They have the nukes, they’re always going to have the nukes. That ship has sailed. Getting nukes ensures that they won’t be attacked by the US. Using them ensures that they would be attacked. So Un has no reason to use them. We tolerate the Pakistanis, Israelis, and Indians having them and we don’t seem worried about them using them. This is the new normal and there isn’t much we can do about it short of sacrificing as a minimum hundreds of thousands of South Koreans.
This. It’s easy for us to talk tough, they have to live there.
North Korea is acting out of fear and weakness, not strength.
Kim is trying to to ensure his own security by deterring any attempts by the US or any other country to overthrow or undermine him. His threat is, ‘you try to take me down and I can do some damage before you destroy me’.
That’s why engaging with North Korea and trying to integrate them more into the world economy would be far more effective than posturing or threats by the west. The North Korean regime will collapse of it’s own accord sooner rather than later. But excessive pressure, and stoking up fear in North Korea, will only extend the life of the regime.
But that would end the NK regime and Kim’s personal rule as fast as military defeat.
I don’t think so. In China, the Communist Party is still very much in control, despite decades of extensive integration into the world economy and huge economic development.
You’re making the case that the repressive government in Pyongyang will have to moderate its policies if it had more international trade; and to support this theory you cite the government in Beijing which has not moderated any policies through decades of growth in international trade.
I see a problem here.
China has in fact moderated many policies, and conditions in China have been constantly improving for hundreds of millions of people. I suggest you check the facts.
On North Korea, I am saying that there will be less militarism and less possibility of conflict if they don’t feel so threatened by the US. Conditions in the country will tend to ease and improve. Also the senior members of the government may feel more willing to overthrow Kim if they don’t feel that they have to stand together against external threats.
I see your need to ‘testify’ to the US as bad guy on mainly US forum. What would English language internet boards be without that? 
But it’s basically a non-sequitur on this question. Aside from debating how ‘genocidal’ US air operations in the Korean War were (actually pretty debatable), the expressed desire of the US to have North Korea liberated from one of the worst regimes anywhere, ever, is not contested. So the logic works equally well from the Kim dynasty POV to keep themselves in power via a nuke/BM program whether the US is ‘really’ the good guy or the bad guy.
The problem with the logic is where very reasonable doubt about whether the Kim dynasty really is logical, from the outside POV, means they eventually harm their own interests with nuke/BM program where the US wouldn’t have actually launched any kind of war against them without it. They’ve lacked it a long time up to now, no US launched war on DPRK. But the US and other outside countries may reasonably see the program as an intolerable threat.
And while China definitely doesn’t see this problem exactly as the US does, it doesn’t necessarily see nuke/BM armed DPRK as a good thing either. And so might take some action. And the Kim dynasty will probably fall eventually without any further isolation. Even moderate cooperation by China with the US might end up the straw that breaks the camel’s back, even if China is not seeking it. That’s where the Kim logic could break down. But it’s doubtful how if at all the program is really about US Korean War bombing tactics.
Have you ever lived in China? I have.
And…?
How do you compare overall conditions for the majority of people all over China today, with 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?
Oh come off it. You are much more intelligent than that. The US is not the bad guy, or the good guy, in international relations those things don’t exist. Until one party surrenders to the other, then surrender receiving party can delineate whoever they want as good or bad.
The USAF bombing policy went out with the express aim of killing as many people as possible. And killed about 20% of the North’s population. It’s hardly debatable. Any other nations which suffered such losses would remember it for decades.
The main reason why the US did not invade North Korea after 1953 was due to fear of a wider war with China or the CCCP. From the POV of the N Koreans its farilry easy to see why in the 1990’s those assumptions cannot be maintained.
-
The collapse of the CCCP and the relative weakness of Russia for 10-15 years afterward removed that threat/umbrella from the calculus.
-
The fact that PRC has gone from having no relations with the US to being the US’s largest trading partner; meaning that PRC support cannot be taken for granted.
-
The US’s undoubted and unmatched capabilities and propensity for employing them on often spurious grounds as seen in Iraq and Vietnam. As well as forced changes of Governments deemed unfriendly, often with deleterious consequences for affected countries.
I can certainly see why even a non-Kim North Korean government might see nuclear weapons and missile program as a necessity. And just because you can understand a nation or a people’s motivations, does not mean that you agree with them or like the person.
Saying the US has done what it perceives to be in its own interests and which is seen by third parties has potentially been troubling for them iand that they might be wary of it being replicated with them; is not being Anti or indeed pro, American.
Not to mention the fact that the British Empire and the Imperial Germany were each others largest trading partner. German Battleships used British turbines made in Newcastle. Did not prevent WW1.
The main reason that the US did not invade North Korea after 1953 is that it had absolutely no interest in doing so. None. There was nothing to be gained by doing so, and South Korea certainly didn’t support that. If the US wasn’t going to try and use all weapons at it’s disposal in 1953, it wasn’t go to gear up for another major ground war years later.
China didn’t stand aside the first time, there is no evidence that they would the second time. The fact that there is some ongoing military friction between China and the US is evidence of that. Nothing was going to make the US or the American people support another ground war in Korea, short of an invasion by NK.
And how did that work out for the US? Were they a rousing success? Does that seem to make the American people more likely to support and even bloodier war than either of those two? The Korean war ended 64 years ago, the Vietnam war ended 44 years ago. Not sure they are great examples of the US chomping at the bit to get into another protracted ground war in Asia.
You seem to be indicating that NK is acting in a rational way. If you are going to use that model, you have to ask if their assumptions are rational.
The Korean war ended 64 years ago. In all that time, the United States has made no effort that I’m aware of to garner support to invade NK. Regime change yes, invasion no. South Korea efforts with it’s sunshine policy and other efforts to work with NK, combined with the destruction of Seoul and other parts of SK in the event of war make it virtually impossible that the US would ever invade NK.
NK is protecting it’s regime, nothing more, nothing less.
You’ve trotted out the American bombing of NK twice in this thread. Once using the term “genocidal.” I think that the unbiased observer would believe that stating the US was practicing genocide would be viewed as Anti-American.