Does Kim Jong-Un's Strategy Make Sense?

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

"Looking at the recent North Korean testing of two intercontinental missiles, it may seem that Pyongyang wishes to increase tensions in the region. A more careful analysis, however, shows how the DPRK is implementing a strategy that will likely succeed in averting a disastrous war on the peninsula."

In the last four weeks, North Korea seems to have implemented the second phase of its strategy against South Korea, China and the United States. The North Korean nuclear program seems to have reached an important juncture, with two tests carried out at the beginning and end of July. Both missiles seem capable of hitting the American mainland, although doubts still remain over Pyongyang's ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead to mount it on an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). However, the direction in which North Korea’s nuclear program is headed ensures an important regional deterrent against Japan and South Korea, and in some respects against the United States, which is the main reason for North Korea’s development of ICBMs. Recent history has repeatedly demonstrated the folly of trusting the West (the fate of Gaddafi remains fresh in our minds) and suggests instead the building up of an arsenal that poses a serious deterrence to US bellicosity.

It is not a mystery that from 2009 to date, North Korea's nuclear capacity has increased in direct proportion to the level of distrust visited on Pyongyang by the West. Since 2009, the six-party talks concluded, Kim Jong-un has come to realize that the continuing threats, practices, and arms sales of the United States to Japan and South Korea needed to be thwarted in some way in the interests of defending the sovereignty of the DPRK. Faced with infinitely lower spending capacity than the three nations mentioned, Pyongyang chose a twofold strategy: to pursue nuclear weapons as an explicit deterrence measure; and to strengthen its conventional forces, keeping in mind that Seoul is only a stone’s throw away from North Korean artillery.

This twofold strategy has, in little more than eight years, greatly strengthened the ability of the DPRK to resist infringement of its sovereignty. In contrast to the idea commonly promoted in the Western media, Pyongyang has promised not to use nuclear weapons first, reserving their use only in response to aggression against itself. In the same way, a pre-emptive attack on Seoul using traditional artillery would be seen as intolerable aggression, dragging Pyongyang into a devastating war. Kim Jong-un’s determination in developing conventional and nuclear deterrence has succeeded in establishing a balance of power that helps avoid a regional war and, in so doing, contributes to the strengthening of overall security in the region, contrary to what many believe.

The reason the United States continues to raise tensions with Pyongyang and threaten a conflict is not out of a concern for the protection of her Japanese or South Korean allies, as one may initially be led to think. The United States in the region has a central objective that does not concern Kim Jong-un or his nuclear weapons. Rather, it is driven by the perennial necessity to increase forces in the region for the purposes of maintaining a balance of military force (Asian Pivot) and ultimately trying to contain the rise of the People's Republic of China (PRC). One might even argue that this strategy poses dangers not only to the entire region but, in the case of a confrontation between Washington and Beijing, the entire planet, given the nuclear arsenal possessed by the United States and the People's Republic of China.

In this respect, the triangular relationship between China, North Korea and South Korea takes on another aspect. As always, every action is accompanied with a reaction. The statement that Beijing would prefer to get rid of the DPRK leadership is without foundation. Central in the minds of Chinese policy makers is the threat of a US containment that could undermine the country's economic growth. This strategic planning is well known in Pyongyang, and explains in part why the DPRK leadership still proceeds with actions that are not viewed well by Beijing. From the North Korean point of view, Beijing derives an advantage from sharing a border with the DPRK, which offers a friendly leadership not hostile to Beijing. Pyongyang is aware of the economic, political, and military burden of this situation, but tolerates it, receiving the necessary resources from Beijing to survive and develop the country.

This complex relationship leads the DPRK to carry out missile tests in the hope of gaining many benefits. First of all, it hopes to gain a regional, and possibly a global, deterrence against any surprise attacks. Secondly, it forces South Korea to have a symmetrical response to DPRK missile tests, and this strategy, coming from North Korea diplomacy, is far from improvised or incongruous. In recent years, South Korea’s response has come in the form of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, designed to intercept missiles. As repeatedly explained, it is useless against North Korean rockets, but poses a serious threat to the Chinese nuclear arsenal, as its powerful radars are able to scout much of China's territory, also being ideally positioned to intercept (at least in theory) a responsive nuclear strike from China. In a nutshell, THAAD is a deadly threat to China's strategic nuclear parity.

