00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Dunso just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

North Korean H-Bomb Test

3,045 Views | 50 Replies

North Korea has claimed to have tested a thermonuclear bomb. Now, 99% of the stuff they say is bullshit, but an artificial earthquake was detected, so fusion or no fusion it must have been kilotons of TNT at least. So here we break it down.

1. Do you think this is total bullshit? If so, why would they make the claim now? Are they threatening us so we give them aid for their hungry populace (because they spend all their money on their military)? Do they want attention? If so, why? What regional/geopolitical events is it related to? China, Korean reunification, etc.

2. If no to question one, what the fuck should we do about it? Should we attempt a coup? Or ignore them and rely on MAD for deterrence?

Personally, I think if this is true, we need to organize a military coup. Kim Jung whoever has been acting increasingly erratic, executing family members and such, which is a sign of weakness. His top advisers must be fearful that they are next and want to stop the madness. North Korea's military is where most of its power is located, and if the DPRK will fall it will be by military coup. The situation, hydrogen bomb or not, has gotten increasingly intolerable. China is flexing its own muscle in Japanese/Korean waters like a dick and wants North Korea as a buffer zone from US troops in South Korea on its southern border. If NK falls, the Americans and South Koreans will rush in to unify the peninsula and the Chinese will rush in and it will be hell at the 38th parallel all over again.
But that's assuming it's true. As it is it's probably bullshit.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 04:53:21


The supreme irony in my opinion is this could be Iran in ten years.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 04:56:14


I should probably post a link. Here we go.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 12:06:11


At 1/6/16 10:49 AM, lapis wrote:
At 1/6/16 04:41 AM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: Personally, I think if this is true, we need to organize a military coup.
Didn't really lead to a raving success in Iran if I recall correctly.

Iran is different. They never had thermonuclear weapons. I am altogether anti-coup since it often causes more problems then it solves but adding a hydrogen bomb creates an altogether different situation.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 12:07:19


Such a weak regime has never had such a powerful weapon. Thus, perfect opportunity for a coup. Plus there are obvious human rights issues to address.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 12:12:50


In my opinion its was definitely an atomic bomb test, their fourth, and they wanted to up the ante by lying and calling it a mini h-bomb. Which is also in my opinion a blatant lie.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 14:48:20


At 1/6/16 01:10 PM, zornuzkull wrote: American interventionism has a very long history of making things a fuck load worse.
When the people of North Korea have had enough they will take matters into there own hands.

Agree with the first, though it wasn't always the case, ie the world wars.
With the second I'm not sure. North Korea isn't a normal country, I don't think anyone even contemplates dissent.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 18:19:50


At 1/6/16 12:07 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: Such a weak regime has never had such a powerful weapon. Thus, perfect opportunity for a coup. Plus there are obvious human rights issues to address.

They will drop a nuke on S. Korea hours before we get there. That has always been their trump card. We aren't really all that afraid of them, nobody is, but it's what they can do to S.K. a long standing ally in the region (one of our only ones) and the human rights situation that would be that has always stopped us. It's early January, they're probably running out of food, aid, and attention from Dennis Rodman good will missions so even if what they're saying is true....it just seems like another case of "I might misbehave, give me the things I need so I'll behave".


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 18:26:36


Considering how powerful a hydrogen bomb is, they are lying. When we tested one we took out several islands.


Common sense isn't so common anymore

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Fanfiction Page

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 23:25:04


At 1/6/16 06:26 PM, LordJaric wrote: Considering how powerful a hydrogen bomb is, they are lying. When we tested one we took out several islands.

Bikini atoll? Hydrogen bombs are as powerful as their mass allows. But no one makes a bomb that tiny. It would have to be quite small and it requires a powerful fission reaction to trigger the fusion, this was probably a normal nuclear test. But I wrote this when not all the details were in. The question still stands, should we do anything about it? What I'm most concerned about is that they would even make such a lie while already risking alienation from China and Russia for their fourth nuclear test, to say such a thing indicates great weakness at home. If the regime is unstable we still have to fear the worst about a new cold war upon its collapse.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 23:26:27


If the people are as hungry as the media claims they will definitely be considering it.

“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy”
Alfred Henry Lewis.

That's brilliant, never heard it before, thanks. The thing is they had it way worse in the 90s, like eating people worse, and they didn't do a thing then.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-06 23:27:42


At 1/6/16 06:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: "I might misbehave, give me the things I need so I'll behave".

