• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

North Korea to enter state of war with South Korea and United States

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
I just don't understand North Korea's president, does he want peace or war?

He wants peace but with the country standing in the boder of economic meltdown for decades, the only way to stop a revolution is keeping the country ready for a fantastic war against an imaginary enemy- namely the US and their Empire and all of that. Without a foreign "threat" to keep them unite, the citizens might start to wonder why they can't have three daily meals all seven days a week.

Not to mention Un was picked to be the next country dictator because he was the "less bad" son in Il's family- he's not really trained for leadership, he's too young in a country full of really old people, and all rumours say his father-in-law is really the one calling the shots and keeping the military at bay. If he doesn't do anything to prove his leadership soon, he risks a coup d'etat from his own army. And the best way to stop that is keeping them busy studying plans to invade California.

Plus, if he gets to negotiate food for "good behaviour", the better for him.

twocows said:
Having a loaded gun is a lot different than firing a loaded gun. Or in this case, pointing a loaded gun at a room full of armed police officers with their assault rifles trained on you and making empty threats at them is a lot different than firing that gun at them.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
More like deciding we don't want to get into another, costly, war.

We'll retaliate should they attack, but still - We'd rather not find ourselves in another war.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
Really? So you know for a fact that is what they are trying to achieve? He has said this? Really? I must have missed that.
You're right, he COULD just be an incompetent idiot, in which case he'd get stomped by every country on all sides and quickly be made into an irrelevant crater. But that's unlikely, because as both of have agreed, they're NOT idiots. Any head of state is going to have some coaching on international politics and foreign policy. Moreover, they're going to be at least somewhat self-motivated. Kim Jong Un, and moreover, most of his staff, is perfectly aware of what would happen if they launched an attack. It would not end well for them. There's only one explanation for why he would be threatening it, and it's something that's already been established by dozens of expert political analysts and makes perfect sense. That explanation is that he is that he is showing he can stand up to the international community to solidify his very tenuous position as head of state.
I understand perfectly, I also understand its never actually gone this far.
False. North Korea has declared war on the US or South Korea a total of five times since the Korean War ceasefire.
I also know even if he sends weapons out no one will still be willing to talk. I also know all this started over broken deals and a nuclear test and/or N korea wanting to launch a satellite into orbit. I also know that they didn't need to put the sanctions on them like they did. Why cant N. Korea launch a satellite into orbit? We have thousands and so do most other countries... It just seems we do our best to maintain power around the world by not letting other countries advance..
I can name several reasons and I'm not even well-versed on the topic. First, because they've threatened to "turn South Korea into a hellscape of fire" or something to that effect (something which they are currently unable to do), and all of the programs the international community has protested against are things that could help them accomplish this goal in some way. Second, because they refuse any significant contact with the outside world; if they sent up a satellite under those conditions, it would probably run into another satellite and destroy it. Third, because developing a nuclear program without any regulation or outside input could very well lead to them blowing THEMSELVES up and making the entire area radioactive. And even if they didn't, see point one.

I'm sure you can use Google if you'd like more reasons. I'm sure nothing I've said hasn't been mentioned already by the mainstream media.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I figure that the US could be trying to defeat NK in a war of words by being the "nice guy" in hopes that NK's antics become more and more irrelevant. When their last real weapon of diplomatic threat disappears, then they would truly be defanged, although they would be all the while more dangerous as they would have nothing but plan B's.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
The difference though is the leader - This is the first war threat (I think) made by Jong Un so we really can't say how it will turn out. Might be like his father - Just talking **** - but he might try to stay to his threats.
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
But again, if they turn their threats into action, they'll win absolutely zero and stand to suffer infinite loss. As young and inexperienced he might be, he needs to be downright brainless to go ahead with them.
 

Gyardosamped

entering snake habitat
1,462
Posts
18
Years
To who? How does a supreme leader need to prove themselves? Do the citizens know its all a facade?

