Shouldn't we liberate North-Korea?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

So today, 'Dumpert' showed me this video...


The creepy music? That's actually live. That's what they're playing, through the whole city, in the morning.

Yesterday, it showed me this:

The contrast... it's horrific. It's a great example of the importance of ideas/ideology.

The Oatmeal also shows the difference:

image
image

Obviously, the North-Korean population suffers under the 1984-style government. Shouldn't we try to liberate North-Korea?

And okay, maybe the war would be so horrible that liberation just isn't worth it - but are there any moral arguments against a liberation without that much casualties?

Take a breif look at the aqttempts to liberate various countries suffering under totalitarian governments over the past 50-60 years. Then consider that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Now the sort of authoritarian state that North Korea is running simply does not work in the long run and sooner or later it will collapse on it's own. Until it does any plans to invade will only risk escalating the problem.

I'd love to, but aren't they a client state of nuclear powers that would incinerate us if we tried? And wouldn't they mortar our allies in South Korea out of existence?

Axolotl:
Then consider that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

I thought their own nukes a joke? Their tests faked?

as of may this year the estimates put north korea as having 6-8 nuclear weapons, that can be mounted on missiles with a 3-4,000 miles range that can be carried on north korean subs or use mobile launchers. on top of the fact they have a very large conventional military with a very large neighour who is an ally to the north, an invasion of north korea would probably end up with millions dead.

they'll also have enough material within a few hours for another nuclear test

the north korean regime will fall eventually its only a matter of when not if

Danyal:
And okay, maybe the war would be so horrible that liberation just isn't worth it - but are there any moral arguments against a liberation without that much casualties?

Define "liberation".

Ok, so you go in, kill a small number of important people, and suddenly everyone else officially is against the regime and always was.

Who do you put in charge, how do you make it stick?

Gorfias:

Axolotl:
Then consider that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

I thought their own nukes a joke? Their tests faked?

Do you really want to take the risk that it isnt?

Danyal:
Obviously, the North-Korean population suffers under the 1984-style government. Shouldn't we try to liberate North-Korea?

And do...what? It hasn't worked very well in the last two places we "liberated". If they don't achieve it themselves, the North Koreans probably won't value it as highly.

Danyal:
And okay, maybe the war would be so horrible that liberation just isn't worth it - but are there any moral arguments against a liberation without that much casualties?

Well, there's the whole thing about why we think we have any moral right to tell other countries how they ought to be run. What makes us so damned special?

SonicWaffle:

Gorfias:

Axolotl:
Then consider that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

I thought their own nukes a joke? Their tests faked?

Do you really want to take the risk that it isnt?

A good point. Makes one think, invading country's without nukes tells others they better get them, or pretend to have them, as fast as possible.

Gorfias:

SonicWaffle:

Gorfias:

I thought their own nukes a joke? Their tests faked?

Do you really want to take the risk that it isnt?

A good point. Makes one think, invading country's without nukes tells others they better get them, or pretend to have them, as fast as possible.

And of course, if you start attempting to produce nukes, people start threatening to invade anyway. Oh, poor Iran. You just can't win.

SonicWaffle:
And do...what? It hasn't worked very well in the last two places we "liberated".

Which two places are you talking about? It did work very well at the end of WWII.

SonicWaffle:
If they don't achieve it themselves, the North Koreans probably won't value it as highly.

As a Dutchman, living in a country that was liberated by all kinds of non-Dutch armies, I beg to disagree.

SonicWaffle:
Well, there's the whole thing about why we think we have any moral right to tell other countries how they ought to be run. What makes us so damned special?

What makes the North-Korean government so special that they have the moral right to tell them how their citizen's lives ought to be run?

Danyal:

SonicWaffle:
And do...what? It hasn't worked very well in the last two places we "liberated".

Which two places are you talking about? It did work very well at the end of WWII.

Erm...Iraq? Afghanistan? Why are we going back to WW2?

Danyal:

SonicWaffle:
If they don't achieve it themselves, the North Koreans probably won't value it as highly.

As a Dutchman, living in a country that was liberated by all kinds of non-Dutch armies, I beg to disagree.

Liberated from an oppressive invading force, correct? Not liberated from your own government? There's a pretty big difference.

Danyal:

SonicWaffle:
Well, there's the whole thing about why we think we have any moral right to tell other countries how they ought to be run. What makes us so damned special?

