I posted a few days ago about Peter Hitchens shift from true Brexiteer to 'we must stay in single market and that outweighs Brexit'...
One of the commenters (JJ?) noted that many of the anti-establishment pundits and politicos now find themselves in the awkward position of supporting the government, which doesn't make for good copy/entertaining outrage.
Doesn't mean they are right now or that they were right then... but we may see some of the Brexit media/thinkers watering down support, or perhaps saying - well I wanted this sort of Brexit and now the govt has messed it up.
The opposition to Brexit is in cabinet. Either they are incompetent, or they know concrete preparations are not needed as we will back out. I suspect the former:
I don't think they are incompetent, and I think the overwhelming majority of Cabinet are committed to Brexit. They just realise it's a big job, and have civil servants turning up every day with new challenges. How many for instance had even heard of Euratom before it became an issue?
The critical issue here, and one which the cabinet (any politicians) are unprepared for is that there is a firm deadline. Think of any previous "most important issue", housing, for example. Every previous government has managed to kick the can down the road and not grasped the nettle and the issue remains critical and outstanding today.
A50 means there is a deadline so the government can't obfuscate, draw up plans, call for reviews, or set up inquiries. It has to act and it has to act to a strict timetable. Of course a transition period gives some can-kicking wiggle room but this will be perceived as a failure (and of course betrayal by doltish Brexiters).
Everyone forgets that critical and acute are not the same thing
You're looking in the wrong place for the wrong things. Why would anyone have any real cause to regret their vote at this point? This sort of polling is of no predictive value at all.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
You're looking in the wrong place for the wrong things. Why would anyone have any real cause to regret their vote at this point? This sort of polling is of no predictive value at all.
You mean 'I don't like the answer, I prefer my own sweeping generalisations'?
August is traditionally the month when some economic or political cock-up happens: the invasion of Kuwait, Russia defaulting on its bonds and the demise of Long Term Capital Management, the start of the financial crisis, the coup against Gorbachev etc etc.
Never mind Mr Chapman. Will North Korea be another August disaster?
2 world wars...if one counts 32 of August 1939.
Quite a lot of financial disasters happen in August too. I have rarely had a calm summer at work. It's quite nice, for once, not to be working furiously during August.......
I've just finished the Spider Network.
I'm hoping that it is an entirely biased and one-eyed view.
I'm seriously starting to wonder if I voted the right way in the referendum, the extent of the "we know best" whinging from politico-media figures on tw@tter is starting to become very very boring.
Remain lost
Most people have accepted the result and moved on.
That's a dangerously complacent position for hardcore leavers to take. Yes, many people have moved on. But if Brexit turns out to be a chaotic shambles then opinion could shift very quickly. If someone moves once, it's easier for them to move twice or more times.
Take my position: I voted remain, but after the referendum I felt a quick, hard Brexit was far preferable to a long and lingering negotiation. I remain of that view.
But if there was to be another referendum, I would probably vote remain more strongly than my rather weak vote last time. The leavers in power have proved to be utterly incompetent and unfit for the task, yet alone the rest of the government and body politic.
The trouble is, for another referendum (by which I assume you don't mean a deal-or-no-deal one), it would require the A50 negotiations to yield two deals to choose between. What are the chances of that?
August is traditionally the month when some economic or political cock-up happens: the invasion of Kuwait, Russia defaulting on its bonds and the demise of Long Term Capital Management, the start of the financial crisis, the coup against Gorbachev etc etc.
Never mind Mr Chapman. Will North Korea be another August disaster?
2 world wars...if one counts 32 of August 1939.
Quite a lot of financial disasters happen in August too. I have rarely had a calm summer at work. It's quite nice, for once, not to be working furiously during August.......
Both Lord McDonald and Sarah Champion speaking pretty bluntly on the Today programme about sex abuse gangs. The former said that we should call them for what they are: racist crimes. Ms Champion said that too many people were more afraid of being called racist than of ignoring child abuse.
"What a tangled web we weave When first we venture to deceive."
We've been deceiving ourselves. Deceiving ourselves about what's needed to integrate people from different cultures, deceiving ourselves that if we don't describe the facts about the perpetrators those with malicious agendas won't use this silence, deceiving ourselves that turning a blind eye will make the problem go away.
Interestingly, there is a lady from the Muslim Womens Network on the radio saying that Asian women are also victims of abuse.
August is traditionally the month when some economic or political cock-up happens: the invasion of Kuwait, Russia defaulting on its bonds and the demise of Long Term Capital Management, the start of the financial crisis, the coup against Gorbachev etc etc.
