Will North Korea collapse in the next 4 years?

[angrysoba]

Look, I'm not about to bicker with you over opinions. I lived in South Korea for a total of 12 years of my adult life. I have family there now and I own property in the Seoul area. I was living there when Kim, Dae Jung was President, so I'm quite well aware of the "Sunshine Policy" and when it was. Furthermore, I was on active duty with the US Military for 4 of those years I was there as an adviser to the US Army's 2nd Division and privy to US Intelligence to the Top Secret Level. I have stood in Panmunjom on numerous occasions and looked at the NK Guards eyeball to eyeball.

What are your credentials to call anyone clueless?

BTW, if there are doves in power in NK I wish you tell us who they are?

I didn't say there was. I said it is clueless to say there are. It is a line often spun by people like Bruce Cumings and Selig Harrison that what we really need to do is start giving the North Koreans lots and lots of goodies at all times so that the doves can keep the hawks at bay. This is the idea I said was clueless, and the reason why they spin it is because this is what regime advisers whisper in their ears when they are on one of their many visits to the country.

I wasn't calling you clueless.

 

[Reheat]

I wasn't calling you clueless.

Since you were addressing my post I interpreted it that way...

What you say with regard to Soviet support is true, but that support was waning in the very late 70's and early 80's. The same sort of rhetoric was heard after Kim, Il Sung died as we now hear about the grandson. He (Kim, Jong Il) doesn't have the support of the Generals, hasn't consolidated his power, etc., etc.

Of course, they were pursuing nuke development during the early to mid 90's, but when did they actually have a final product? As I recall it was well into the Kim, Dae Jung Presidency that we knew they had nukes. I actually thought someone would assassinate him after he left office as most South Korean adults were very angry after they discovered he had given tons of $$ to Kim, Jong Il. As I said earlier I think that $$ was a key factor in their final development of nuke weapons.

I recall reading a CIA assessment that they only had about 3 or 4 years to survive in about 1985 or 86.

As I said earlier I don't believe anything will change without outside intervention. Even many South Koreans can be easily swayed by the purity theme of NK propaganda. As a generalization most South Koreans are very bigoted about race (how well I know) and are easily influenced by that. Of course, that's not the only factor most South Koreans consider in their view of NK, but it does have influence, particularly along the DMZ where it is aimed at the young SK soldiers. SK Army leaders have to keep reminding their troops of the bigger picture, but there is really not enough as there should be of that type of training to combat the propaganda bombardment.

 

[angrysoba]

Since you were addressing my post I interpreted it that way...

What you say with regard to Soviet support is true, but that support was waning in the very late 70's and early 80's. The same sort of rhetoric was heard after Kim, Il Sung died as we now hear about the grandson. He (Kim, Jong Il) doesn't have the support of the Generals, hasn't consolidated his power, etc., etc.

Of course, they were pursuing nuke development during the early to mid 90's, but when did they actually have a final product? As I recall it was well into the Kim, Dae Jung Presidency that we knew they had nukes. I actually thought someone would assassinate him after he left office as most South Korean adults were very angry after they discovered he had given tons of $$ to Kim, Jong Il. As I said earlier I think that $$ was a key factor in their final development of nuke weapons.

I recall reading a CIA assessment that they only had about 3 or 4 years to survive in about 1985 or 86.

As I said earlier I don't believe anything will change without outside intervention. Even many South Koreans can be easily swayed by the purity theme of NK propaganda. As a generalization most South Koreans are very bigoted about race (how well I know) and are easily influenced by that. Of course, that's not the only factor most South Koreans consider in their view of NK, but it does have influence, particularly along the DMZ where it is aimed at the young SK soldiers. SK Army leaders have to keep reminding their troops of the bigger picture, but there is really not enough as there should be of that type of training to combat the propaganda bombardment.

Thanks for your insights. It seems we pretty much agree on all the main points. And it could well be that the bribes ended up making the difference in the final stages of the nuke programme, yet I think they were pretty much on their way to that anyway.

I think that for the most part, what we should expect is what has gone before.

Of course, there is always the possibility that things could change suddenly and unexpectedly, as the Arab Spring took everyone by surprise.