From the point of view of the four nations involved in the region, each has different aims.

For the United States, there are many advantages in deploying the THAAD: in increases pressure on China, as well as concludes an arms sale that is always welcomed by the military-industrial complex; it also gives the impression of addressing the DPRK nuclear problem adequately.

 

South Korea, however, finds itself in a special situation, with the former president now under arrest for corruption. The new president, Moon Jae-in, would prefer dialogue rather than the deployment of new THAAD batteries. In any case, after the latest ICBM test, Moon required an additional THAAD system in the Republic of Korea, in addition to the launchers already there. With no particular options available to conduct a diplomatic negotiation, Seoul is following Washington in a spiral of escalation that certainly does not benefit the peninsula's economic growth.

 

Ultimately, the PRC sees an increase in the number of THAAD carriers close to the country, and the DPRK is growing in its determination to pursue a nuclear deterrent.

 

Indeed, the strategy of the Pyongyang is working: on the one hand, they are developing a nuclear weapon to deter external enemies; on the other, they are obligating the PRC to adopt a particularly hostile attitude towards South Korea’s deployment of THAAD. In this sense, the numerous economic actions of Beijing towards Seoul can be explained as a response to the deployment of the THAAD batteries. China is the main economic partner of South Korea, and this trade and tourism limitation is quite damaging to South Korea’s economy.

This tactic has been used by North Korea for the last several years, and the results, in addition to the recent economic crunch between the PRC and South Korea have indirectly led to the end of the reign of the corrupt leader Park Geun-hye, an ever-present puppet in American hands. The pressure that the DPRK applies to bilateral relations between China and South Korea increases with each launch of an ICBM carrier, which is the logic behind these missile tests. Pyongyang feels justified in urging its main ally, China, to step up actions against Seoul to force it to compromise in a diplomatic negotiation with Pyongyang without the overbearing presence of its American ally pushing for war.

The main problem in the relations between South Korea, China and North Korea is represented by American influence and the need to prevent a rapprochement between these parties. As already stated, the United States needs the DPRK to justify its presence in the region, aiming in reality at Chinese containment. Pyongyang has been isolated and sanctioned for almost 50 years, yet serves to secure China’s southern border in the form of a protected friend rather than an enemy. This situation, more than any United Nations sanction to which the PRC adheres, guarantees a lasting relationship between the countries. Beijing is well aware of the weight of isolationism and economic burden on North Korea, which is why Beijing is symmetrically increasing pressure on South Korea to negotiate.

In this situation, the United States tries to remain relevant in the regional dispute, while not having the capacity to influence the Chinese decisions that clearly rely on other tactics, specifically putting pressure on South Korea. In military terms, as explained above, Washington can not start any military confrontation against the DPRK. The consequences, in addition to millions of deaths, would lead Seoul to break relations with Washington and seek an immediate armistice, cutting off the United States from negotiations and likely expelling US troops from its territory. Ultimately, there is no South Korean ability to influence the political process in the North while they continue to be flanked by the United States in terms of warfare (very aggressive joint exercises). The influence Washington can exert on Pyongyang is zero, having fired all cartridges with over half a century of sanctions.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that the United States cannot afford to attack the DPRK. Pyongyang will continue to develop its own nuclear arsenal, with Beijing's covert blessing in spite of its officially continuing to condemn these developments. At the same time, South Korea is likely to persevere with a hostile attitude, especially in regard to the deployment of new THAAD batteries. Sooner or later, Seoul will come to a breaking point as a result of further restrictions on trade between China and South Korea. As long as Seoul is able to absorb Chinese sanctions, little will change.