Never mind Mr Chapman. Will North Korea be another August disaster?
2 world wars...if one counts 32 of August 1939.
Quite a lot of financial disasters happen in August too. I have rarely had a calm summer at work. It's quite nice, for once, not to be working furiously during August.......
1931 Financial Crisis hit Britain followed by a political crisis and a National Government was formed.
The problem for the EU is that they remain 27 competing countries. When it comes to obeying EU rules, it becomes farcical.
The UK signs up to them and generally enforce them, Germany certainly does (diesel emissions excepted). Scandinavia usually approves of them and does their best. The Mediterranean countries sign up gleefully to everything and never enforce. The EU doesn't even expect the smaller, newly-joined one to do so.
To make the project cohesive, you have to create one country, and that has been the aim all along. But shush, don't spook the horses. Boil the frogs slowly (and I'm not talking about the French).
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
‘Face’ is traditionally important in the East of course. As important as win-win here. However, do we really know that the relatively young man apparently in charge in NK is actually in charge? It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
those guys were smarter than your guys - thats how bad you were
Irrelevant, who cares whose guys were more stupid. Cameron should never have got us into the situation where such things mattered. What we need is some way of getting out of the mess.
I am sure the Conservatives care which were the more stupid (and irresponsible), Mr Song. They are busy surveying the field to find their new leader.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
‘Face’ is traditionally important in the East of course. As important as win-win here. However, do we really know that the relatively young man apparently in charge in NK is actually in charge? It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
Rex Tillerson: "Nothing I have seen and nothing I know of would indicate that the situation has dramatically changed in the last 24 hours.”
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
‘Face’ is traditionally important in the East of course. As important as win-win here. However, do we really know that the relatively young man apparently in charge in NK is actually in charge? It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
Being at this position earlier would have meant NK had no long-range missiles, fewer intermediate range ones, and a much reduced (if any) nuclear capability.
I'm hoping it won't be seen as an example where inaction was much a negative decision as action ...
If one of those N Korean missiles strays into the territorial waters of Guam, art 5 is triggered I think ?
As is they are firing just outside, so whilst the destruction of Pyongyang is starting to look overdue to my eyes I don't believe we should per se involve our arsenal.
“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
No doubt, James Chapman's tweets made Remainers feel much better about themselves yesterday, and boosted their morale.
But, a man who calls for Boris Johnson to be jailed, challenges Isabel Oakeshott to testify against him in court, threatens to grind his opponents into the dust, calls Brexiters jihadis, wants Miriam Gonzalez Durantez as foreign secretary, and worries that the photo the Guardian used of him makes him look fat, all in less than 24 hours isn't going to be taken seriously in debate.
Challenging Isabel Oakeshott to substantiate her sources sounds like a unicorn hunt!
More seriously, maybe the guy ..... an insider .....has just had enough. And as OGH writes, August is traditionally politically quiet, and this one, as far as UK is concerned, especially so. As a consequence Mr C’s presumably informed voice is likely to be heard and his remarks thought about, although CR is right; good thoughts they may be but it’s easy to have too much of a good thing.
you mean it;s silly season and nobody cares, ffs even Vince Cable made it into the news thats how slow things are
Most people will be reading about Diana or Fat Boy Kim
I voted for Leave, because I felt there was an element of deception in the project from the beginning. That is why the name changed gradually from Common Market (which most people approved of) to European Union once the ground had been prepared. Not so much outright lies (although the odd ones were told when necessary), as evasions.
From my acquaintances, few people have changed their minds, but most Remainers did accept the result. A few noisy ones in the media didn't, but they are the puffed-up, self-important ones. If there were to be another referendum, I'd vote Leave even more determinedly just to annoy these people.
Yes, Leave has a few undesirables attached, but Remain has some even worse - those who think they can and should ignore democracy when it suits them because they always know better, they are superior beings, you see. Better an honest bigot than a true fascist.
August is traditionally the month when some economic or political cock-up happens: the invasion of Kuwait, Russia defaulting on its bonds and the demise of Long Term Capital Management, the start of the financial crisis, the coup against Gorbachev etc etc.
Never mind Mr Chapman. Will North Korea be another August disaster?
Who knows!?
On the one hand - it does seem as though Trump has taken a more provocative stance than the US normally does. On the other - China supported sanctions, which could be a good sign.
In terms of British political implications - Corbyn would probably oppose an invasion/military action against N. Korea, but I imagine most of his party would be fine with it given sufficient provocation.