What makes the North-Korean government so special that they have the moral right to tell them how their citizen's lives ought to be run?

You're avoiding the question. Why do we have the right to invade foreign countries and impose our cultural values on people who don't currently share them? What's so great about us that everyone ought to think like we do?

SonicWaffle:
Erm...Iraq? Afghanistan? Why are we going back to WW2?

Because Korea is a little different from Islamic countries, and Korean Communism is a little different from Islam.

SonicWaffle:
Liberated from an oppressive invading force, correct? Not liberated from your own government? There's a pretty big difference.

Japan and Germany were succesfully liberated from their own government.

SonicWaffle:

Danyal:

What makes the North-Korean government so special that they have the moral right to tell them how their citizen's lives ought to be run?

You're avoiding the question. Why do we have the right to invade foreign countries and impose our cultural values on people who don't currently share them? What's so great about us that everyone ought to think like we do?

A country that respects the rights of it's citizens can appeal to sovereignty. If you don't respect the sovereignty of your citizens, don't expect other nations to respect your national sovereignty.

Danyal:
Japan and Germany were succesfully liberated from their own government.

That is correct...but then what happened to Germanies?

Danyal:
A country that respects the rights of it's citizens can appeal to sovereignty. If you don't respect the sovereignty of your citizens, don't expect other nations to respect your national sovereignty.

Define "respecting the rights of it's citizens".

Oh, certainly, by any meaningful definition North Korea is failing to do so, that is not to say it's normally that simple.

Danyal:

SonicWaffle:
Erm...Iraq? Afghanistan? Why are we going back to WW2?

Because Korea is a little different from Islamic countries, and Korean Communism is a little different from Islam.

Sure is, but how is the difference relevant?

The only way I can see this working is if the NATO and People's Republic of China work together, and then spend a massive amount (Billions?) on large scale reconstruction to show the indoctrinated people of North Korea that they really are better off without their dear leaders, get their economy going and perhaps work towards unification with the south.

thaluikhain:
That is correct...but then what happened to Germanies?

I don't know? (Or actually, I probably do know, I know a lot about Germany and it's history, but I have no idea what you mean precisely)

thaluikhain:
Define "respecting the rights of it's citizens".

Oh, certainly, by any meaningful definition North Korea is failing to do so, that is not to say it's normally that simple.

Indeed, it isn't simple, but North Korea is failing to do so, and that's relevant.

Realitycrash:

Danyal:

Because Korea is a little different from Islamic countries, and Korean Communism is a little different from Islam.

Sure is, but how is the difference relevant?

I'm quite sure that people don't really support communism in North Korea, and that they'll happily become a peaceful and prosperous capitalistic nation - like South Korea. Look at East-Germany for a practical real life example. On the other hand, the chance that an Islamic nation will become a happy secular nation just by eliminating a few key theocratic figures - it isn't as likely. Islam is way more 'ingrained' in the population than communism.

It's not in the budget, we already blow way too much money on the military and can't afford to go blow up yet another country just because we disagree with them. That's like saying everyone else should've invaded America because of the patriot act "A country that respects the rights of it's citizens can appeal to sovereignty. If you don't respect the sovereignty of your citizens, don't expect other nations to respect your national sovereignty."

Gorfias:
A good point. Makes one think, invading country's without nukes tells others they better get them, or pretend to have them, as fast as possible.

The problem also with North Korea is we don't exactly know how brainwashed the people are. I'm sure the government knows more than we do, but there's a lot we have to know in order to be sure intervening would put the people on our side. They may be so throughly convinced their government will crack down on them if they revolt that even in the face of rescue they would resist every step of the way, and fight to the last man. And the last thing any country--especially America right now--needs is yet another rescue-turned-genocide.

Lilani:

Gorfias:
A good point. Makes one think, invading country's without nukes tells others they better get them, or pretend to have them, as fast as possible.

The problem also with North Korea is we don't exactly know how brainwashed the people are. I'm sure the government knows more than we do, but there's a lot we have to know in order to be sure intervening would put the people on our side. They may be so throughly convinced their government will crack down on them if they revolt that even in the face of rescue they would resist every step of the way, and fight to the last man. And the last thing any country--especially America right now--needs is yet another rescue-turned-genocide.

That's overlooking people resisting foreign troops invading their nation simply because they are foreign troops invading their nation. You don't have to be brainwashed to resist invasion.