What will lead to a major change in the region will be the economic effect of these restrictions that will eventually oblige Seoul to consider its role in the region and its future. Seoul's leadership is aware of three situations that will hardly change, namely: Pyongyang will never attack first; Beijing will continue to support North Korea rather than accept the United States on its border; and Washington is not able to bring solutions but only greater chaos and a worsening global economic situation to the region. In the light of this scenario, time is all on the side of Beijing and Pyongyang. Eventually the economic situation for Seoul will become unbearable, bringing it to the negotiating table with a weakened and certainly precarious position. Beijing and Pyongyang have a long-term common goal, which is to break the bond of submission between South Korea and the United States, freeing Seoul from Washington's neo-conservative programs to contain China (on a Russia containment model).

Indirectly coordinated work between Beijing and Pyongyang is hardly understandable to Western analysts, but examining every aspect, especially with regard to cause-and-effect relationships, these decisions are not so incomprehensible and even more rational in a broader viewing of the region and its balance of power. On the one hand, Seoul sees the DPRK offering peace, stability and prosperity based on a framework agreement between Seoul, Pyongyang and Beijing. This would also particularly benefit South Korean trade with China, eventually returning to normal relationships between countries, with important economic benefits.

The alternative is an alliance with Washington that would completely eliminate the economic benefits of a healthy relationship with Beijing. This could even potentially lead to a war involving millions of deaths, fought on South Korean soil and not in the United States. The United States does not offer any solutions to South Korea, either in the short or long term. The only thing Washington is offering is a fixed presence in the country, together with a stubborn anti-Chinese policy that would have serious economic consequences for Seoul.

As paradoxical as it may seem, Kim Jong-un's rockets are much less of a threat than is Seoul’s partnership with Washington in the region, and in fact seem to offer Seoul the ultimate solution to the crisis in the peninsula.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jamesmmu's picture
The United States Must Make A Decision Soon – Go To War With North Korea – Or To Accept It As A Nuclear Power.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-united-states-must-make-a-decision-so...

 

 

Neither will be good for Trump presidency and I guess thats why market tank so hard and dip buyers fail to revive the market. It blows to Trump's presidency and his other policies will be out of windows if he failed to make it right in NK crisis.

 

the implication is just bigger than NK.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Does Kim Jong-Un's Strategy Make Sense?

My response: Kim Jong-Un looks like he is using OPIOIDS!!!

TBT or not TBT's picture

We need to get Rodman in there. 

winged's picture

China is wagging Kim to get America to keep up its warmongering, which in turn will destroy the US's economy and keep China #1. http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-2g9

Mango327's picture

This article is the most coherent English put out by North Korean state media thus far. Blavo!

Occident Mortal's picture

This article makes so many assumptions and casual connections that it sounds ridiculous under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The conclusion...
"The bottom line is that the United States cannot afford to attack the DPRK"

Is just plain wrong. Seoul is not part of USA. The USA hasn't blinked from starting recent wars where almost 1 million people died, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya.

NoKo has put itself in a dangerous place where Americans fear it can nuke USA but in reality it cannot reliably do this. This is the Goldilocks zone for US to destroy NoKo. Maximum public fear at home and minimal actual threat.

Trump hates East Asia. He wants all that manufacturing to be moved back to US soil. US Presidents are not measured by how many foreign people die on their watch. Americans don't care about foreign people in foreign lands.

Trump has to deliver jobs at home. He is the jobs President.

He is going to kill for those jobs.

Eyes Opened's picture

I find the things u said to be totally disgusting ...

But I greenied u because u spoke the sad truth...

Thanks for tellin it like it is....  :-(

lucitanian's picture

No, In fact this article is the first and best I've seen that puts the the situation into the reality of the Asian perspective. And that the US administration has no consideration for millions of Asian lives and has a totally myopic insular and unsustainable view dominated by delusion of continued hegemonic imperialism, be it disgusting, is not news to anyone. Yet despite the facts, the Trump regime is perfectly aware that it cannot afford war with China.

As this article makes clear, and is probably above the heads of 95% of propaganda addled USns, that is what this is all about. Causing a war which would necessarily involve the deaths of millions in Asia and the destruction of the economies of South Korea, Japan, and China, might seem like an empire going down in a blaze, but in fact it would mean guaranteed suicide for US, and would have quite the opposite effect than bringing jobs back to the US.