Like a child. A child with nukes.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-07 03:19:54 (edited 2016-01-07 03:20:20)


At 1/6/16 11:27 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote:
At 1/6/16 06:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: "I might misbehave, give me the things I need so I'll behave".
Like a child. A child with nukes.

That's exactly what he's like, but that makes him extremely dangerous.

I do think he behaves very much like a spoiled child that just always got his way. He can execute anyone in his own country who disagrees with him or "just because".

As for a potential coup to depose the regime, I really believe Che Guevara's ideas of guerrilla warfare stand a good chance of working since the people are starving and have no real representation and there's probably a lot of internal dissent though people keep their mouths shut and endure for obvious reasons. And what's he going to do if there's a coup within his own country? Atom bomb his own country? Well, I wouldn't rule it out -- he's definitely crazy enough -- but if he did that he'd take himself out as well and while there'd be large Korean casualties, that should at least end his regime immediately if he chose that option.

Learn from history though, and those running such a coup should be Koreans. They absolutely should not be Americans. The goal would be to get the oppressed people to side with the guerrilla forces in the coup, seeing them as in their best interests, and as one of their own. History shows that this is necessary so the locals won't view the coup forces as foreign invaders. If you can get the people of North Korea to overthrow the guy, problem solved, right?


Want to play Flash games on Newgrounds again? See here

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-07 05:03:54


At 1/6/16 01:10 PM, zornuzkull wrote: American interventionism has a very long history of making things a fuck load worse.
When the people of North Korea have had enough they will take matters into there own hands.

Not likely. The regime has all the guns. Should remind you of another regime currently in power attempting to do the same thing. I'm inclined though to believe that North Korea did successfully detonate a nuclear weapon, but it's a matter of what they want to do with it.


You haven't seen me yet.

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-07 12:38:24


At 1/7/16 05:03 AM, BloodPact wrote:
Not likely. The regime has all the guns. Should remind you of another regime currently in power attempting to do the same thing. I'm inclined though to believe that North Korea did successfully detonate a nuclear weapon, but it's a matter of what they want to do with it.

You are right that the regime has all the guns, but where are most of the guns? The military. North Korea has the largest in the world, counting paramilitary groups. About 1/3 of the population is in the military, therefore they probably have guns. Hence, military coup. The problem is they wouldn't think of doing such a thing.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-07 18:21:39


At 1/7/16 12:38 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: The problem is they wouldn't think of doing such a thing.

There's been talk that he doesn't really have the support of the military but a military coup probably just ends with a different dictator and not a democracy or a noticeably better situation.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 13:40:33


At 1/7/16 06:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: There's been talk that he doesn't really have the support of the military but a military coup probably just ends with a different dictator and not a democracy or a noticeably better situation.

How do you know a different dictator won't be better though? If a different dictator is merely sane, already this would be a tremendous improvement would it not?

There's not really anything inherently worse about a one-person government (whether dictatorship or kingship) vs. other forms of government. It's all dependent on that exact person, their exact personality, and their exact policies.

A bad king or dictator is definitely bad but a good king or dictator might be better than any democracy. Not every country has to be a democracy.


Want to play Flash games on Newgrounds again? See here

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 13:57:41


Ding! Agree completely. We've installed a lot of dictators but some were much better than others. For instance, Korea. We backed Park Chung-hee in South Korea, he was a dictator, and we thought a far-right military autocracy was a stronger force against the soviets than a democracy. After multiple assassination attempts, he was killed by his own bodyguard, and now look at South Korea. Compare that to North Korea. The Soviets installed a much, much worse dictator, the Kim asshole. The difference is the kind of dictatorship. One shut their country off from the world and built a crazy cult of personality around himself. The other was a regime much more open to global ideas.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 13:58:52


At 1/8/16 01:40 PM, NeonSpider wrote: A bad king or dictator is definitely bad but a good king or dictator might be better than any democracy. Not every country has to be a democracy.

Agree with some of this, not that a good king might be better than any democracy though. Better short-term? Maybe, but not long-term.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 15:12:45


At 1/8/16 01:58 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote:
At 1/8/16 01:40 PM, NeonSpider wrote: A bad king or dictator is definitely bad but a good king or dictator might be better than any democracy. Not every country has to be a democracy.
Agree with some of this, not that a good king might be better than any democracy though. Better short-term? Maybe, but not long-term.