The problem is that the North Korean people don't know it's all a façade. Many have been brainwashed for years to think that their country is the strongest in the world on many levels. Kim Jon-Un is fairly new to the political system left by his forefathers (what can be considered communism), and he's also fairly young. He needs to gain support within his own country and among his generals if he wishes to get anywhere. He also wants to "scare" the international community into thinking he's some sort of paramount ruler that has the Earth's fate in his hands. The sad part is that his generals are probably going to continue to run the show regardless of whether he thinks he's on top or not. He might not be a supreme leader to the international community, but he's greatly idolized by his own people, although most are starving and living in deplorable conditions. They have no other way of knowing what's going on in North Korea or around the world except for what they see in the censored state news that is broadcast throughout the country, and this obviously bias news station depicts North Korea as being a powerful country that the rest of the world is afraid of. We all know the truth, though, but that's just how communism works. If war were to ever break out, I really feel bad for the innocent people living in North Korea, because they are pretty much just products of a corrupt system and regime.
 
Last edited:
14,092
Posts
14
Years
To who? How does a supreme leader need to prove themselves? Do the citizens know its all a facade?

A military dictatorship it may be, but that doesn't mean that all the power is Jong Un's. He also has senior Communist Party officials to worry about. There's always politics to be played within any regime in any country.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
So today I learned that the Korean peninsula had a 99% chance of going communist had the US not intervened.

After the fall of the Japanese, there was a People's Republic of Korea managing a provisional government in the South, as well as a Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in exile in Shanghai. There were also many grassroots people's committees being organized all over the countries. The military occupation didn't like this one bit, as they thought the whole arrangement to be too communist. So they ignored the existing and developing interim governments, and decided to continue military rule.

They ended up appointing Syngman Rhee, an anti-communist ex-member of the Provisional Government of the ROK who was impeached from its leadership 20 years ago for corruption and the abuse of authority (read: he had a dictator's personality). This wasn't enough, so they cracked down on leftist elements like revolutionary organizations and the labour unions. This culminated in an uprising throughout Southern Korea in 1946, with citizens clamouring for socialist goals such as higher wages, the right to organize, and better working conditions. The US military government responded with martial law, police power, strikebreakers, and sending in troops. This ended up crushing the power of the leftist movement in South Korea.

Rhee ended up elected as President of the ROK, but this is after a brutal repression of leftists, torturing/eliminating political enemies, and using the military to shut down rebellions. Repression and corruption become the norms during his role, and a communist insurgency develops. The US doesn't want to send him weapons because they wanted only a defensive military. The North Koreans, however, were much better equipped and by 1950 they were streaming over the 38th parallel, beginning the Korean War. The rest, they say, is history.

Rhee ended up removing term limits and rigging elections. After having the police shoot at demonstrators, Rhee decides that was enough repression for a lifetime and resigns peacefully. There was another dictator, Park Chung-hee, who ruled South Korea for 16 years. Somewhere along the way a whole lot of US aid got thrown in, and the democracy happened and you got your Samsung Galaxy SIII's.

It's rather similar to most other US occupations - entering a foreign country with no understanding of the indigenous culture, eliminating the people determined undesirable under American ideology, bringing in an obscure and dictatorial leader as "our own dog in the fight", and then establishing democracy after the political opposition has been neutralized. You can look in Asia, Latin America, and Africa for similar examples. Except this one ends with smartphones.

I do love Samsung products and Korean cars are great, and my music world would not be complete without K-pop. But it's interesting to wonder how things could have turned out had the US decided to go with the flow of land and people. Undoubtedly North Korea, or shall we say Red Korea wouldn't be stockpiling nukes, starving its people for an army - as their would be no purpose for that, and there wouldn't be screaming hellfire and brimstone against the United States, because it wouldn't be an enemy. Without an atmosphere of fear I doubt that the military would grow to be the power it is today. I wouldn't say there would be a democratic transition - but who's to say that there wouldn't have been one? And surely they would have transitioned to a capitalist economy like China is doing right now. If you read the history of North Korea, you will find that there were plenty of opportunities for change that were nipped away one by one.

South Korea, as we know it today, is not simply glitz and glamour but a product of US intervention. We the youth have clear memories of Iraq and Afghanistan, and our parents and grandparents can remember Vietnam. In the middle were plenty of Cold War conflicts involving US-backed coups and dictators, but nobody seems to remember those. It was mindblowing for me to look back at the history of the Korean peninsula to understand how it all came to be today. Perhaps there would have been peace in Korea had things gone the way history intended.