 

[McHrozni]

I'd say you're in for quite a lot of disappointment then.

Nah, I don't have that much hope in things turning out for the best in North Korea. It will be a very tiny disappointment, similar to not being able to catch a green light and have to stop at red or maybe having to turn a sock inside out in the morning

Not trying to be cynical, just realistic. I'm less "cynical" (pessimistic) about the new president of Iran and hold out some hope that maybe some detente may be possible there, and maybe even more normalized relations eventually if Iran can change its ways. I say this just to show that I am not a knee-jerk cynic about these things.

To be frank I'm more pessimistic about Iran than about North Korea. At least in North Korea things literately can't get much worse. Plus Iran has a collective leadership that can't easily change their ways, North Korea appears to have the power concentrated in an absolute monarch, see below.

I see no reason for optimism about North Korea. The prison camps are expanding, people are being purged and executed or sent to prison camps left and right. A popular singer and former girlfriend of Kim and many others were executed for making a porn flick. And these are not humane executions either. They force the families to watch and use it to traumatize them and intimidate them. In short, I think this is a psychopathic regime with a strong streak of cruelty and sadism to it.

If you are looking for reasons to be optimistic, I suppose you could point to small things, like the Dennis Rodman basketball diplomacy as a glimmer of hope, but that's not much grounds for optimism compared to the prison camps and the purges and the mass executions IMO. I think Kim just thinks he could be a useful idiot.

The reason I see for optimism is that the young Kim was schooled abroad until relatively recently and could realistically have different ideas for his country than his father and grandfather had. The expansion of camps, the increasingly severe repression and arrests are exactly what he would need to do to start changing his country. He's not a puppet, he's in charge and there are fewer and fewer people who could oppose him. If he were a puppet, North Korea would certainly be doomed to another generation of suffering and misery, now there is potential for change.

The change may not happen, he could just as if not more easily have the exact same idea as his father and grandfather about how his country should be, but still doesn't want to be a mere puppet and wants to be in personal control. In that case North Korea indeed is doomed to another generation of suffering and misery, but that was the baseline scenario anyway.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Nah, I don't have that much hope in things turning out for the best in North Korea. It will be a very tiny disappointment, similar to not being able to catch a green light and have to stop at red or maybe having to turn a sock inside out in the morning



To be frank I'm more pessimistic about Iran than about North Korea. At least in North Korea things literately can't get much worse. Plus Iran has a collective leadership that can't easily change their ways, North Korea appears to have the power concentrated in an absolute monarch, see below.



The reason I see for optimism is that the young Kim was schooled abroad until relatively recently and could realistically have different ideas for his country than his father and grandfather had. The expansion of camps, the increasingly severe repression and arrests are exactly what he would need to do to start changing his country. He's not a puppet, he's in charge and there are fewer and fewer people who could oppose him. If he were a puppet, North Korea would certainly be doomed to another generation of suffering and misery, now there is potential for change.

The change may not happen, he could just as if not more easily have the exact same idea as his father and grandfather about how his country should be, but still doesn't want to be a mere puppet and wants to be in personal control. In that case North Korea indeed is doomed to another generation of suffering and misery, but that was the baseline scenario anyway.

McHrozni

Hmmm... don't get me wrong, but that sounds eerily similar to the most terrible rationalizations for concentration camps I have ever heard. After all, isn't that exactly what the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge said, "Look, guys! We gotta put the reactionaries in camps to steer the country to a better tomorrow!"

In some cases they really thought expanding prison camps and purging wrong 'uns was genuinely the way forward.

 

[McHrozni]

Hmmm... don't get me wrong, but that sounds eerily similar to the most terrible rationalizations for concentration camps I have ever heard. After all, isn't that exactly what the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge said, "Look, guys! We gotta put the reactionaries in camps to steer the country to a better tomorrow!"

In some cases they really thought expanding prison camps and purging wrong 'uns was genuinely the way forward.

I'm not condoning or excusing his behavior. However, if he were to change the regime from the inside, this would likely be necessary, and a strategcally good first step.

There are no good scenarios for NK now. Only bad and worse ones. This one is far from worst.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not condoning or excusing his behavior. However, if he were to change the regime from the inside, this would likely be necessary, and a strategcally good first step.

