'Should you be worried about North Korea? I went there to find out' (January)
theprepared.com
theprepared.com
Wow.
North Korea is seriously closest to "1984" we have right now.
Awful as they may be, at least N.K. has the balls to be honest about it...
1) Can you explain what the threat is, and to whom?
2) What does NK gain from acting upon the "threat" you specify above?
3) You mentioned NK's position that SK is occupied by "a foreign monster." Where does that thinking come from?
4) You mentioned a "resistance." To what exactly and what would be the regional and/or greater security implications of its "success"?
Thanks.
The threat that many are worried about is some kind of warfare confrontation. Like the false-alarm missile alert in Hawaii that had people terrified for hours.
2) It's certainly not NK's primary game-theory goal to force a confrontation. They get the 80-20 value out of posturing (both inward and outward). But it could come to blows in a number of ways, such as escalating rhetoric causing a misunderstanding that snowballs, and so on.
An imperfect metaphor is two 10 year old boys play wrestling. Things start off fine, they escalate, one pinches another, the other play hits back, escalates more, and it's all "not real" until finally someone crosses the previously-unknown line, causing the other to hit back real hard and storm off.
NK's primary goal is to sustain themselves and the power they hold. They know that history and the world is against them, so they're "punching from their back foot", which is weak but can still hurt. Or like a trapped animal.
3) That thinking comes directly from the regime. It's the classic tactic of creating an enemy to focus/displace blame and justify unpopular actions, whether Steve Jobs obsessing over IBM, the Third Reich with jews, or Putin convincing Russians that America is out to get them.
4) The resistance is to the regime and the way their state is run.
There's a political theory that the US, South Korea, Japan, and China consider when thinking about NK: The sudden liberation of 22 million people who don't know how the world works would be a humanitarian disaster.
I think that's very possible, but one of those "better to bite the bullet now" things.
But the more likely outcome is that the resistance continues to succeed in changing local hearts and minds, one at a time. It's snowballing. Pulling on that thread can eventually lead to a moment like the Berlin wall coming down or the Arab Springs.
1) Is it necessarily helpful to tell people who are already scared, and I would say unreasonably so if we're talking about U.S.-based Americans, to be more frightened (of the N. Koreans, particularly if you recognize that the DPRK is not interested in forcing confrontation)?
2)Thanks for all of this, but I don't think it addresses my question. Again, what does NK gain from being an aggressor? Surely not regime survival. So there must be some other reason. What is it? And if there isn't one, then doesn't that suggest that this issue needs to be viewed from a different perspective?
3) Yes, I understand that the regime promotes this ideology, I'm asking, "why?" Of all the countries that they have to choose from, they picked the U.S. China, though promoted in the U.S. as DPRK's patron, is/was also a threat to them (particularly pre-nuke program "successes". Same w/Russia. So how do they explain their fascination w/the U.S.?
4) > The resistance is to the regime and the way their state is run.
Right, but what is the regionally and geopolitically acceptable outcome?
None of the countries you've mentioned is interested in accepting emigrating DPRKers en masse. Even if they were, how many do you think would remain in those places rather than return to NK? Germany still hasn't fully integrated "East" Germany into the "West" German economy; NHK ran a documentary on NK defectors last year, in which it stated that most who came to SK ended up returning to NK disillusioned by life there. And SK's economy and quality of life for the avg. person, isn't actually all that great.[1]
Whether the regime maintains its (psuedo)control or falls, the country will have to orient itself toward some benefactor(s) (until it can stand on its own, if ever). Depending on the country/ies it chooses, there will be (at least, perceived) repercussions for others.
And the regime has already stated, in effect, that it is interested in (slightly) liberalizing and significantly improving its economy. One example[2]
I'm not asking this rhetorically: The "Arab Springs" were successful in doing what exactly for the affected populations?
[1] I've seen their #s, occasionally follow their domestic news reports, and know people who have lived there and who are there now. [2] (Fox Biz News interview w/ Jim Rogers) https://www.youtu.be/D4Kk6miiymk
1) I understand why you might look at that post as creating fear (because yes, NK is/was a potential threat and that's worth saying), but IMO it intentionally did the opposite among the audience it was intended for.
The Prepared is a site for rational prepping. Most of our audience sees really crazy garbage from other preparedness sites, and it confuses them. Part of that is helping people accurately calibrate their fears. A lot of people thought that we were facing imminent attack. Some people thought "oh it'll be a nothingburger the way Iran is/was."
I think the more people understand what's actually happening and why, the better they can calibrate and address the threat. I felt the media had been failing to properly explain the dynamics, leaving people unable to gauge if/how/why/when things would boil over, so I wanted to add our perspective.
2) I think I did answer the question, but to rephrase: They gain through aggressive posturing, not things actually coming to blows. It's been part of their M.O. for decades, to intentionally exploit the international response models to aggression. They sabre rattle, get some concessions or food aid or propaganda fodder, appear to take a step back, then repeat. It's why they've already signed like 3-4 denuclearization agreements.
They have to toe the line and seem real in order to get the rewards the want.
Which is why I used the 10 yr old play fighting metaphor. It starts off without the intention of turning into a real fight, but the biggest risk is that it inadvertently does. We have two opposing leaders with massive inferiority complexes mixed with paranoia, low intelligence, extremist supporters, and military power.
3) I disagree with your comments on their Russia/China views. The regime knows they have only survived in part because of the patronage of Russia/China (and formerly the GDR/USSR/Libya/etc.) If they were to demonize Russia/China, that would hurt the only economic lifelines keeping things afloat.
Conversely, since the US sided with the south in the Korean war and still maintains a large military presence, it's very easy to position the US as a foreign invader.