Well, it's more volatile for sure, which itself isn't good since what happens once a good king or dictator dies? What is to stop him from being replaced by a bad one? Nothing. So a democracy or democratic republic is more stable long-term for sure. But I think during the time of reign/ruling a benevolent ruler could be better since there's less red tape to cut through and they have more authority to get stuff done.

Just depends on the nature of the exact individual in question. Obviously a bad king or dictator would be worse.


Want to play Flash games on Newgrounds again? See here

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 15:41:38


Right. I agree.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 16:50:48


At 1/8/16 01:40 PM, NeonSpider wrote: How do you know a different dictator won't be better though?

How do you know they won't be worse? See, I can play that game too. The immediate problem a different dictator has is the culture of North Korea which doesn't just revere the Kims as their political leaders, but they also have a religious cult associated with them as well. Any new dictator has to overcome that, and most likely replace it. Also it's a case of the environment they've been in, any potential new leader of NK is not going to have what we would consider an acceptable moral compas.

If a different dictator is merely sane, already this would be a tremendous improvement would it not?

Define "sane" because that isn't a medical term, it's a legal one. Again, the way the country is structured and has run, I think the odds of getting a benevolent dictator are extremely low.

There's not really anything inherently worse about a one-person government (whether dictatorship or kingship) vs. other forms of government. It's all dependent on that exact person, their exact personality, and their exact policies.

Which is what is inherently the problem. If you have a government centered on one person and they're a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Kim Jung Un, you have massive, massive problems. There are of course examples of great and benevolent monarchies and dictators sure....but those tend to be waaaaay in the pages of the past.

A bad king or dictator is definitely bad but a good king or dictator might be better than any democracy. Not every country has to be a democracy.

If America is going to intervene it does :)


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 18:00:03


At 1/8/16 04:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 1/8/16 01:40 PM, NeonSpider wrote: How do you know a different dictator won't be better though?
How do you know they won't be worse?

I don't know that but I don't see that as very likely. They might be as bad or they might be better seem more likely to me. If they're as bad, oh well. If they're better that's an improvement.

any potential new leader of NK is not going to have what we would consider an acceptable moral compas.

I don't think that's for us to decide though. Wouldn't that be up to the North Koreans to decide? If it's better than what they've had, even if not up to Western standards, isn't that at least an improvement?

Define "sane" because that isn't a medical term, it's a legal one.

It's a fairly standard term in the English language with fairly well-known meaning. I'm surprised you'd need it defined. But let's define "sane" as the absence of delusional or magical thinking and the presence of rational thinking and decision-making. One who is "sane" should base actions more-or-less on established reality vs. what one who is "insane" might base them on. The current North Korean regime is extremely delusional.

Again, the way the country is structured and has run, I think the odds of getting a benevolent dictator are extremely low.

Maybe, but simply "better than current" is still an improvement. Can't ask for Rome to be built in a day.

Which is what is inherently the problem. If you have a government centered on one person and they're a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Kim Jung Un, you have massive, massive problems.

Well, if a replacement dictator is worse than the replaced one, the new dictator can also be replaced, etc... If the people rise up against their own government it's not very well going to stand for long.

A bad king or dictator is definitely bad but a good king or dictator might be better than any democracy. Not every country has to be a democracy.
If America is going to intervene it does :)

Who says America has to intervene everywhere? I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with an isolationist strategy and I don't think literally every government on earth has to be of the same exact type. If North Korea can establish their own "good enough" government, whatever form that may take, we should leave them be.

Part of the problem of why America is hated different places in the world is because they do tend to just intervene everywhere.


Want to play Flash games on Newgrounds again? See here

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 19:05:56 (edited 2016-01-08 19:18:24)


At 1/8/16 06:00 PM, NeonSpider wrote: I don't know that but I don't see that as very likely.

Are you something of an expert on NK? I admit, I am not. I'm just spitballing, using what limited knowledge of the country and totalitarian systems I know from both the modern and historical perspective and extrapolating from there. Seems like you're hoping, and wishing, and spitballing yourself but maybe I'm just reading it wrong and you've got some expertise I don't know about. If you do have some expertise on the region I'd love to hear about it since I always like to learn new things.

I don't think that's for us to decide though.

History says if it's our dime, we're going to want to. But realistically, if the idea here is to replace it with a regime that's "friendly" or (and really I think this would be the more desirable goal) re-unification with the South and they bow to it's regime, then yeah, we're going to need to have something of a hand in how the transition goes.

