Thanks for the nice convo!
35 karma · joined August 27, 2017
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.
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.
But then as some things get routine, new things pop up or focus changes into fancy UX, etc etc.
So the net effect might be a wash in terms of hours / investment, even though things that were hard 10 years ago no longer are.
Lots of preppers do it because they want to be able to help their community in a crisis. They also actively work to prevent the disasters from happening in the first place. Being prepared in case they do is just a smart hedge.
Here are two quotes from one of our posts about why people prep:
Debbie W. from Liberal Preppers says, “I want to develop — and share — skills that are useful to the community at large, that increase the likelihood of the community as a whole prospering in adversity.”
Kevin R. told us that he believes “the movement is expanding from the traditional stereotypical prepper to non-white, non-cisgendered people taking more responsibility for their self sufficiency, taking control of their lives, learning skills and obtaining tools to take care of neighbors as well as their immediate family.”
Why does that sound like a cop out? Economic decline, the U.S. erosion of the fundamentals of a quality life, overpopulation / too many dependents and not enough young workers, etc... those are all valid reasons to prepare.
As is preparing for car accidents, sudden layoffs, floods, and so on.
Then on the other hand, if you're in a civil unrest situation outside of your home, moving is better than not.
I know it'll seem like I have an ulterior motive, but it's the opposite - we recently started our site after teaching people one-to-one for a decade because we've seen it go mainstream just in the last 1-2 years, and particularly since the election.
Almost everyone starts off thinking it's a fringe thing until they find out their friends and neighbors are into it too.
As someone else said, very sane people like Musk, Hawkings, and Gates are warning of AI CRISPR.
It's not the cliche SkyNet or Ghost in the Shell stuff per se. For example, automation and how it's effecting the economy really does matter, regardless of how much we in the valley would like to avoid that narrative.
Our URL redirects are for our analytics.
Have been prepping in the SF / startup community for almost 10 years and teaching other techies how to prep for a long time, but historically was face to face because of stigma, etc.
We started The Prepared because prepping is very rational and it's gone mainstream enough to have threads like this on HN.
Beginners checklist here: https://theprepared.com/guides/emergency-preparedness-checkl...
Post on reasons why liberals should be preppers: https://theprepared.com/blog/five-reasons-why-liberals-shoul...
Happy to help anyone in their journey.
(long time personal HN members but this is a new account)