--
tl;dr - I read some history of NK and learned how SK came to be at the expense of local governments and the people's wishes. This doesn't excuse NK's behaviour today, but it is very sobering to put today's situation in its historical context. I thought it would be a good idea to bring to you guys a slice of history that is so relevant but unheard of. Don't start boycotting Samsung smartphones - those are great.
 

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire

10000 year Emperor of Hoenn
17,521
Posts
13
Years
I've thought about that too, would Korea had gone the route of Eastern Europe, and Chian had we not intervened? The US almost came close to doing that with China too, but Truman decided to avoid it. In the end the fall of China to Communism led to the fear that others will follow, Korea and Vietnam became those places, thus why the U.S. became so hardline on containment during the 50's and onwards until the fall of communism in Europe (eastern and Russia/Soviet Union). Could the U.S. have unknowly made things worse than if we hadn't tried to contain it? creating a presurized bottle in the process that now threatens to explode in the region.
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
@BlahisSuck: I'm personally glad a part of the country got out of a tyrannical dictatorship and got to enjoy freedom. Peace at the cost of slavery is not worth it.

This also proves how the key to turning corrupt regimes into democracies is not as much the Americans opening war against the State but them throwing money in return for milestones- free elections, free markets, etc. The carrot is much more successful than the bomb.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
http://rt.com/news/pyongyang-foreigners-evacuation-koreas-545/

Now they are telling foreigners in South Korea to vacate.

Also, some rumors are that N. Korea is planning another nuclear test. In light of this...

qik1365491331a.jpg
 
Last edited:

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire
1,229
Posts
14
Years
http://rt.com/news/pyongyang-foreigners-evacuation-koreas-545/

Now they are telling foreigners in South Korea to vacate.

Also, some rumors are that N. Korea is planning another nuclear test. In light of this...

qik1365491331a.jpg


Yea i just read that on CNN, its gotten to the point where his threats aren't getting him nowhere and to keep making these threats would be pointless. I highly doubt at this point he intends to stop either, IMO its only a matter of time before WAR is officially declared and we invade..
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
I've lost the link to this and am to lazy to look for it but N. Korea has hinted at something happening on the 10th. I think.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
@BlahisSuck: I'm personally glad a part of the country got out of a tyrannical dictatorship and got to enjoy freedom. Peace at the cost of slavery is not worth it.

This also proves how the key to turning corrupt regimes into democracies is not as much the Americans opening war against the State but them throwing money in return for milestones- free elections, free markets, etc. The carrot is much more successful than the bomb.

One of my main arguments was that there wouldn't have been a tyrannical dictatorship had there not been a division. The military would not achieve the relevance it has without a war and the South, and while the government may still be authoritarian, life in Korea wouldn't be terrible. You can compare it to China and Vietnam today - fast growing economies without democracy, but a rising quality of life and relative freedom for the majority. It certainly wouldn't be slavery if you take that to be what North Korea is today - because it wouldn't be North Korea, and I don't know if you'd describe life in China as slavery.

And you say "got to enjoy freedom" like it's nothing but the Korean people worked for it after decades of coups after one another, dictators after one another, repression and martial law. It took over 40 years for the South Koreans to achieve democracy as they practice it today. I'm not sure what you mean by slavery, but the South Koreans did not enjoy American-style rights and freedoms until 1987. Human rights awareness in the national consciousness didn't kick in until 1992. Democracy is a process, not a mere entitlement but something that is earned. It isn't so simple as leaving a dictatorship and establishing democracy like a 1-2 process.

It's easy to bash "slavery" when we live in North America, because we live in so much wealth and when a poor standard of living is caused by less rights and freedoms than more of it. In developing Asian countries, even an authoritarian government can ensure rising incomes and lowering poverty instead of causing it. Peace - material security is a priority in many areas of the world less developed than ours, so I feel it is an oversimplification to make the description "peace at the cost of slavery".
 
Back
Top