This article also correctly points out that the US belligerence and attempted containment of China is the cause of a situation which if taken to an un-affordable extreme by the madhouse in Washington will be the sounding of the USns own death knell.

This more than anything needs to be brought home to at least those few that can think even a little beyond the domestic reality show being presented by the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

lucitanian ...

I have one word for you ... BULLSHIT!!! 

 

Took Red Pill's picture

Who exactly has North Korea attacked? The U.S. on the otherhand....

NK is just trying to preserve itself. Having nukes helps it do that.

Good article here;

http://www.4thmedia.org/2017/08/north-korea-the-grand-deception-revealed...

1033eruth's picture

NK is trying to preserve itself?  FROM WHO or WHAT?  Certainly not starvation as they had a famine from 1994 - 1998.  Yes that recent.

So, just exactly WHO do they need preservation from?  Aliens from space?  

How many times have we threatened to bomb the hell out of them before baby Kim decided to usher empty threats?  

Now you HEARD  it on the news already.  China said if NK made the first attack, they would remain neutral.  If the US decided to do something really stupid, like preemptive war, China would aid NK.  

That warning from China is sufficient for any rational person.  NK is safe with Big Brother standing behind them.  The ball is in baby Kims court.  Despite this news release, Americans are going to ignore it completely and pretend it never happened.  Which of course, I will never understand.

lucitanian's picture

I have three words for you along with my sympathy - "One dimensional thinker".

Whatever else the US produces along with its mind numbing propaganda, your response can be expected as just another product of a terminal condition of an entire society.

In fact "bullshit" literally is far more valuable as bio-fertilizer. I cannot give your comment that much value, as you don't even have the capacity to make a rational argument. But you prove my point. Thank you.

Almost Solvent's picture

Does a U.S. (or allied faction) False Flag a DPRK strike on U.S. (or allied faction) change the scenario?

 

A 9/11 type event as justification to strike DPRK?

lucitanian's picture

It sure would, but firstly neither South Korea nor Japan would or could get away with the skulduggery of Saudi Arabia or Israel in support of such a new bad plan by US, as in the last episode per 9/11 (once bitten twice shy), and at the end of the day I think only the local audience in US would believe it (sort of), even if it was well done. In short US credibility is wearing more than thin at home and all round. Also I don't believe Japan or South Korea want the consequences of full blown war so why would they help such in such a scheme?

I wouldn't put trying it with or without cooperation of the immediate allies past the depraved minds of Washington, but frankly, the US would be on its own and the world is ready for that. This time it would definately backfire, immediately, and badly.  

The Ram's picture

A great article that tells the 'other' side of the story.  The stakes could not be bigger here.  The invasion if Iraq was a total ruse, but the US was able to pull it off at great cost, but there was little chance of provoking a major war with Russia and China.  As events payed out in Iraq, it did provide more violence in the middle east which is still on-going today.  Unfortunately, Americans are being 'played' again on an Asian stage and the stakes are massive as China and Russia share a border with NK.  People who read ZH and think there is a realistic option for a ground offensive into NK have no knowledge whatsoever in Military operations.  In fact, even the idiots in the Pentagon would have great hesitation for this option.  BTW, if this option were being considered, they would have mobilized the NG and Reserves by now.  The US could not pull off this scale of operation without the Reserve/NG. So, here we are again.  Problem, Reaction, Solution.  The US people did not learn anything over the past 70 years.  We will see if Trump wants to throw the dice.  Do not be fooled into thinking the US does not have an option here.  We had an option in the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, etc.  But we consistently chose war and violence and that has not done anything for the US people...or the world.

estebanDido's picture

Trump is bluffing to get the warmongers out of the cave. The US will never allow a united Korea, not in their military interest.

yomutti2's picture

"Strategic Culture Foundation" is Russiam state media. No question there. THe real question is why does ZH publish their stuff?

 

 

N57Mike's picture

.... the fundamental teaching of the "Art of War" is to achieve your goals, without actually going to "war". When physical war occurs, everyone loses (except the MIC and the Bankers). 

GUS100CORRINA's picture

On a more serious note, while the picture of NK leader with young FEMALE fans is meant to be heart warming, it does NOT change the following facts:

1.) NK is a brutal, ruthless and GOD-hating regime who will murder anyone who challenges their tyrannical policies of submission and persecution.

