Hacker News Reader

I would add,

5. China topples the NK regime and offloads the starving nation onto South Korea. That would ensure the end of Korean competition for decades, as the economic price of reunification would be humongous, yet the Koreans would not be able to turn this offer down.

I would not underestimate the productivity of millions of starving people. China is very competitive despite most of their population living in subsistence. It is an endless pool of cheap labor.

Combine the technological advancements of South Korea with a pool of 'cheap' North Korean labor and you've got the makings of an economic powerhouse. Not that South Korea is not in it's own right.

North Korea is poor because of the way their resources are squandered, not because of the geography or the people. North Korea could easily feed itself if it stopped buying missiles and developing nuclear weapons.

Consider this: This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

China is positively prosperous compared to DPRK.

Key issue here is whether the influx of cheap unqualified labor will outweigh the necessary investments into infrastructure, reeducation, integration and peacemaking for the territories.

>Combine the technological advancements of South Korea with a pool of 'cheap' North Korean labor and you've got the makings of an economic powerhouse.

China can do that because of in their political system the concept of Human Rights is basically none-existent. The ruling elite can treat some portion of their population as they please and they don't have to answer to anybody.

China, as long as the Communist Party in power (and doesn't get through any political reform), will have a very strong interest in keeping the current NK regime. Sure, sometimes NK is annoying, but most of the time, NK is a tremendous leverage for the current China regime to negotiate with the U.S. and SK. However, things do get more dynamic once the succession of Kim Jong Un comes into play. If China were 10 years ago (Jiang in power), I would expect that some China supported military leader in NK will topple off the kid and start some kind of economic reform. But as for now, the China regime becomes more conservative and IMHO, even itself isn't holding much belief in economic reform, I doubt that would be a likely scenario.

Interesting, seems unlikely but reality has always outpaced fiction and speculation in weirdness.

I doubt that it would stall the South Korean economy quite as much as you imagine. There would be a lot of foreign aid coming in as well as foreign investment. And economic growth in the North would likely be rapid. It's one of those things that we won't really know how it'll go until it happens (if it does).

Well the only known example, the German economy took massive hit with reunification, felt even today. And there was much less of a chasm there in economic, infrastructure, political and social terms.

Unfortunately your option 4 is the wishful thinking the starry-eyed idealists in our foreign service and media have been whispering among themselves for 20 years. The Chinese coms like the regime in the North very much, thank you. It keeps regional rivals Japan and South Korea off guard, and keeps the U.S. tied-up. The Kim dynasty could not even exist without the backing of the PRC. We let slip the window of opportunity to exert pressure to change the situation in the early 90s. Instead we sent nuclear technology, oil, and food, which Kim tells his people is tribute from the U.S.

2. Hot war breaks out (precipitated by the DPRK or the South or the US), the North loses fairly quickly, there are catastrophic civilian casualties in the South and the North and perhaps elsewhere (e.g. the North launches a nuke or chemical weapons or what-have-you against Japan or the US, just 'cause it can), American military losses are comparatively minor in comparison to everything else. Ultimately, the industrial base and economy of the Korean peninsula is in shambles and is all the worse for having to deal with bringing the North into the 20th (let alone 21st) century, despite lots of foreign aid it's still a shitty situation for a lot of people for a long, long time.

Not so fast. The North has millions of trained, ready soldiers and nukes, and a single-minded determination to fight to the end. A full-blown war would cost millions of lives on all sides, and a win for us is not certain at all. It could easily end with a bloody stalemate and new truce after they've conquered most of the south and we lose the will to send >100,000 US soldiers to die. Just look at how it went the first time. The army of North Korea is quite formidable.

The DPRK has a large standing army, but its armaments are 50 years out of date, and its food supplies are limited at best.

If the South tried to invade the North, the DPRK army could probably wage an effective guerilla war. But if you're invading another country, you don't have that advantage.

The first Iraq war demonstrated that in conventional military confrontations, obsolete tanks and aircraft have little chance against their more modern counterparts. The DPRK would also have to cross the most heavily fortified DMZ in the world, and somehow maintain a supply chain with enemy forces controlling the air and sea. It wouldn't really work.

The first Iraq war demonstrated that in conventional military confrontations, obsolete tanks and aircraft have little chance against their more modern counterparts.

Iraq invasion also showed that to be true. However, war is not won until ground troops get a hold of control over conquered area - which is something US troops never were able to do (not counting japan after WWII - which is not the same as modern conflicts).

Yes, and that's why I said that on their own turf, the DPNK might be able to wage a successful guerilla war. My disagreement was with the idea DPNK had a realistic chance of invading the South.

That said, I'm also not entirely convinced a guerilla war would be successful, either. The foundation of DPNK propaganda is Korean nationalism, and a good guerilla war needs an enemy that can be demonised. It would be tricky for the DPNK to try and paint the South as inhuman after harping on about unification for so long.

The last Korean war was backed by opposing superpowers, but North Korea doesn't have anyone backing it up this time. China is sympathetic because it doesn't like the idea of NK refugees flooding over its border, but it's not going to help out if a conflict begins.

I've seen the argument that China likes that lots of US resources and attention is tied up with the axis of North Korea, Iran and Syria.

If that is true, then don't hold your breath for too much of changes in the NK status quo.