Wouldn't that be up to the North Koreans to decide?

If it's another dictator? Haha, no. Totalitarianism by it's nature takes the decisions out of the hands of the people and plants them firmly into the hands of the regime.

If it's better than what they've had, even if not up to Western standards, isn't that at least an improvement?

Depends on what you mean by "better". Is it better if say the new dictator says "ok, I will spend less on the military, and more on food....but the only people who eat are the ones that are loyal to me and people". Is that better? "better" is a subjective

It's a fairly standard term in the English language with fairly well-known meaning. I'm surprised you'd need it defined.

Ok, let me make a request if I may right now. Ok? Ok. Please don't do this contemptous "cute" sniping. I'm not trying to do that to you, yes, I may be asking you questions that I suppose I know the answer to already but I reserve final judgement until you've replied in case I am to be surprised. Also I think you'll see in a minute how when one tries to define a word the definition can turn and all of a sudden the ground which seemed firm is shakier. Thanks, onwards.

But let's define "sane" as the absence of delusional or magical thinking and the presence of rational thinking and decision-making. One who is "sane" should base actions more-or-less on established reality vs. what one who is "insane" might base them on. The current North Korean regime is extremely delusional.

Interesting definition there. Here's the thing though. Is not religion the very definition of "magical thinking"? We elected a President who said God "spoke to him" and was guiding his decisions. Pretty much every President we've had, and many other world leaders throughout history have held similar ideas and beliefs....so I guess we're ok with people who fit you're definition of "insane" (see why it's legal instead of medical?). As far as they're "delusion" are you a psychiatrist? Have you analyzed them? I always hold out the possibility that they don't believe in the cult of personality they've created, and that it's merely a tool, a means to an end for them.

Maybe, but simply "better than current" is still an improvement. Can't ask for Rome to be built in a day.

Wow, that's a low as shit bar. If that's the standard, then I think it's better the devil we know vs. one who may get in and decide it's time to nuke the neighbors.

Well, if a replacement dictator is worse than the replaced one, the new dictator can also be replaced, etc... If the people rise up against their own government it's not very well going to stand for long.

Nuclear. Fucking. Weapons. Are we forgetting they have those? Yes, they don't have ICBM's, but they have the capability of damaging their own country, and the ones in the immediate neighborhood. Do you really think if the shit hit the fan they'd hesitate to use them?

Who says America has to intervene everywhere?

How do you think the coup would be effected? It would almost certainly need some kind of American involvement, even if it was just a check...I'm increasingly concerned you don't have the first idea of even the most basic mechanics of what you propose.

Part of the problem of why America is hated different places in the world is because they do tend to just intervene everywhere.

Part of it yes, the other part though is some parts of the world inherently like strong men, chaos, and being violent fuckers who like to fight with everybody who isn't them.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 20:40:41


At 1/8/16 01:40 PM, NeonSpider wrote: How do you know a different dictator won't be better though? If a different dictator is merely sane, already this would be a tremendous improvement would it not?

You'd think so, but a lot of the problems that the North Koreans have are deep-rooted beyond just the Kim family. North Korea is decades behind of everyone else in the world in a lot of ways, and it will take a long time for them to be back to even being a somewhat developed country. Don't expect a meteoric rise like China or Singapore had the last 30 years or so.

There's not really anything inherently worse about a one-person government (whether dictatorship or kingship) vs. other forms of government. It's all dependent on that exact person, their exact personality, and their exact policies.

Initially true, but once the dictator/absolute monarch dies or is ousted, another one will take it's place, and the transition rarely, if ever goes smoothly. The Arab Spring is the best example of dictators being ousted and soon afterwards, the shit hit the fan. Libya and Syria was locked into a Civil War and in the latter case, spiraled downhill, whereas Egypt is a literal mess with their politics involving the Muslim Brotherhood.

A bad king or dictator is definitely bad but a good king or dictator might be better than any democracy. Not every country has to be a democracy.

That may be, but you honestly can't blame the West for trying to implement a system that has worked for them for centuries in a country that was under the yolk of absolute rule for decades. Of course, it's easier said than done considering that most of the Middle East is opposed to democracy and is used to having strongmen take over and do what they do.

