which has nothing to do with nuclear strategy and wouldn't be a factor in a crisis response that a nuclear strike falls under. And in any case like I said the US is not some global lynchpin until the end of time. Being the strongest economy doesn't mean there is never a circumstance where a country would not want to attack or dismantle it if it could do so without mutual destruction.
Haha oh wow but that article proceeds from some false assumptions about the nature of the DPRK, the nature of U.S. policy, the nature of nuclear arms, and the "liberal" worldview
1. "...the United States is not threatened by North Korea"
Yes it absolutely is, both in the literal sense that they have made open threats towards the American mainland, and in the sense that they directly and unabashedly threaten all manner of U.S. interests, including but not limited to regional stability, the security of American assets, the liberty of South Korea and the security of several other American allies in the immediate vicinity.
You've completely side-stepped how he defines the credibility of their threats to make unfounded assertions about the risks of their posturing v. our own posturing on the issue, and "U.S. interests" is almost always a bullshit waggle for imperialist primacy.
2. "How credible could any security guarantee be ..."
The security guarantee would maintained by the United Nations, as in principle it already is on the 38th Parallel, were not the DPRK so aggressively hostile to the status quo. The U.S. has also invested its blood and treasure less to stamp out all "communism and anti-imperialism" on the peninsula inasmuch as it has sought to prevent communism from overspreading the other half of it, through the immense expense of North Korea's own bloody treasure.
I can't even begin to agree with this take given how the 38th parallel was originally decided on, the way the UN was leveraged by the US and South Korea in the trusteeship, the elections, and the initial conflict, and y'know, that whole Jeju massacre thing.
Because they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not a rational international actor, among a whole host of other things. The second half of the question, about why the United States shouldn't also disarm, doesn't even bear considering in light of the realities of global geopolitics.
The realities of global geopolitics over the past couple of decades show that a certain nation is not a rational actor with regards to military aggression against sovereign states, but it turns out that's not North Korea...
Then it goes on to assert that the "DPRK represents something praiseworthy" and okay buddy let's walk that shit back a step. North Korea represents a Maoist satellite state that has mutated into an institutionally racist, dynastic dictatorship, the last colony of a Communist Empire that died decades ago. It is not some uniquely noble vestige of proletarian resistance to the Chrysanthemum Throne.
You've omitted the qualifications the author gave for that description and completely ignored how they apply it to the issue of international diplomacy and couched the valid concerns about their domestic failures in some wanky anti-Communist sentiment. gg?
You've completely side-stepped how he defines the credibility of their threats to make unfounded assertions about the risks of their posturing v. our own posturing on the issue, and "U.S. interests" is almost always a bullshit waggle for imperialist primacy.
U.S. Interests here could easily be substituted with "International Interests" - the safety of trade routes in the East China Sea and Sea of Japan, prevention of catastrophic loss of civilian life, protection of the sovereignty of a democratic and stable state, et cetera. "Imperialist Primacy" is almost always a bullshit waggle for international leftism.
I can't even begin to agree with this take given how the 38th parallel was originally decided on, the way the UN was leveraged by the US and South Korea in the trusteeship, the elections, and the initial conflict, and y'know, that whole Jeju massacre thing.
If the modern U.N. is not an adequate arbiter of international security, what do you propose as an alternative? The Shanghai Cooperation Organization? The circumstances of Korea's division are scarcely germane to the question 50 years on - for one thing, the PRC is a UNSC member now.
The realities of global geopolitics over the past couple of decades show that a certain nation is not a rational actor with regards to military aggression against sovereign states, but it turns out that's not North Korea...
I'd love to hear your reasoning why, though I expect it proceeds from a fundamentally different conception of the "realities of global geopolitics"
You've omitted the qualifications the author gave for that description and completely ignored how they apply it to the issue of international diplomacy and couched the valid concerns about their domestic failures in some wanky anti-Communist sentiment. gg?
He claims that the Kims were forced to construct an Orwellian personality cult by imperialist aggression. That's nonsense. He ignores that until 1991, North Korea was not isolated at all, but was in fact supported by the USSR and the entire Communist sphere (bar China, in part, after the Split). Sure, since '91 Pyongyang has been on the defensive without any full international backer, but it requires superhuman mental and moral gymnastics to suppose that justifies the present condition of the North Korean state.
For example, he argues that North Korea has never deployed troops abroad - sure, except whenever they deployed them into South Korea. Or what about blatant acts of assassination committed on Burmese soil with high explosives? He's trying to pretend North Korea is somehow more moral than South Korea, using the language of a 1970s New Left paper - or, as you'd phrase it, "some wanky anti-American sentiment"
Edit: The character of Soviet/Chinese support for Pyongyang after the Sino-Soviet split is actually more complicated that I made it out, and I realize that, but for the purposes of this argument the USSR was their main trading partner all the way up to the latter-day Gorbachev government.
I'd love to hear your reasoning why, though I expect it proceeds from
I've gotta get ready for work, but since you have my strict leftist perspective all figured out, I'm sure you can finish this conversation on your own. Good luck.