2.) NK is #1 in the world regarding persecution of the Christian Church and people of FAITH. 

3.) NK promotes slave labor to earn funds for the state. This includes child prostitution, etc.

NK government is a tryannical dictatorship that needs to be brought to justice for their crimes against humanity.

So don't let the PRETTY picture fool you, if you were standing in front of these leaders in NK as an American citizen, you can be sure that they would murder you without even giving it a single thought if they believed it was in their best interest or you posed a threat of any kind.

Just ask Ootto Warmbier if you ever meet up with him in heaven.

People need to quit using DPRK when referring to North Korea. THERE IS NOTHING DEMOCRATIC ABOUT THIS NATION PERIOD!!!!!

HenryHall's picture

Unsupported allegations of child prostitution detracts from an otherwise rational post. There is lots of child prostitution that goes on in USA and EU; and not nearly enough is done about it.

And as to DPRK falsely claiming to be democratic when it isn't: while that is true one should not forget that a similar thing could truthfuly be said about a majority of nations on the earth.

BurningFuld's picture

Yes including the engrained two party system in the USA. Do you really have a choice of who you are voting for by voting for one of those partys?

hongdo's picture

Geez, upvote you here and downvote you there.  You are mixing up 2 different things - economics and morality.  Morally you are spot on wrt nK.  But the morality aspect is primarily the responsibility of South Korea.  If they won't fight for their relatives, why should we? 

Economics is quite different.  China is South Koreas biggest trading partner and China is cutting all trade and kicking South Korean companies out.  This is very serious business as you would see if you watched South Korean news.  Korea/China history goes back thousands of years and looks like nothing has changes.  Even to the kim king dynasty.

I think this is the best reasoned article on this subject I have seen so far.  And very worrying since the US policy has been incompetent so far and looks like it will continue into the future until China fully emerges. 

Personally I think all the war talk is bluster designed for positioning in negotiations.  No one can afford a war.  This isn't your sandbox scuffle. How would Libya have played out if Gadaffi had nukes?  But I will admit I do worry about an EMP strike.  But that would be a big unknown in term of effect with resulting certain self destruction.  Not a good deterent strategy.

I think there will be a secret deal between the US and China like after the Cuban missle crisis.  Something like nK will give up nukes and US will get out of South China Sea.

TuPhat's picture

You are off the wall with your comments GUS.  There is nothing United about the usa and we aren't democratic either.

detached.amusement's picture

and I suppose you think the USA has some sort of DEMOCRATIC instritutions?

get your bible toting bullshit out of here, anyone with a thinking mind rejects such idiocy.

BarkingCat's picture

Christianity is not native to Korea so they have every right to prevent its spread to there.

However I am willing to bet that you are full of shit on your statement that they are #1 in the world in their persecution of Christians.

Let's test it.

We can each buy a t-shirt with a big cross on it

I will fly to North Korea and wear it in public for a week.

You fly to Saudi Arabia and do the same.

 

Then we can compare notes.......if your head is still attached to your body.

Itinerant's picture

Good point. Killed 4 million Koreans last time around. Let's kill 10 million Koreans, for humanitarianist goals !!!

Iskiab's picture

Considering opposing opinions is what leads to a better understanding of an issue, no matter what the source. Every country has propaganda, especially the US. Without actively looking outside what's fed to you you'll never know the truth.

If you view US policy as anything other than a Machiavellian policy where they ruthlessly further their own interests, while publicly saying they're being magnanimous and furthering democracy than you're delusional. Even South Park picked up on that where they said debate at home with demonstrations and talk of being caring deflects blame for their actions.

It's easier to see the media's bias if you're not American, because American media is so pervasive. Watch something like BBC world news for a week (if you care about the bias of the source) and compare it to what you hear at home, the difference is jaw dropping.

Mainstream media doesn't even try to be unbiased, despite what you've heard that's the main reason millennials don't watch the news, it isn't news it's propaganda.

hongdo's picture

Very good advice.  But along with BBC I would add RT and English language Chinese news and other asian sources if you have the time.  I find ZH comments to be very enlightening.