There are no good scenarios for NK now. Only bad and worse ones. This one is far from worst.

McHrozni

Not necessarily. This is not how the Soviet Union was transformed.

Anyway, there is no evidence whatsoever that this latest purge has anything to do with reform; purges in the past - and there have been many - have never been about reform so it would be foolish to think this one should be any different.

 

[McHrozni]

Not necessarily. This is not how the Soviet Union was transformed.

It's not terribly different either. Most of the crucial people around Stalin were purged. Beria was executed, Molotov became ambassador to Mongolia, and so on. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Stalin did, but if you want to turn a country like that around, a purge is unfortunately necessary. We have only a faint idea as to what happened to this uncle of the new ... Great General (iirc?), but it doesn't seem to be radically different from that.

One thing we should keep in mind is that USSR in 1953 also finished fighting a major war recently. North Korea hasn't fought in a war (though technically being in one) since that same year, 60 years ago. Khrushchev wasn't just some new kid on the block, he was known as the hangman of Ukraine prior to the war, because of his role as governor there, plus he was important in the battle of Stalingrad. He already had respect and fear of many, and didn't need to generate much more. This is not the case with Kim Yong Un, he is literately a new kid on the block. If both men had a fundamentally similar goal, Khrushchev faced a much easier job.

Despite the many painful similarities, there are important, objective differences between USSR in 1953 and NK in 2013. We can't just assume what worked in the former would also worked in the latter if done in the identical way.

Anyway, there is no evidence whatsoever that this latest purge has anything to do with reform; purges in the past - and there have been many - have never been about reform so it would be foolish to think this one should be any different.

This is in part why I don't invest much hopes for improvements. However, any eventual improvements will start in this way we see now, or worse. There is no evidence one way or another, but expecting the worst, and only the worst to happen serves nothing, even if it turns out to be correct in the end

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

It's not terribly different either. Most of the crucial people around Stalin were purged. Beria was executed, Molotov became ambassador to Mongolia, and so on. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as what Stalin did, but if you want to turn a country like that around, a purge is unfortunately necessary. We have only a faint idea as to what happened to this uncle of the new ... Great General (iirc?), but it doesn't seem to be radically different from that.

One thing we should keep in mind is that USSR in 1953 also finished fighting a major war recently. North Korea hasn't fought in a war (though technically being in one) since that same year, 60 years ago. Khrushchev wasn't just some new kid on the block, he was known as the hangman of Ukraine prior to the war, because of his role as governor there, plus he was important in the battle of Stalingrad. He already had respect and fear of many, and didn't need to generate much more. This is not the case with Kim Yong Un, he is literately a new kid on the block. If both men had a fundamentally similar goal, Khrushchev faced a much easier job.

Despite the many painful similarities, there are important, objective differences between USSR in 1953 and NK in 2013. We can't just assume what worked in the former would also worked in the latter if done in the identical way.

I was thinking of Gorbachev's transformation, rather than Khrushchev's.

In fact, Khruschev's experience is a good example of what Kim Il-sung wanted to avoid.

From what I remember, Kim Il-sung specifically linked the Hungarian uprising and other public displays of discontent to Khruschev's reforms and believed it vindicated his own hardline approach and saw it as a lesson to never relax his grip.

DPRK propaganda also, according to B.R Myers, mocks the old Soviet Empire for crumbling "without ever firing a shot". This is sometimes seen as one reason for concern. That the DRPK is not going to reform, because reform means death, and that it won't go quietly either.

This is in part why I don't invest much hopes for improvements. However, any eventual improvements will start in this way we see now, or worse. There is no evidence one way or another, but expecting the worst, and only the worst to happen serves nothing, even if it turns out to be correct in the end

McHrozni

I disagree. Expecting the worst means planning for the worst. And when the worst has been all we have been led to reasonably expect from the DPRK, it is not a particularly good idea to expect anything otherwise no matter how much we wish it would be different.

 

[McHrozni]

I was thinking of Gorbachev's transformation, rather than Khrushchev's.