+2
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
I'd love to hear your reasoning why, though I expect it proceeds from
I've gotta get ready for work, but since you have my strict leftist perspective all figured out, I'm sure you can finish this conversation on your own. Good luck.
Anyway, that's why the teleological Hegelian antecedents of Marxist dialectic are essentially flawed
I never thought of it that way!
My God, how could I have been so blinded by the proletarian blather of false saints and misbegotten shepherds? Of course Juche Socialism is an ideological weapon of the Shadow Pentarchy, the tip of a grand dagger aimed directly at the heart of the Catholic Church, indeed at Christendom itself!!
All that matters is that now at last you can see, my friend. You can see.
I imagine this is a strong form of 'shut the fuck up already you're embarrassing us' from China?
sorta
this is so that in the event of military action by North Korea, their border will be protected from an overwhelming influx of refugees into the Liaoning and Jilin provinces
I imagine this is a strong form of 'shut the fuck up already you're embarrassing us' from China?
sorta
this is so that in the event of military action by North Korea, their border will be protected from an overwhelming influx of refugees into the Liaoning and Jilin provinces
China does not want those people
Also so that in the event North Korea goes absolutely off the wagon and gets their shit kicked in by the U.S., China can jump in and grab a buffer zone to prevent American/ROK forces from sitting on right on the Manchurian border, and strengthen their position when deciding exactly what to do with it afterwards.
I just looked for the "post another historical fact" thread and was sad to see that it had been closed since I finally found out about the story behind this picture.
People in bear suits were apparently common sights in German tourist resorts of the 30s. The bear would run up to you and a photographer would take a picture which he'd afterwards try to sell to you.
+4
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I'd love to hear your reasoning why, though I expect it proceeds from
I've gotta get ready for work, but since you have my strict leftist perspective all figured out, I'm sure you can finish this conversation on your own. Good luck.
dongs you aren't being remotely smug or casually dismissive enough
do you have proof that I am not being smug and/or dismissive enough? No true skeptic would assume that without hard evidence and I have yet to see this evidence
I'd love to hear your reasoning why, though I expect it proceeds from
I've gotta get ready for work, but since you have my strict leftist perspective all figured out, I'm sure you can finish this conversation on your own. Good luck.
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
The article has credibility. The US has stomped on or assisted in the stomping of anyone who doesn't co-operate with them in matters of trade. NK having nuclear weapons makes the US very, very unlikely to fuck with them. The sabre rattling is overdone, but I don't think keeping something to guarantee the US stays the fuck out is uncalled for.
The US has proven time and time again to vastly overvalue corporate interests. Their near immediate mobilisation of mercenaries to protect oil rigs in Iraq shows this pretty clearly
Given the torrent of threats and insults hurtling out of Pyongyang these days, North Korea's announcement Tuesday that it intends to restart facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear installation should come as no surprise. One of those facilities, a plutonium production reactor partially disabled under an agreement with the George W. Bush administration, should eventually be able to produce at least eight more nuclear weapons, adding significantly to Pyongyang's existing small inventory. What will come as a surprise is that, until recently, the North had been willing to agree to steps that could have prevented that outcome but was ignored by the United States and South Korea.
We've been fucking with them for decades. We broke the nuclear armament conditions of the armistice almost right out the gate, have threatened them for even building power reactors, and have roundly rejected efforts to renegotiate the armistice.
NK might be desperately overstating their need for self defense against the US, but it's hard for me to accept that they're "irrational actors" by the metric of our own behavior, unless US interests boil down to a failure to be reflexively aware.
I remember this video where a body was just left on a street in North Korea and dozens walked past it, until finally some dude walked up, sized up, and took the shoes off the corpse.
The people have nothing. They are literally starving. Their country is run by a bunch of assholes.
That said, even through the mist of my contempt for the government of North Korea, I can still acknowledge that wanting to oppose the American hegemony isn't irrational. Given the past thirteen years of belligerent American foreign policy, you can kinda understand why. Even when broken and under heel they spit and snarl. They don't want to be here any more than we do. No sane person would. Every action the South takes, or the North takes, or China took, or America took, or hell let's stretch back to the Japanese occupation... its all just a slide show leading up to these events. It's not irrational when a series of events pigeonholes you into a course of action. The Kims haven't the authority to descend into Nero-level madness without being gagged or eliminated by the military elite. The military high command can't go bugnuts crazy without destroying their own sphere of influence.
Talk about a house of fucking cards.
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
I just looked for the "post another historical fact" thread and was sad to see that it had been closed since I finally found out about the story behind this picture.
People in bear suits were apparently common sights in German tourist resorts of the 30s. The bear would run up to you and a photographer would take a picture which he'd afterwards try to sell to you.
Posts
You realize this was the exact same reason everyone thought World War One couldn't happen, right
which has nothing to do with nuclear strategy and wouldn't be a factor in a crisis response that a nuclear strike falls under. And in any case like I said the US is not some global lynchpin until the end of time. Being the strongest economy doesn't mean there is never a circumstance where a country would not want to attack or dismantle it if it could do so without mutual destruction.
which is... new
Or something.
