nuclear warhead. You think that their nuclear capability doesn’t change our reaction to that attack?
How do we react? Just nuke them and make an example? I wonder how the Japanese would feel about that?
For the record I am not saying that North Korea is likely to do any of that. I’m saying that the dynamics change when you have a nuclear weapon. if you think that’s nonsense then I don’t think you know what you are talking about. And I don’t think invasion requires the destruction of Seoul.
A couple of us mentioned this possibility upthread. It seems to me that Kim jong Un is better off getting his hands on his father’s swiss bank accounts and getting the hell out of there, his days are numbered unless he is willing to be a puppet.
The world ought to be concerned about North Korea and nuclear weapons because (a) at various times, they promised not to get them, (b) they may sell the technology to other countries, (c) it is longstanding US policy to oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and (d) there is the chance that the Norks could use them.
But the idea that the Norks could attack Seoul, killing hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, but stop the US from intervening for fear that Pyongyang might also attack Tokyo, is absurd. If the North attacks Seoul, the US would be responding regardless of threats to Tokyo, Honolulu, Guam, or Los Angeles. No question.
The North HAS attacked the South. On numerous occasions, but in limited ways. Almost certainly the reason the attacks have been limited is because of the US presence and commitment to the defense of the ROK.
The main change in the dynamics is that North Korea is now at much greater risk of being subject to a nuclear first strike by the United States. That the North Koreans would scare the US out of responding to a large attack on the South because they happen to own a handful of nuclear weapons (that don’t even work very well) just doesn’t make sense at all. Do you seriously think it is so easy to blackmail the US into non-intervention on the side of a longstanding ally because of the suspected existence of a handful of nuclear weapons? Really?
And they did sell nuclear technology to Syria several years ago, so that’s a particular concern.
And to Burma too apparently. Story here. There have also been other reports.
And this just in: Kim Jong-il was a party animal. I give you the North Korea Party Rock Anthem.
I respectfully disagree. Give the people of North Korea Iphones, porn and food and they’ll be much to busy for any kind of civil disobedience!
even sven:
I don’t see how we failed. Just because there is still a terrorist resistance in Iraq doesn’t mean we didn’t liberate it from an oppressive government.
What a fucking moron that Carter is.
Breaking their word, attacking their neighbor - this shows that they “deserve respect”.
Idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think “moron” is adequate. If you’re willing to whitewash the unprovoked murder of civilians as mere attention seeking behaviour, that makes you a grade A asshole.