There are far less similarities with that one. Gorbachev's was enabled by Khruschev's in the first place. NK is very similar to USSR in 1953 in many important aspects.

In fact, Khruschev's experience is a good example of what Kim Il-sung wanted to avoid.

From what I remember, Kim Il-sung specifically linked the Hungarian uprising and other public displays of discontent to Khruschev's reforms and believed it vindicated his own hardline approach and saw it as a lesson to never relax his grip.

DPRK propaganda also, according to B.R Myers, mocks the old Soviet Empire for crumbling "without ever firing a shot". This is sometimes seen as one reason for concern. That the DRPK is not going to reform, because reform means death, and that it won't go quietly either.

Kim Il Sung assumed room temperature some 20 years ago. The young Kim is in charge, and hopefully desires what his grandfather wanted to avoid. It's possible, at least.

I disagree. Expecting the worst means planning for the worst. And when the worst has been all we have been led to reasonably expect from the DPRK, it is not a particularly good idea to expect anything otherwise no matter how much we wish it would be different.

Mmm, hoping for the best and planning for the worst is a legitemate set of mind as far as I'm concerned.

McHrozni

 

[Checkmite]

Evidently the AP is reporting that Kim Jong Un's uncle was executed for a traitor.

 

[BenBurch]

NK will fail only when there is a natural or otherwise disaster of sufficient magnitude to leave no government at all.

Might be a LONG time.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Evidently the AP is reporting that Kim Jong Un's uncle was executed for a traitor.

Apparently he was killed for "dreaming different dreams". Just as well The Mamas and The Papas, Fleetwood Mac and Roy Orbison never toured there.

 

[Caper]

My god I'd love to see that rat hole government falls before I'm gone. I wish the world would just go in and finish that regime off.

 

[Puppycow]

What exactly were the Khruschev reforms anyway? I admit to ignorance of that chapter in history.

 

[Seismosaurus]

My god I'd love to see that rat hole government falls before I'm gone. I wish the world would just go in and finish that regime off.

Never gonna happen. You've seen how much trouble it was to try and rebuild Iraq. You really think anybody wants to take responsibility for having to rebuild North Korea?

 

[Puppycow]

Never gonna happen. You've seen how much trouble it was to try and rebuild Iraq. You really think anybody wants to take responsibility for having to rebuild North Korea?

The South Koreans might.

How difficult rebuilding would be depends partly on whether you have an insurgency problem after the government is overthrown.

That's what made it very difficult to make progress in Iraq, and the same with Afghanistan. Japan after World War 2, was relatively docile by comparison, and the Japanese themselves helped to rebuild Japan under occupation, rather than resist efforts to rebuild as many elements present in Iraq did. Plus you wouldn't have the sectarian, ethnic and tribal problems in North Korea.

 

[Puppycow]

Apparently he was killed for "dreaming different dreams". Just as well The Mamas and The Papas, Fleetwood Mac and Roy Orbison never toured there.

Some more details coming out:

North Korea executes Kim Jong-un's uncle Jang Song Thaek for 'attempting to overthrow the state'

Jang was accused of being a traitor by trying to form a revolutionary movement to overthrow the state.

The North Korean Central News Agency says a special military tribunal examined Jang's crimes, and he was executed after admitting to his crimes.

The accused is a traitor to the nation for all ages who perpetrated anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts in a bid to overthrow the leadership of our party and state and the socialist system.

...

Despicable human scum Jang, who was worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love shown by the party and the leader for him.
​

During the court hearing, Jang said he attempted to stage a coup d'etat by mobilising his associates in the military, according to KCNA.

"I attempted to stir up complaints among the people and the military that even as the country's economic situation and people's livelihood are in dire situation, the current regime fails to deal with it," Jang was quoted as saying at the military court.

 

[fuelair]

Will North Korea collapse in the next 4 years?


Given the most recent games I suspect yes even more!!!!

 

[McHrozni]

What exactly were the Khruschev reforms anyway? I admit to ignorance of that chapter in history.

He ended the cult of personality of Stalin, cut down on most severe forms of repression, opened the borders slightly and so on. It was quite a large change from Stalin, USSR in 1964 was unfathomable in 1952.

McHrozni