It's not hard to see a correlation between fully developed countries and having some form of democracy, whether its a republican system or constitutional monarchy, at least over the last 150 years or so.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 21:30:44


At 1/8/16 07:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Are you something of an expert on NK? I admit, I am not. I'm just spitballing, using what limited knowledge of the country and totalitarian systems I know from both the modern and historical perspective and extrapolating from there. Seems like you're hoping, and wishing, and spitballing yourself but maybe I'm just reading it wrong and you've got some expertise I don't know about. If you do have some expertise on the region I'd love to hear about it since I always like to learn new things.

No. I'm using limited knowledge and extrapolation as well. I make certain assumptions such as that the people may be able to organize a coup and that such a people's-led coup may work quite well in North Korea due to the levels of disenfranchisement and probable discontent of the people there, although likely some new dictator would come to power as a result but it might be better than what's there now.

History says if it's our dime, we're going to want to. But realistically, if the idea here is to replace it with a regime that's "friendly" or (and really I think this would be the more desirable goal) re-unification with the South and they bow to it's regime, then yeah, we're going to need to have something of a hand in how the transition goes.

But America can't do this. They'll just be seen as untrusted outsiders. Regime change has to come from the Koreans themselves. It's possible South Korea might be able to though, if they can get some people infiltrated up into North Korea and draw up enough popular support among the North Korean people.

If it's another dictator? Haha, no. Totalitarianism by it's nature takes the decisions out of the hands of the people and plants them firmly into the hands of the regime.

But if the people put that dictator there he's still their dictator because they had a hand in it and he'll likely want to retain the peoples' favor or they'll just get rid of him just like the last guy.

Depends on what you mean by "better". Is it better if say the new dictator says "ok, I will spend less on the military, and more on food....but the only people who eat are the ones that are loyal to me and people". Is that better? "better" is a subjective

Progress is still progress.

Interesting definition there. Here's the thing though. Is not religion the very definition of "magical thinking"? We elected a President who said God "spoke to him" and was guiding his decisions. Pretty much every President we've had, and many other world leaders throughout history have held similar ideas and beliefs....so I guess we're ok with people who fit you're definition of "insane" (see why it's legal instead of medical?). As far as they're "delusion" are you a psychiatrist? Have you analyzed them? I always hold out the possibility that they don't believe in the cult of personality they've created, and that it's merely a tool, a means to an end for them.

Yes it would be better for the leadership of countries to not have any religious influence (or influence from outside sources for that matter). Policy decisions should be made based off well thought-out criteria, not based off some religious notions. I'm not a psychiatrist but I do have some psychological training. Even if Kim Jong Un doesn't believe the propaganda his party generates for the masses, he's still delusional to think he can exert power over, for example, the United States, Russia, or China. So, yes, he's delusional.

Maybe, but simply "better than current" is still an improvement. Can't ask for Rome to be built in a day.
Wow, that's a low as shit bar. If that's the standard, then I think it's better the devil we know vs. one who may get in and decide it's time to nuke the neighbors.

Doubtful. Would it be a strategically good idea? No. Why would the current regime think of doing something like that? Because they're crazy. Replace with a non-crazy regime. If they try anything they're easily wiped out themselves anyway.

Nuclear. Fucking. Weapons. Are we forgetting they have those? Yes, they don't have ICBM's, but they have the capability of damaging their own country, and the ones in the immediate neighborhood. Do you really think if the shit hit the fan they'd hesitate to use them?

Well if they use them they're dead. If they took out South Korea or Japan with nukes they'd just be nuked into oblivion themselves. So I don't really see that as being a very good strategical option for them.

How do you think the coup would be effected? It would almost certainly need some kind of American involvement, even if it was just a check...I'm increasingly concerned you don't have the first idea of even the most basic mechanics of what you propose.

Well Americans can be involved but they need to give appearances otherwise at the very least. How to effect a coup? A Korean-led coup might work, because it needs popular support and it needs to be seen as a home-grown thing or it'll just seem as outsiders and the North Korean people aren't going to trust Americans. A small Korean guerrilla group and guerrilla war tactics might stand the best chance.

Part of the problem of why America is hated different places in the world is because they do tend to just intervene everywhere.
Part of it yes, the other part though is some parts of the world inherently like strong men, chaos, and being violent fuckers who like to fight with everybody who isn't them.

Funny, because the same thing could be said about America. In lots of cases American soldiers are just seen as unwelcome invaders doing exactly that. We need to pick our battles wisely and we need to not be "Team America: World Police". Also, sometimes it's better to let other countries deal with shit, for a change.