SonicWaffle:

And of course, if you start attempting to produce nukes, people start threatening to invade anyway. Oh, poor Iran. You just can't win.

I think Iran will have their nukes. If you have stock in Israel, sell it fast. I think they're dog food.

I heard something that bummed me out. A suggestion that we never met intelligent alien life as, once a civilization is advanced enough to communicate with us from outer space, they're intelligent enough to destroy themselves. Anybody else thinking about the statue of Liberty at the end of the original, "Planet of the Apes."

Lilani:

The problem also with North Korea is we don't exactly know how brainwashed the people are. I'm sure the government knows more than we do, but there's a lot we have to know in order to be sure intervening would put the people on our side. They may be so throughly convinced their government will crack down on them if they revolt that even in the face of rescue they would resist every step of the way, and fight to the last man. And the last thing any country--especially America right now--needs is yet another rescue-turned-genocide.

I'd think the un-empowered not brainwashed but scared and will be unhelpful to us. Those in the military already, for instance, are likely VERY happy with things as they are. We'd have to kill them. Then, we'd be the bad guys.

It depends.

No if it's going to be another Iraq. Everyone knows how well that turned out.

If there was support from South Korea and the rest of the World and maybe the Security Council does something about China and there was a plan beyond "AMERICAAAA!! BOMBS AHOY! LET'S KILL SOME BROWN PEOPLE!", then maybe, maybe.

*Dons my decent person hat.*

Absolutely, we should liberate North Korea, the conditions there are inhuman and the fact that we've let it go on for this long is shameful.

*Puts on Realpolitik hat*

But we can't liberate them, I don't think. One, the Second Korean War (although technically the first never ended) would be catastrophic and result in a -lot- of deaths. North Korea has the largest (albeit a very crappy) military in the world and may have access to nuclear weapons. Moreover, China intervened in the last Korean War and it's more than possible that they'd back up North Korea to keep South Korea, who might as well be the United States' puppet from being right on their border with no buffer zone.

Besides which, what happens after we liberate the North Koreans. Reunification? I dread to imagine what that would do to the South Korean economy.

Gorfias:

Lilani:

The problem also with North Korea is we don't exactly know how brainwashed the people are. I'm sure the government knows more than we do, but there's a lot we have to know in order to be sure intervening would put the people on our side. They may be so throughly convinced their government will crack down on them if they revolt that even in the face of rescue they would resist every step of the way, and fight to the last man. And the last thing any country--especially America right now--needs is yet another rescue-turned-genocide.

I'd think the un-empowered not brainwashed but scared and will be unhelpful to us. Those in the military already, for instance, are likely VERY happy with things as they are. We'd have to kill them. Then, we'd be the bad guys.

This as well. Remember, this is not only a military offensive, but a country building mission. There will have to be troops trained in basic diplomacy, so no American Grunts. Scratch that, no bombing, no simple soldiers, and no "collateral damage".

There will have to be a lot of talks with South Korea.

Danyal:

I'm quite sure that people don't really support communism in North Korea, and that they'll happily become a peaceful and prosperous capitalistic nation - like South Korea. Look at East-Germany for a practical real life example. On the other hand, the chance that an Islamic nation will become a happy secular nation just by eliminating a few key theocratic figures - it isn't as likely. Islam is way more 'ingrained' in the population than communism.

True, but how many figures? If we just go in and start assassinating someone, the Next General Over will just step up to take the role, etc. Need to start a revolution, THEN assassinate.

Gorfias:
I'd think the un-empowered not brainwashed but scared and will be unhelpful to us. Those in the military already, for instance, are likely VERY happy with things as they are. We'd have to kill them. Then, we'd be the bad guys.

That's a lot of conjecture as to the state of mind of the majority of the nation. Like with the nukes, you really want to take that risk so blindly? Because if you're wrong, it's not just the military that gets put down. It's most of the population.

Again, there is a lot we need to know for an intervention to be successful there. And as others have pointed out, South Korea and China would be much more suited to do most of the legwork. Since they are more similar to NK in language, proximity, and shared history, the people would be much more trusting of them than us. And really they should have a role in sorting out their neighbors--they're the ones who have to live next door when all the dust has settled. Not that I'm saying we can't help, there's certainly a lot of supplies we can offer to get them started, and we can offer expedited trade agreements and visits of goodwill. But as for getting the people acclimated to the real world again, SK and China would be much more helpful in that regard.

thaluikhain:
That's overlooking people resisting foreign troops invading their nation simply because they are foreign troops invading their nation. You don't have to be brainwashed to resist invasion.