May of course will support Trump - but I would imagine that being the more popular position amongst the public providing there was sufficient provocation.
Corbyn will oppose anything America or GB does, regardless.
I voted for Leave, because I felt there was an element of deception in the project from the beginning. That is why the name changed gradually from Common Market (which most people approved of) to European Union once the ground had been prepared. Not so much outright lies (although the odd ones were told when necessary), as evasions.
From my acquaintances, few people have changed their minds, but most Remainers did accept the result. A few noisy ones in the media didn't, but they are the puffed-up, self-important ones. If there were to be another referendum, I'd vote Leave even more determinedly just to annoy these people.
Yes, Leave has a few undesirables attached, but Remain has some even worse - those who think they can and should ignore democracy when it suits them because they always know better, they are superior beings, you see. Better an honest bigot than a true fascist.
I understand and sympathise with many of the reasons why people voted leave. As I've said passim, unless the EU changed direction we'd have been forced to leave eventually anyway. But not without a plan ...
I'd argue that leavers arguing against another referendum, and against justifiable court cases (and even attacking the judges in those cases) are far more guilty of ignoring democracy.
As it happens, I think leave would win another referendum by an increased majority if the same question was asked. A referendum on the final terms is a different matter, but war-weariness would probably see them handsomely over the line.
I'm also unsure throwing around terms like 'fascist' and 'bigot' is helpful, or even accurate.
The weakened sterling doing a great job of restoring our trade balance....
"The UK’s total trade deficit (goods and services) widened by £2.0 billion between May and June 2017 to £4.6 billion, due to increases in imports of both goods and services; ."
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
...
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
I voted for Leave, because I felt there was an element of deception in the project from the beginning. That is why the name changed gradually from Common Market (which most people approved of) to European Union once the ground had been prepared. Not so much outright lies (although the odd ones were told when necessary), as evasions.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
In the referendum campaign of 1975, and indeed all through the 60s and the period leading up to our accession, it was always clear that this was a political project.
I voted for Leave, because I felt there was an element of deception in the project from the beginning. That is why the name changed gradually from Common Market (which most people approved of) to European Union once the ground had been prepared. Not so much outright lies (although the odd ones were told when necessary), as evasions.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
In the referendum campaign of 1975, and indeed all through the 60s and the period leading up to our accession, it was always clear that this was a political project.
I wasn't around at the time, but I do know that my parents, hardly unintelligent yokels, didn't vote in 1975 on it being a political project. For them it was just about trade.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
...
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
The idea that some self important twat on twitter is going to make a difference seems remarkably persistent.
I fear that currently there's a self important twat on twitter that could make a huge difference to all of us.
Imagine if Kim Jong Un were personally on Twitter tweeting directly to Trump in English.
It would be worse than that time in Yes Prime Minister when Westminster Abbey put Iraq and Iran next to each other, with Israel and Jordan on either side.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Strictly speaking the European Economic Community was only one of three communities that we joined, hence European Communities. The ballot paper in 1975 merged them into just 'the European Community'.
The weakened sterling doing a great job of restoring our trade balance....
"The UK’s total trade deficit (goods and services) widened by £2.0 billion between May and June 2017 to £4.6 billion, due to increases in imports of both goods and services; ."
I voted for Leave, because I felt there was an element of deception in the project from the beginning. That is why the name changed gradually from Common Market (which most people approved of) to European Union once the ground had been prepared. Not so much outright lies (although the odd ones were told when necessary), as evasions.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
In the referendum campaign of 1975, and indeed all through the 60s and the period leading up to our accession, it was always clear that this was a political project.
I wasn't around at the time, but I do know that my parents, hardly unintelligent yokels, didn't vote in 1975 on it being a political project. For them it was just about trade.
At school in the early 70s, we learned about the European Economic Community in our Geography lessons. European Union was never mentioned at all. It was all about trade as far as I can remember. Wasn't the EU really formed in the early 90s with Maastricht?
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
...
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
As far as what is to be done, it's the usual I wouldn't start from here story...
Slightly contradictory ending imho. The author states that unification of Korea is the unfinished business that has driven NK on for decades and nothing makes sense without that knowledge. Then goes on to slip in the idea that the only resolution is to help the Chinese persuade NK that they have to give up on the idea of unification.
I don't regard myself as a bigot for voting Leave, and I'm sure you're not a fascist for voting Remain (I forget sometimes which way round it goes). But the bitterness from a very few means hyperbole is becoming quite common. I no longer take it seriously.
