rtsk said:
No, Kim's regime is developing those weapons. And it's the regime's continued existence they're interested in, not the existence of the country itself or the people within. It's perfectly understandable to want to get rid of that regime - it'd let the people reach their potential.
Ooh I just love the widespread militarism argument. Let's see. Israel has been in 4 major wars since 1948, the latest in '73. Wars that they won, all of them. 3 of these wars were started by the countries around them, countries that wanted to obliterate them. Israel has to be militaristic to ensure its very survival. Israel was the first democracy in the region, and is arguably the only proper one there (apart from Lebanon, which isn't seen by Israel as a threat anyway). On the other hand, North Korea is led by a crazy (albeit very intelligent) man who is hell-bent on the survival of his repressive, and, quite frankly, utterly stupid regime. NK is one of the only communist countries (which haven't collapsed) not to have even relaxed its economic marxism in the slightest. The situation there will just get more desperate unless big changes are made.
And the budget figures are a good comparison to make, let's take a look:
North Korea:
Expenditures ~7 billion, 31.3% of GDP
Israel:
~9.5 billion, 7.7% of GDP
South Korea:
21.06 billion, 2.6% of GDP
Australia:
17.84 billion, 2.7% of GDP
USA:
518.1 billion, 4% of GDP
Japan:
44.31 billion, 1% of GDP
China:
81.48 billion, 4.3% of GDP
So, NK's military expenditure as a percentage of GDP is 4 times that of Israel. And about a third of SK absolutely.
And yes, NK is doing this to gain concessions, looking back to the example of pakistan IMO.
There isn't much love lost between Pakistan, China, and India in any combination, but they're very unlikely to go to war.
In fact, the next major conflaguration will likely be in the middle-east IMHO.
They didn't lose to the North Koreans, they lost to the Chinese. And a more significant factor than the US army vs the North Korean army is the South Korean army vs the North Korean army. Back in 1950, the North Koreans had the newest Soviet tanks (among the best in the world), and the South Koreans has essentially nothing. Now, the South Korean army far outclasses the North Korean army, and would win a conventional battle hands-down (ie no WMD use). South Korea doens't want war, and nor does North Korea... plus SK has an achilles heel in the form of the proximity of Seoul to the border - a city of essentially 20 million 20 kilometres from the DMZ. And NK is not comparable to Vietnam, the US is not trying to perpetuate the tyrranical rule of a thoroughly unpopular regime.
The existence of North Korea is depedent on the existence of the Communist regime. That is the point of NK.
I do not see how Israel winning 4 wars make its a "good guy". Iraq (my country) won the war against Kuwait, but you don't see anyone trumpetting the heroism of the Iraqi army.
North Korea has higher military expenditure by GDP because it is an underdeveloped country, but still requires a military capable of fending off the US Army. Like Israel, it is surrounded by its enemies and must fight for its survival, however you don't see everyone weeping sympathy for it. However, if you look at military expenditure per capita, then it is Israel which is 4 times as militaristic as North Korea.
In 1950, China had just come out of a decades long civil war that had destroyed it as a nation, so its army was inherently weak, it could not have simply been the deciding factor in a war against the US, especially considering that Chinas army is still only one third the strength of the US army.
The reasons for the war in Vietnam played a very small part in the reason for withdrawal. The reason was the 60 000 dead US soldiers. Even in Iraq (my nation of birth and origin), where only 3000 soldiers have died, for a regime that is winning elections (even though I'm against it), democrats and moderate republicans are asking for the withdrawal of US forces. In a war against NKs army, while it is inferior, NK will deal enough blows to make US public opinion turn against the war.
You just admitted that both South Korea and North Korea don't want war, that is my entire point...
What can I say? You did not even state how it is practically a military dictatorship. This is a very black and white issue, a nation is either a military dictatorship or it is not. If the power does not reside in the military, then it is not a military dictatorship. The power in NK rests in the Korean Workers Party and its head, Kim Jong-Il. Since he is not a member of the army, NK isn't a military dictatorship.
It's an entirely different situation, as I mentioned above. Plus, Israel actually has *nukes*. And I mean almost certainly deuterium/tritium devices as well, and the delivery systems for them. Bombs that can take out cities, bombs thousands of times more powerful than anything NK could manufacture. And I doubt NK could attach them to their missiles - I think they'd settle with hitting Seoul, especially as they appear to have tested a Neutron bomb (if anything)
That explains why Arab nations wish to wipe it off the map. What other reason would Israel have those bombs other than to bomb Arabs? Now tell me, why did you make an entirely new post, where the only content of the post is to ecstatically flaunt Israels awesome weapons, which has nothing to do with North Korea?
US did not invade North Korea in 1950-1953, it was North Korea who invaded South Korea and UN intervened with US as the principal fighting force to defend South Korea from communist north. The strength of North Korea was not an issue it was China and USSR the US actually feared after the war. If it was not Chinese communist volunteers North Korea will not exist today.
And for your information neither north korea nor the US lose the korean war, they were and are still in stalemate along 38th parallel latitude.
I think NK have struck good chord here, they now have some negotiation power, economic sanctions will prove useless if NK threatens to nuke any country nearby.
How do they use their negotiation power if the US refuse bilateral negotiation? This nuclear test shows the desperateness of North Korea in trying to negotiate with US. North Korea already issued threat and we will see in the next few days how the UN react. The country is already crippled by US sanctions alone and if South Korea , japan and even EU followed suit they have nothing else but starve. The minute they launch their nuclear bomb against its neighbour is the day North Korea cease to exist as a nation. I do not think they are dumb enough to commit mass suicide yet, Kim Jong Il loves luxury life too much, why should he prefer to die while he can live and enjoy at the expense of 22 million starving people
That is correct, NK invaded South Korea. However, I was simply proving that the US is not simply trying to wait for NK to wither away, that is has tried to confront NK and it failed.
China had just come out of civil war a year earlier, after their entire nation had been picked to the bone. China has hardly in the position to have a mighty military capable of withstanding the US. What may be a more correct analogy of the Korean war was that North Korea was logistically supported by China and the USSR, when it came to weapons, hardware, and their deployment.
Yes, the Korean war was a stalemate, however, if the objective was to destroy the North Korean state, then it failed. My point was that the US cannot simply destroy North Korea.
This will get the US to enter bilateral negotiations, that is how it will help. Welcome to the 21st Century, here politics works in a way where you win wars and develop you army in order to get a better position at the peace table. That is what war is about now, being in a better position at future talks. The US will now have to enter bilateral negotiations, as it must quickly defuse this situation.
The situation of famine in the DPRK is quite exaggerated. the Life expectancy is 71.65 years, up in the range of developed countries, and not much lower than South Koreas 77.04 years. Tell me, if the situation of famine was so bad that everyone was starving, why is it that the DPRK has a life expectancy only 6 years lower than its affluent neighbour?