I really think South Korea has a much better shot at enacting regime change in North Korea than America has. Even China has a better shot than America.


Want to play Flash games on Newgrounds again? See here

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 23:02:47


China's interesting because they are pissed off that Kim executed his pro-China uncle and that the DPRK is increasingly an embarrassment on them. Kim relies on China (and Russia) as veto-wielding members of the UNSC to prevent himself from being prosecuted for human rights violation (although, then again, even if they did prosecute him not much would happen, I mean look at Darfur. The UN is shit) while giving the finger to them and the world. But at the same time China likes having a buffer zone from the ROK and particularly from the thousands of American armed forces there. What is really shitty is that in China they "repatriate" defectors from North Korea, sending them to their inevitable doom. There are hundreds (thousands?) of North Korean women in China working as veritable sex slaves because they're poor and vulnerable and don't want to be turned in to the authorities.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-08 23:34:19


At 1/8/16 09:30 PM, NeonSpider wrote: No. I'm using limited knowledge and extrapolation as well. I make certain assumptions such as that the people may be able to organize a coup and that such a people's-led coup may work quite well in North Korea due to the levels of disenfranchisement and probable discontent of the people there, although likely some new dictator would come to power as a result but it might be better than what's there now.

Yeah....this is wishful thinking and that's being kind. You clearly don't know enough about the situation in NK as it relates to people's access to information, weapons, etc as it relates to any sort of coup effort.

But America can't do this. They'll just be seen as untrusted outsiders. Regime change has to come from the Koreans themselves. It's possible South Korea might be able to though, if they can get some people infiltrated up into North Korea and draw up enough popular support among the North Korean people.

Nah, SK isn't any kind of fan of NK, and I don't think they honestly want the headache of trying to take the territory and bring it up to speed. These people are DECADES behind and Korea in general is one of the worst Asian societies for tribalism and exclusion. You should see some of the reports about what happens to NK refugees who do make it south. Also the nuclear threat.

But if the people put that dictator there he's still their dictator because they had a hand in it and he'll likely want to retain the peoples' favor or they'll just get rid of him just like the last guy.

Wow, you don't get how dictators work or how they've historically done the job do you?

Progress is still progress.

I don't even know what to say to that....how is my hypothetical actually "progress" unless you're attitude is "anything is better then now", even though what I laid out was essentially what they have now, it'd just be a different guy.

Yes it would be better for the leadership of countries to not have any religious influence (or influence from outside sources for that matter). Policy decisions should be made based off well thought-out criteria, not based off some religious notions. I'm not a psychiatrist but I do have some psychological training. Even if Kim Jong Un doesn't believe the propaganda his party generates for the masses, he's still delusional to think he can exert power over, for example, the United States, Russia, or China. So, yes, he's delusional.

Cept he does, cause he has Nukes, because they continue to hand him aid and money to behave and to feed his people with. I think this is where we part ways on continuing this debate. It's clear you don't have even the faintest grasp of what you're talking about or what's going on.

Well if they use them they're dead. If they took out South Korea or Japan with nukes they'd just be nuked into oblivion themselves. So I don't really see that as being a very good strategical option for them.

The threat is enough. The threat has always been enough....fuck, seriously, it's aggravating as shit trying to debate this with someone who clearly knows nothing about history, political theory, any of this stuff. Look up "MAD" and then come back and let's try again with having a discussion about nukes and how the threat is what is keeping the world safe from them and not the reality.

Funny, because the same thing could be said about America.

Only from dumb dumbs who can't look at the history of the world and see the differences between why industrialized nations like America fight, and why fringe shit holes like NK, or many of the Middle Eastern nations cause issues. Not all nations are created equal or have the same objective.

I really think South Korea has a much better shot at enacting regime change in North Korea than America has. Even China has a better shot than America.

China won't because they're allied with NK. Again, crack a book, use google, get some basics. South Korea won't because North Korea can easily nuke them if they try. That is what North Korea's nukes are for and how the threat works.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-09 01:00:33


At 1/8/16 11:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yeah....this is wishful thinking and that's being kind. You clearly don't know enough about the situation in NK as it relates to people's access to information, weapons, etc as it relates to any sort of coup effort.

The North Korean civilians don't have to have detailed information about their own government nor current access to weapons to be useful in a guerrilla war scenario. All they need is a detailed layout of the local land, connections with each other, and a common cause. Guerrilla fighters could possibly get weapons to some of them later and most could serve as merely informants. And it's possible for the North Korean military to defect as well. It's not exactly a very stable area of the world.