They also rewrite history to remove things that would make people think the US is good. Namely, DPRK tells their citizens that the original Kim (grandfather) single-handedly defeated the Japanese occupation in WW2.
Perhaps some of it is simple xenophobia. It's easier to demonize someone very different than someone slightly different. Many westerners don't realize just how bad racism is in Asia.
4) You're correct that a lot of the Northerners who have escaped fail to adjust. Even the ones who go through the special "Truman Show" town-in-a-bubble as part of the South's transition support department have high failure rates, ending up homeless/alcoholic/whatever. Which is exactly why external countries don't suddenly want to support 22M refugees.
I also agree that the Arab Spring didn't do as much as it could've/should've for those populations. But I was referring to the path of how it came to that point, not the aftermath. And there are of course other examples where the same kind of path lead to positive outcomes.
The right proxy is to think of east Berlin or China through the 70s-90s. The more people in the east understood about life in the west, the more it helped them understand what's broken in their country, leading to resentment and a will for change. This is exactly why the Kims kept such a tighter lid on info than those failed peers.
So I think the most acceptable outcome is a path that takes ~10-15 years, with continuing snowballing of the # of people in DPRK who mentally question/disagree with the Kim regime. Maybe something happens like a famine or military coup attempt that kicks things over the edge.
Yes, DPRK has used language about modernizing etc. This is a big reason why they took the risk of opening up the cell network, why they're building more western creature comforts, etc.
It will end up looking like a shittier version of China, with China as the patron. More economic "freedom" (e.g. I was asked to teach entrepreneurship skills at the university in Pyongyang), more travel "freedom" (but vast majority will stay in DPRK), very tightly controlled info, one party system with de facto dictators, military protection from China with internal limits on nukes, etc. But it will be enough to appease citizens through an increase in middle class comfort goods like TV and sugar while turning down international pressure.
There's a chance that turmoil results in the north reunifying with the south, but I think it's less likely than the above scenario.
1) > I felt the media had been failing to properly explain the dynamics
Agreed, and while I appreciate your effort to do so, I think you've missed the mark, actually venturing into adding more of the same. In many respects, despite similarly flawed coverage, I think certain international news agencies have done a much better job at explaining some of the dynamics (which I'll get to in # 2).
You say NK was/is a threat. I'd ask you, just as I've asked current & former diplomats, scholars et al., from the U.S., Japan and S.K., "To whom and/or what?" The answers received have varied very little and have never focused on the people in S.K. In fact, many have been pretty dismissive about the people.
2) > They gain through aggressive posturing, not things actually coming to blows.
Right, and this actually supports my point that they aren't really a threat as is presented by the U.S. and some other foreign media outlets. All the public talk has been about the nuclear threat DPRK poses, but they don't because they literally gain nothing from using whatever it is that they have. In fact, using offensive measures ensures, at a minimum that the regime falls, and at a maximum near total annihilation of the country. Which brings me to # 3.
3) Point 1: The U.S. split the country randomly split the country in two after WW II. I mention this since many Americans don't seem to know that. I've actually seen people presented w/ evidence of that vehemently deny it. Again, the international press, in varying degrees does a better job here by at least mentioning that.
Point 2: For as much as Americans go on an on about dictators and free markets, they again fail to understand that the first gov't of the ROK (S.K) was a dictatorship and it killed a lot of South Koreans. Second, while SK today has a market economy, it's not exactly free ---> chaebol.
Point 3: > * disagree with your comments on their Russia/China views.*
Understandable, but here's the nuance. Years ago, it was reported here in the states the one of the driving forces behind the nuclear program was the persistent fear among the regime leadership that it would be overpowered by its patrons, mainly China. That doesn't get too much coverage today, but it's a legitimate concern. It's the same sort of concern that countries around the world have about U.S., or any other populous country or military power. It's also the similar concern that India and Pakistan have about each other and their neighbors (and btw, how did those two countries come to be?).
> If they were to demonize Russia/China, that would hurt the only economic lifelines keeping things afloat.
Agree, but that doesn't mean that like being dependent, and it also doesn't mean that they couldn't have / can't reach out to the U.S. or Europe to for support and to balance things out. It's not as though the the latter do don't do business with and support "non-democratic" regimes. And as you probably know, the DPRK does/did steady business w/ Europe.
Point 4: > the US sided with the south in the Korean war...
True, and during the war, the Americans obliterated the North, targeting civilian populations during air raids and killing something like 20% of the population. Additionally, Truman had to pull General MacArthur (IIRC) because he kept threatening /trying to nuke NK. This is not info coming from foreign sources, this is stuff that is discussed openly (but not often taught) in the U.S.
So, have past and present DPRK regimes employed propaganda to keep people in line , foment fear, etc.,? Sure. But is all of what they're saying unfounded? No, absolutely not. And it's the media's and politicians' unwillingness to actually acknowledge those sorts of things that diminishes their credibility here (and on other issues).
4) Point 1: > But I was referring to the path of how it came to that point, not the aftermath.
As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Yes, the means are important, but the outcome even more so.
Point 2: > And there are of course other examples where the same kind of path lead to positive outcomes.
Great, hopefully you'll cite them and define "positive outcomes" in the future.
In all, I think media and politicians do viewer/citizens a great disservice by choosing to provide commentary and propaganda over just basic facts. Another notable one being that generally when polling agencies conduct surveys in the countries allied w/the U.S. the respondents often rank the U.S. as one of the top threats to peace and safety. Folks like Kim rise to the top cyclically, but the U.S.'s place is quite consistent. That should give Americans some pause and might actually help them in their preparation.
Again, I thank you for sharing your perspective and wish you all the best.
I see thats done in the US as well, different Kim though