BarkingCat's picture

BBC, seriously? The British Bullshit Corporation.

When was the last time Britain told the truth??

new game's picture

this fuk is one move ahead of us. he has sk over the barrel. cept the crazzies in dc think they can take out his nukes before he can deploy them? emp a manuel system? and where are they? can the ground troops  be neutralized with 70 miles buffer before sk pays dearly? hmmm. if enough payloads on board all at first, like pearl harbor, maybe a win could be had. every plane with full payload blitzing toward strategic targets could end this in 24 hours. 90/10 casualties...

i hear a mad dog growling and drouling. hmmm

keep the bastards honest's picture

There is no need to kill (those asians doing) those jobs. Just STOP BUYING stuff from them, this week.  US will then collapse.

HermanVanCuckold's picture

Definitely a pro-China article. Seoul is escalating tensions and needs to tone down while NK is promoting regional stability by testing bombs.

One thing is for sure though, China is rising and the US is falling.

Winston Churchill's picture

Don't agree.

Seems to be a sober and dispassionate overview of the players true motivations.

As it happens to mirror what I've been saying all along maybe I'm biased.

Just because you understand the other persons pov does not make you anti or pro anything.

A little more critical thinking on ZH would be nice, its seems to ger rarer every day.

The deal, if its still on the table,is good for everyone except the MIC.

shovelhead's picture

It's just another POV and the reasons for drawing those conclusions. If you had 6 other Far East hands, you could come up with 9 alternate points of view that could be equally convincing, given the opacity of the players and the situation.

In military matters, one can never assume or truly assess the capabilities of the actors without a pipeline into the centers of power. One thing remains a constant and that is whether the US leadership will tolerate a nuclear powered North Korea.

Some see it as intolerable and others say we have no choice in the matter because the options involved to deny NK nukes are unacceptable losses and the risk of theater wide war with superpowers.

Flip a coin.

WorkingFool's picture

My personal strategy would be to be to continue to ratchet up economic pressure and work to get information on the quality of life in the South into the communist / DemocRAT run utopia. Just like every other Collectivist shit hole it will collapse - USSR, Cuba, Detroit, Connecticut

runningman18's picture

The writer of this article seems to be oblivious to the influence of the global bankster cabal.  If they want a war in NK, they'll get one.  Either by forcing the issue outright or by using a false flag.  There's no "strategy" that NK can use to avoid it. 

Juggernaut x2's picture

TPTB that be can wage all of the external wars they want but the US is one financial meltdown away from fucking cracking apart

Mementoil's picture

This article is a bunch of nonsense.
It's main assumption is that the US invades each and every country which doesn't have nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
When in fact the US couldn't care less about N. Korea if its leader would simply sit quietly.

The truth is that N. Korea is a wretchedly poor country due to its crazy communist regime, and as a result it is forced to extort funds and food from other countries who have a functioning economy. In the past, every time they have threatened the west with nuclear weapons we have caved in and gave them all they wanted. Now, for the first time they encountering some kind of resistance.

 

HopefulCynical's picture

When in fact the US couldn't care less about N. Korea if its leader would simply sit quietly.

You are correct, but only to a point. NK is only one of two countries, of any real global signifigance, that are not saddled with a Rothschild-controlled central bank.

The other is Iran.

Iraq and Libya, two of the last remaining holdouts, have already fallen.

The US itself does not care, no. But the moneychanger filth most certainly do, and they are the REAL tail that wags the American dog. Once they've subjugated every country OF GLOBAL IMPORTANCE with their debt-based parasite banking system, the global collapse and recreation of the world into a neofeudal globalist bankster world order can proceed.

The way to make NK irrelevent, aka quiet, is the same remedy as to almost all of the rest of the world's problems: End debt-based fiat ponzi banksterism.

Step one is to END THE FUCKING FED.

Mementoil's picture

N. Korea doesn't have any significant GDP.
It is so poor, that there simply isn't any juice to squeeze out of this lemon.
Even if we buy your theory about a central bank cartel ruling the world, why would they care about this pathetic excuse for a country called N. Korea?
Why would they risk sending the entire global economy into a tail spin for it?

