Sounds like the sort of question Steve Sailer would ask. Perhaps we should compile a kind of triage list of the world’s dysfunctional countries and prioritize the ones which would get the most benefit from this kind of benign receivership. I would put North Korea near the top of the salvageable countries because we have proof of principle in South Korea that the extended Korean family has the genetic goods to benefit from a properly run recovery plan.
Not really an ideological Turing test, since the context suggests that advancedatheist is not an ideological adversary of Steve Sailer (or at least, doesn’t see himself as such). I’m pretty sure he said “Sounds like the sort of question Steve Sailer would ask” in order to praise the question, not criticize it.
However, it doesn’t have enough petrol, and its equipment is ancient and unmaintained, and its communications networks are awful, and it has effectively zero airpower, and assuming its nukes actually function they’re unlikely to be movable off the testing grounds, and we know where pretty much all the weapons emplacements are, and their army can’t actually cross the DMZ without a lot of effort.
IMHO it makes a lot of sense to view NK as a pissed off 8 year old with a loaded .22 handgun threatening to shoot SK in the foot if she doesn’t get a pony. Sure, nobody wants to get shot, but really, there’s no existential risk to SK or any other country as a result of NK retaliation or attack (as NK stands right now.)
I don’t think there ground for that hope. Seoul isn’t far from North Korea. It easy to shoot over that distance. North Korea has it’s military-first doctrine and therefore a lot of weaponry.
I was thinking that North Korea having bio-weapons poses a threat to China as the biologicals could spread. I would hope that China would be using whatever leverage it has to stop North Korea from having bio-weapons. I know that China failed to stop North Korea from having atomic bombs, but North Korea gets a lot more propaganda value from atomic bombs than bio-weapons.
Focusing on propaganda value ignores the internal politics of North Korea.
North Korea has powerful military. By it’s own admission they had some intelligence services that were doing whatever they wanted. To stay in power the leader of North Korea has to follow the military-first principle and give the military what it wants.
Occasionally that means North Koreans starve. China doesn’t want that refugees come over the border and it has to deal with them so they sent food to North Korea to prevent famine.
The best way out is to educate the next generation of North Korean leaders in the West in countries like Switzerland and increase trading between North Korea and the outside so that you have rich and powerful North Korean businessmen that have an interest in cultural exchange. North Korean businessmen have an interest that employees of their companies have internet access.
US policy on the other hand favors economic sanction that weaken the business community and therefore shift more power to the military. Why? That policy of being tough on North Korea is beneficial for internal US politics.
Bush got point from his base for breaking the promises that Clinton made to North Korea and as a result North Korea got nuclear weapons.
China couldn’t do anything about it. They can’t prevent stupid US policy that strengthens those factors inside North Korea that wants nukes and biological weapons. China also has no way to put pressure on the North Korean military.
I know that China failed to stop North Korea from having atomic bombs
North Korea has biological and chemical weapons for a lot longer than it has nuclear weapons and likely has a larger stockpile.
Sounds like the sort of question Steve Sailer would ask. Perhaps we should compile a kind of triage list of the world’s dysfunctional countries and prioritize the ones which would get the most benefit from this kind of benign receivership. I would put North Korea near the top of the salvageable countries because we have proof of principle in South Korea that the extended Korean family has the genetic goods to benefit from a properly run recovery plan.
That’s actually the opposite of the truth. Sailer has been an ardent anti-interventionist for his entire pundit career.
Seems like yet another case of failing the Ideological Turing Test.
Not really an ideological Turing test, since the context suggests that advancedatheist is not an ideological adversary of Steve Sailer (or at least, doesn’t see himself as such). I’m pretty sure he said “Sounds like the sort of question Steve Sailer would ask” in order to praise the question, not criticize it.
Right. So you start your takeover, Kim nukes Seoul, and..?
North Korea also has enough biological weapons in storage to kill most of South Korea in the case it gets attacked to change it’s regime.
It even has enough artillery.
However, it doesn’t have enough petrol, and its equipment is ancient and unmaintained, and its communications networks are awful, and it has effectively zero airpower, and assuming its nukes actually function they’re unlikely to be movable off the testing grounds, and we know where pretty much all the weapons emplacements are, and their army can’t actually cross the DMZ without a lot of effort.
IMHO it makes a lot of sense to view NK as a pissed off 8 year old with a loaded .22 handgun threatening to shoot SK in the foot if she doesn’t get a pony. Sure, nobody wants to get shot, but really, there’s no existential risk to SK or any other country as a result of NK retaliation or attack (as NK stands right now.)
I hope China has caused this to not be true.
I don’t think there ground for that hope. Seoul isn’t far from North Korea. It easy to shoot over that distance. North Korea has it’s military-first doctrine and therefore a lot of weaponry.
I was thinking that North Korea having bio-weapons poses a threat to China as the biologicals could spread. I would hope that China would be using whatever leverage it has to stop North Korea from having bio-weapons. I know that China failed to stop North Korea from having atomic bombs, but North Korea gets a lot more propaganda value from atomic bombs than bio-weapons.
Focusing on propaganda value ignores the internal politics of North Korea.
North Korea has powerful military. By it’s own admission they had some intelligence services that were doing whatever they wanted. To stay in power the leader of North Korea has to follow the military-first principle and give the military what it wants.
Occasionally that means North Koreans starve. China doesn’t want that refugees come over the border and it has to deal with them so they sent food to North Korea to prevent famine.
The best way out is to educate the next generation of North Korean leaders in the West in countries like Switzerland and increase trading between North Korea and the outside so that you have rich and powerful North Korean businessmen that have an interest in cultural exchange. North Korean businessmen have an interest that employees of their companies have internet access.
US policy on the other hand favors economic sanction that weaken the business community and therefore shift more power to the military. Why? That policy of being tough on North Korea is beneficial for internal US politics. Bush got point from his base for breaking the promises that Clinton made to North Korea and as a result North Korea got nuclear weapons.
China couldn’t do anything about it. They can’t prevent stupid US policy that strengthens those factors inside North Korea that wants nukes and biological weapons. China also has no way to put pressure on the North Korean military.
North Korea has biological and chemical weapons for a lot longer than it has nuclear weapons and likely has a larger stockpile.
Does it make utilitarian sense to leave North Korea’s Kim crime family in power because the current leader provides comic relief?