That is true, as well. We were so convinced we were going to the Middle East to help and they'd take to our definition of freedom so easily...then things went wrong, and grave mistakes and miscalculations of the people's feelings were made and it all went to pot.

Danyal:

SonicWaffle:
Erm...Iraq? Afghanistan? Why are we going back to WW2?

Because Korea is a little different from Islamic countries, and Korean Communism is a little different from Islam.

Sweet googly mooglies, let's go for Vietnam, then. In fact, I have no idea what you mean by liberate. Are you assuming that they all want a drastic change in government or that they want outsiders to provide a new government for them? That's a hell of an assumption to make, an assumption that would potentially harm millions of lives, so you better back it up.

The thing that struck me most was that when you were provided with lessons from recent historical events you didn't take them on board because it wasn't the exact same situation as before. History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes.

Come on, man, keep up.

Anyway, no, we shouldn't 'liberate' North Korea. At the very least we wouldn't know what to do with the millions of North Koreans who might flee across the borders to China/South Korea. We also can't afford to occupy another country. Oh, and who's 'we', anyway? Because I don't think China or Russia would be on board, they're quite touchy about countries' sovereign rights.

There's... there's just so much wrong with your suggestion...

In conclusion, I agree with Waffle.

Lilani:
That is true, as well. We were so convinced we were going to the Middle East to help and they'd take to our definition of freedom so easily...then things went wrong, and grave mistakes and miscalculations of the people's feelings were made and it all went to pot.

I'd very strongly disagree with most of that, except that it didn't work, and that it would likely happen again. Those two points seems pretty certain.

We should but that doesn't mean people will. People are like that, they will only attack North Korea if there is a actual attack on another country

thaluikhain:

Lilani:

Gorfias:
A good point. Makes one think, invading country's without nukes tells others they better get them, or pretend to have them, as fast as possible.

The problem also with North Korea is we don't exactly know how brainwashed the people are. I'm sure the government knows more than we do, but there's a lot we have to know in order to be sure intervening would put the people on our side. They may be so throughly convinced their government will crack down on them if they revolt that even in the face of rescue they would resist every step of the way, and fight to the last man. And the last thing any country--especially America right now--needs is yet another rescue-turned-genocide.

That's overlooking people resisting foreign troops invading their nation simply because they are foreign troops invading their nation. You don't have to be brainwashed to resist invasion.

Exactly! Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. There a lot of people in Afghanistan that didn't much care for Al Qaeda but ya know who they REALLY didn't care for? America coming in and playing the world's police force.

So now we are in a position where the people we went in there to fight obviously don't care for us but now we also have the locals who really don't like us all that much more because we're sticking our noses someplace they don't belong and have long overstayed our welcome which was far from warm to begin with.

The thing of it is there is a section of the government that believes that if we try really hard we'll be able to transform Kabul into Des Moines. We can't. Afghanistan isn't known as the fucking GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES because they just thought the name was cute.

We need to stop trying to police the world and worry about focusing our efforts more locally. We're spending countless amounts of money trying to civilize a group of people that really don't want to be civilized.

I think the same thing applies to North Korea. Yeah there's a cubic fuck ton of messed up shit going on there but even so the locals aren't going to take kindly to America rushing in to save the day. Ultimately we'd end up going in there with the idea of liberating the people and very likely only succeeding in galvanizing their support for the very system that is keeping them oppressed.

The nukes alone make it a bad idea, even if the missiles suck ass I wouldn't put it past the regime to hide them in the middle of cities and set them off as they fall, taking the enemy with them.

You have to also consider that they'll probably use USSR tactics from WW2 and just throw men into the meatgrinder just to slow our troops down.

Overall while it'd be a great idea in theory, the reality is it would be a massacre, we would probably have to kill more people than we would save.

We also tried to liberate orher countries beforehand, like vietnam... Liberation is an empty casus beli. Nobody wants to kill their brothers in a war for others. As it is now, it looks like ww2 japan loyalty will make this war not worth it for north korea or any other power that would fight against them. They also keep south korea hostage with their rockets and shared border.