Sorry, it doesn't make any sense to me.

ReadyforLiftoff's picture

Missed one. I believe Syria is also a banking cabal holdout. The Squid has its tentacles around that one now. 

not dead yet's picture

Actions by the US since the Korean War have shown the US does care. The US has done everything in it's power to screw that country and has rattled sabres at them ever since the end of the war. Every time the US entered an agreement with NK it was the US that broke it. Thank DC for the Norks having nukes. At least with the nukes they have something to bargain with. People come to ZH to get away from the fake news of mainstream media yet they still haven't shrugged of the propaganda fed them about North Korea, Venezuela, etc and march to the DC tune. This article presents another side and rather than give it some thought it gets panned. What really gets the NK hackles up is that the US likes to hold war drills in the area every year during planting and harvesting times to keep the NK soldiers on station and out of the fields.

Lots of blather of Kimmy's threats and so many here believe them. Most of it is talking smack but it's reported as if he means it. In a recent quote Kim said NK will never give up it's rockets and nukes. According to the experts at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies what Kim really said was NK would not give up it's rockets and nukes until the US stops threatening them. Another in a long line of US media scrambling quotes to garner headlines to push their and US government agendas.

As some US generals have said if there wasn't a supposed dangerous NK the US would have to invent one and the last thing the US wants is a unified Korea. It gives the US an excuse to have a large military presence in the area. Without NK SK would kick our ass out, many SK citizens favor kicking the US out believing the US as a roadblock to peace and unification by it's actions, and so would Japan.

Recent reports from reliable sources show NK isn't as wretched as we are led to believe. They have had reforms that allow large numbers of private businesses to be created. If farmers meet their government quota anything left over is theirs to keep thus inspiring farmers markets to earn cash. Lots of gleaming high rise apartment buildings. Every kid from 4th grade on is required to learn and practice English. Education is heavy on science and technology. Contrast that with the US where the education cabal serves up liberal arts crap as the main course. A few years ago in the US when the supposed STEM deficit hit the fan the response from the Secretary of Education was to lengthen the school day to add more music courses. Same thing  for Chicago when the Rahmster took over. Schools were in the crapper so they added more music courses.

Mr 9x19's picture

NK bullshit is all about masking FED 's mess.

it is all about making a decoy to trigger when the plunge protection team call reinforcment saying all control is lost.

a simple missile will make the job to pause markets giving time to stabilize.

 

otherwise, while bother with NK in 2017 and not earlier.

people lost  common sense long ago...

moneybots's picture

"What really gets the NK hackles up is that the US likes to hold war drills in the area every year during planting and harvesting times to keep the NK soldiers on station and out of the fields."

 

Considering they are just joint training drills, NK could choose to ignore them and go about assigning what ever number of soldiers to planting or harvesting.

 

 

Eyes Opened's picture

"The truth is that N. Korea is a wretchedly poor country"

If only they had a (((central bank))) to steer them to prosperity...eh ?  (((Mementoil))) 

Mementoil's picture

I don't like central banks in particular, but let's put thing into perspective.
Would you rather be living in a communist dicatatorship, under the rule of an all powerful tyrant, who could send you and your entire family to a concentration camp for the rest of your lives, just because you didn't cry hard enough on his father's funeral?

Eyes Opened's picture

"Would you rather be living in a communist dicatatorship, under the rule of an all powerful tyrant, who could send you and your entire family to a concentration camp for the rest of your lives,"

I notice u didn't offer any other options...

I'm not american , thankfully , nor am I NK.. I don't need your propaganda to sway me, I SEE with my own eyes who the aggressor is here...

Heres an option for u... mind your own fucking business & let NK/Syria/Yemen/Iran/Afghanistan/Iraq (have i missed any ?) be...

Hows dat for an option ??


Fuelling Chaos's picture

By it's own definition, communism is the opposite of a dictatorship.just a little etymological research will show you the way. Or not, up to you.

Fuelling Chaos's picture

By it's own definition, communism is the opposite of a dictatorship.just a little etymological research will show you the way. Or not, up to you.