You've completely side-stepped how he defines the credibility of their threats to make unfounded assertions about the risks of their posturing v. our own posturing on the issue, and "U.S. interests" is almost always a bullshit waggle for imperialist primacy.
I can't even begin to agree with this take given how the 38th parallel was originally decided on, the way the UN was leveraged by the US and South Korea in the trusteeship, the elections, and the initial conflict, and y'know, that whole Jeju massacre thing.
The realities of global geopolitics over the past couple of decades show that a certain nation is not a rational actor with regards to military aggression against sovereign states, but it turns out that's not North Korea...
You've omitted the qualifications the author gave for that description and completely ignored how they apply it to the issue of international diplomacy and couched the valid concerns about their domestic failures in some wanky anti-Communist sentiment. gg?
@smof
I imagine this is a strong form of 'shut the fuck up already you're embarrassing us' from China?
U.S. Interests here could easily be substituted with "International Interests" - the safety of trade routes in the East China Sea and Sea of Japan, prevention of catastrophic loss of civilian life, protection of the sovereignty of a democratic and stable state, et cetera. "Imperialist Primacy" is almost always a bullshit waggle for international leftism.
If the modern U.N. is not an adequate arbiter of international security, what do you propose as an alternative? The Shanghai Cooperation Organization? The circumstances of Korea's division are scarcely germane to the question 50 years on - for one thing, the PRC is a UNSC member now.
I'd love to hear your reasoning why, though I expect it proceeds from a fundamentally different conception of the "realities of global geopolitics"
He claims that the Kims were forced to construct an Orwellian personality cult by imperialist aggression. That's nonsense. He ignores that until 1991, North Korea was not isolated at all, but was in fact supported by the USSR and the entire Communist sphere (bar China, in part, after the Split). Sure, since '91 Pyongyang has been on the defensive without any full international backer, but it requires superhuman mental and moral gymnastics to suppose that justifies the present condition of the North Korean state.
For example, he argues that North Korea has never deployed troops abroad - sure, except whenever they deployed them into South Korea. Or what about blatant acts of assassination committed on Burmese soil with high explosives? He's trying to pretend North Korea is somehow more moral than South Korea, using the language of a 1970s New Left paper - or, as you'd phrase it, "some wanky anti-American sentiment"
Edit: The character of Soviet/Chinese support for Pyongyang after the Sino-Soviet split is actually more complicated that I made it out, and I realize that, but for the purposes of this argument the USSR was their main trading partner all the way up to the latter-day Gorbachev government.
You can't hug your children with criminal arms
I've gotta get ready for work, but since you have my strict leftist perspective all figured out, I'm sure you can finish this conversation on your own. Good luck.
Ahahahahaha glad I moved
XBL: Torn Hoodie
@hoodiethirteen
okay
sorta
this is so that in the event of military action by North Korea, their border will be protected from an overwhelming influx of refugees into the Liaoning and Jilin provinces
China does not want those people
tumblr | instagram | twitter | steam
When that country finally gets sorted out it is going to be crazy.
There is literally nothing praiseworthy about the DPRK.
Also so that in the event North Korea goes absolutely off the wagon and gets their shit kicked in by the U.S., China can jump in and grab a buffer zone to prevent American/ROK forces from sitting on right on the Manchurian border, and strengthen their position when deciding exactly what to do with it afterwards.
you are better than this
rational actors
do you have proof that I am not being smug and/or dismissive enough? No true skeptic would assume that without hard evidence and I have yet to see this evidence
Better than going to work?
Sorry to let you down.
Nuclear strike on what?
The US has proven time and time again to vastly overvalue corporate interests. Their near immediate mobilisation of mercenaries to protect oil rigs in Iraq shows this pretty clearly
Yeah, but they haven't given "Super last-time final I really, really mean it times infinity" approval, so we're okay.
we're kinda fucking with them right now in direct response to them waving around nuclear weapons
if nuclear weapons were all that's kept us from invading we would have dropped the hammer on them years ago
Now that the North has them, China is backing off, which makes it seem like North Korean nuclear weapons are keeping our imperialist agenda in check.
The actors are all changing places and donning each other's costumes but its the same shit, different day.
The North Korea Deal That Wasn't
NK might be desperately overstating their need for self defense against the US, but it's hard for me to accept that they're "irrational actors" by the metric of our own behavior, unless US interests boil down to a failure to be reflexively aware.
The people have nothing. They are literally starving. Their country is run by a bunch of assholes.
That said, even through the mist of my contempt for the government of North Korea, I can still acknowledge that wanting to oppose the American hegemony isn't irrational. Given the past thirteen years of belligerent American foreign policy, you can kinda understand why. Even when broken and under heel they spit and snarl. They don't want to be here any more than we do. No sane person would. Every action the South takes, or the North takes, or China took, or America took, or hell let's stretch back to the Japanese occupation... its all just a slide show leading up to these events. It's not irrational when a series of events pigeonholes you into a course of action. The Kims haven't the authority to descend into Nero-level madness without being gagged or eliminated by the military elite. The military high command can't go bugnuts crazy without destroying their own sphere of influence.
Talk about a house of fucking cards.
I love this. Why choose a bear of all things?
It sounds unbearable.
My heart