PrinceOfShapeir:
*Dons my decent person hat.*

Absolutely, we should liberate North Korea, the conditions there are inhuman and the fact that we've let it go on for this long is shameful.

*Puts on Realpolitik hat*

But we can't liberate them, I don't think. One, the Second Korean War (although technically the first never ended) would be catastrophic and result in a -lot- of deaths. North Korea has the largest (albeit a very crappy) military in the world and may have access to nuclear weapons. Moreover, China intervened in the last Korean War and it's more than possible that they'd back up North Korea to keep South Korea, who might as well be the United States' puppet from being right on their border with no buffer zone.

Besides which, what happens after we liberate the North Koreans. Reunification? I dread to imagine what that would do to the South Korean economy.

Reunification would be madness, I agree with your points.

TheIronRuler:

PrinceOfShapeir:
*Dons my decent person hat.*

Absolutely, we should liberate North Korea, the conditions there are inhuman and the fact that we've let it go on for this long is shameful.

*Puts on Realpolitik hat*

But we can't liberate them, I don't think. One, the Second Korean War (although technically the first never ended) would be catastrophic and result in a -lot- of deaths. North Korea has the largest (albeit a very crappy) military in the world and may have access to nuclear weapons. Moreover, China intervened in the last Korean War and it's more than possible that they'd back up North Korea to keep South Korea, who might as well be the United States' puppet from being right on their border with no buffer zone.

Besides which, what happens after we liberate the North Koreans. Reunification? I dread to imagine what that would do to the South Korean economy.

Reunification would be madness, I agree with your points.

that kind of view neglects the potential opportunity for growth.

there's a reason investors love "emerging economies".

anyway i think simplistically saying "its madness" is an overly negative view and besides which the South Koreans are already preparing for it and are quite prepared to go through with it.

i think its probably fair to say that partition of Korea probably holds more even more pain for Koreans than the partition of Germany did for Germans give the entity known as Germany has no where near the history Korea has (as a prior unified entity) and regardless of the suggestion people aren't solely concerned with nothing but the supposed potential cost.

Korea has a very long history and imo this artificial severance along 38th parallel is likely to be little more than a blip in the grand scheme of things.

tbth if i make it to retirement age i fully expect it to happen within my lifetime.

TheIronRuler:
We also tried to liberate orher countries beforehand, like vietnam... Liberation is an empty casus beli. Nobody wants to kill their brothers in a war for others. As it is now, it looks like ww2 japan loyalty will make this war not worth it for north korea or any other power that would fight against them. They also keep south korea hostage with their rockets and shared border.

THat's not the greatest example.

Vietnam was a nonstop clusterfuck chain almost from the moment World War 2 ended. We didn't try to liberate them, we literally stood by and watched while the Allied powers stabbed them in the back. We promised the country independance after they aided us against the Japanese. They kept their part of that bargain, we didn't. The Euro powers tried to retake the country after WW2, even to the point of using former Japanese soldiers, and the US declared that we had no intention to stop them.

"It makes my blood boil to see our former allies using Japanese soldiers to enslave these little people that we promised to free." -Douglas MacArthur

We only got involved because Minh got enamoured with communist theory (and not even Soviet style Communism, he wanted a distinctly Vietnamese communist state) and accepted an olive branch from Moscow did we finally decide we needed to get involved, mostly by artifically proppping up and literally creating an entire economy for the South Vietnamese, who in turn were as brutal to their own people as the Northern communists were to theirs. Add in that we stated very clearly that we would do nothing to keep them from becoming a French colony again all was said and done, and the South had little to fight for.

So yea, bad bad example there.

We SHOULD liberate North Korea. Just like we SHOULD liberate Iran, Syria and every other horrid dictatorship. The problem is that there is no-one to do this, except for the people of those nations. Other nations might join in the case of a civil war where things get too horrid, or use "liberation" as part of the propaganda for a war. But they are partial and can't be counted on.

What would be really awesome is if we could get all major power blocks of the world to agree to pitch in to a sort of U.N led (or some other organisation) world police. That would hold all nations accountable to some sort of basic international law. And who will step in and remove a government that does not follow these laws. There would have to be concessions of course, China have different ideas of what rights the citizens have than the EU or the US has, so full blown democracy might no be a realistic "law". But you have to start small and work your way up, there has to be human rights even the Chinese state does not want to see breached.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here