Nah, SK isn't any kind of fan of NK, and I don't think they honestly want the headache of trying to take the territory and bring it up to speed. These people are DECADES behind and Korea in general is one of the worst Asian societies for tribalism and exclusion. You should see some of the reports about what happens to NK refugees who do make it south. Also the nuclear threat.

Guerrilla warfare, not a full-out public declaration of war send your entire armed forces in "okay go". Besides it's not necessary to "bring them up to speed". It's only necessary to replace the current regime with something better. After that, let the North Koreans handle things themselves.

Wow, you don't get how dictators work or how they've historically done the job do you?

See, you seem to have this very American notion that "dictator = bad". I'm really not sure how to proceed from there. You're presupposing the conclusion before even giving anything a chance. A dictator doesn't necessarily have to be bad just because there are many examples of bad dictators.

he's still delusional to think he can exert power over, for example, the United States, Russia, or China. So, yes, he's delusional.
Cept he does, cause he has Nukes, because they continue to hand him aid and money to behave and to feed his people with. I think this is where we part ways on continuing this debate. It's clear you don't have even the faintest grasp of what you're talking about or what's going on.

'Cept he doesn't. He can exert power over South Korea and maybe Japan. The US, Russia, or China could kick his ass into nothing without him having even put much of a dent in any of those three countries. If he's receiving financial aid from the US, Russia, or China, it's only because whoever is giving him aid finds political advantage in doing so. But you have to absolutely be kidding yourself to think North Korea poses any serious threat to any of US, Russia, or China.

The threat is enough. The threat has always been enough....fuck, seriously, it's aggravating as shit trying to debate this with someone who clearly knows nothing about history, political theory, any of this stuff. Look up "MAD" and then come back and let's try again with having a discussion about nukes and how the threat is what is keeping the world safe from them and not the reality.

Your problem is you assume if people knew what you know they would draw the same conclusions you do. Bad assumption. Also extremely arrogant assumption. Yes I'm well aware of what "mutually-assured destruction" is. But the reality is there's no way North Korea could take out the US, Russia, or China. Are you serious? They're like a dot on the map in comparison. And I don't think China is as much their ally as you seem to think they are. China merely uses them when it is convenient. No more and no less. If they become too much a thorn in the side for China maybe China will take them out even.

Only from dumb dumbs who can't look at the history of the world and see the differences between why industrialized nations like America fight, and why fringe shit holes like NK, or many of the Middle Eastern nations cause issues. Not all nations are created equal or have the same objective.

How very arrogant and typically American of you as well. Everyone who doesn't have the default American view is "dumb dumbs". Or, no, just try looking at things as objectively as possible instead of biased for one country or another. Try to see things from perhaps the perspectives of people who have foreign invaders coming into their country. They might not know those people are there to help them. Hell, the US doesn't exactly have the best track record if you, you know, actually look into history. That very thing you keep suggesting others do.

So instead of behaving like a bunch of aggressive foreign invaders as "Team America: World Police", how about taking on a more tactful role in world politics?

I really think South Korea has a much better shot at enacting regime change in North Korea than America has. Even China has a better shot than America.
China won't because they're allied with NK. Again, crack a book, use google, get some basics. South Korea won't because North Korea can easily nuke them if they try. That is what North Korea's nukes are for and how the threat works.

China's not as buddy-buddy with them as you might think. They tend to piss off China from time to time and China mostly only keeps them around because, for the moment they're a useful pawn, but if they become too much of a problem for China do you really think China would spare them? And do you really think they could take out China? Please.

South Korea shouldn't do anything "officially" but guerrilla efforts aren't meant to be "official". Do as you yourself suggest, crack open a book, use google, and get some basics on guerrilla warfare. In the worst case they just play it off like those were some renegade North Koreans with no ties to the South and the guerrilla forces are killed off. It doesn't even have to be South Korea that does it, but any successful guerrilla movement needs at least the appearance of being instigated from the people themselves, so it's pretty important they give the appearance of being ethnic Koreans at the very least because they need to seem home grown, especially early on before gaining native recruits.


Want to play Flash games on Newgrounds again? See here

Response to North Korean H-Bomb Test 2016-01-09 07:15:08


If you guys are going to quarrel with each other, at least acknowledge me somehow. I'm feeling left out.


opiniones meae, facta omnibus

BBS Signature