I forgive the young to some extent - I used to see everything in black and white when I was a child too. The media like it though, a slight inconvenience is absolute carnage for them.
I was pleasantly surprised by the result, but a Remain vote wouldn't have been the end of the world, not in the same way as an all-out nuclear war would be.
But you know what will happen in the next few months. Lots of briefing, lots of artificial arguments, and lots and lots of exaggeration. Let the children have their tantrums, but let's get a good deal and get on with it.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
‘Face’ is traditionally important in the East of course. As important as win-win here. However, do we really know that the relatively young man apparently in charge in NK is actually in charge? It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
I think Kim Jong Un wants a war. Not an all out war, which even he must realise would obliterate him, but a limited war.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
...
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
As far as what is to be done, it's the usual I wouldn't start from here story...
Thanks.
That article makes it clear that NK wants unification of Korea, and sees the first step to that goal being the withdrawal of US troops.
Now, unification would be easy for the NK regime to achieve: just step down and let the superior SK system to take over. The fact is they want unification under their system and leaders.
The question facing the world is whether that is something we want. Do we wish to subject millions of SK men and women to the NK regime, if they do not wish it?
The idea that the last seventy years on the peninsula has been 'stable' appears an odd one, as is the idea that such stability can be maintained regardless of NK's actions.
I don't regard myself as a bigot for voting Leave, and I'm sure you're not a fascist for voting Remain (I forget sometimes which way round it goes). But the bitterness from a very few means hyperbole is becoming quite common. I no longer take it seriously.
I forgive the young to some extent - I used to see everything in black and white when I was a child too. The media like it though, a slight inconvenience is absolute carnage for them.
I was pleasantly surprised by the result, but a Remain vote wouldn't have been the end of the world, not in the same way as an all-out nuclear war would be.
But you know what will happen in the next few months. Lots of briefing, lots of artificial arguments, and lots and lots of exaggeration. Let the children have their tantrums, but let's get a good deal and get on with it.
I'd argue the children that had tantrums are the very ones now in charge ...
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Strictly speaking the European Economic Community was only one of three communities that we joined, hence European Communities. The ballot paper in 1975 merged them into just 'the European Community'.
Euratom and ECSC were merged into the EEC in 1967, before we joined. Are you confusing it with the three pillars of Maastricht, of which the EEC was one?
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Strictly speaking the European Economic Community was only one of three communities that we joined, hence European Communities. The ballot paper in 1975 merged them into just 'the European Community'.
Euratom and ECSC were merged into the EEC in 1967, before we joined. Are you confusing it with the three pillars of Maastricht, of which the EEC was one?
No I'm not. They remained separate communities but with common institutions. The 1972 act was explicit that we were joining the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC in one go.
Another one for the PB brains trust: what are we thinking about joggergate?
Did she kick out at him?
We need to be ahead of the internet on this one.
Of course, justice dictates that we need to hear the jogger's side of the story, and photos and videos may not show everything. But I find it hard to find how he may be excused: it really does look like an unnecessary shove. The walkway was not exactly crowded.
Like the cat-in-the-bin lady from a few year back, this might just be an ordinary member of the public caught being a stupid git on film.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
...
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
As far as what is to be done, it's the usual I wouldn't start from here story...
Slightly contradictory ending imho. The author states that unification of Korea is the unfinished business that has driven NK on for decades and nothing makes sense without that knowledge. Then goes on to slip in the idea that the only resolution is to help the Chinese persuade NK that they have to give up on the idea of unification.
Seems a long shot...
As I said, I wouldn't start from here. The article sets out the ground conditions more clearly and succinctly than any other I've seen. Whether the proposed solution is viable is quite another matter - clearly it would be a very long term project. Prosperity does tend to make major changes of national policy somewhat easier - China itself is arguably an example of that.
On the other hand, a potential nuclear exchange isn't a particularly appealing prospect, either.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
...
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
As far as what is to be done, it's the usual I wouldn't start from here story...
Slightly contradictory ending imho. The author states that unification of Korea is the unfinished business that has driven NK on for decades and nothing makes sense without that knowledge. Then goes on to slip in the idea that the only resolution is to help the Chinese persuade NK that they have to give up on the idea of unification.
Seems a long shot...
I would have thought the key problem is that if that isn't what the Kims are after, nobody has the least clue what they are really up to.
If their recent behaviour is anything to go by, this could include the Kims themselves.
More to the point, I thought it was optimistic. The suggestion was that if NK can be safely brought into the community of nations, then it will be happy to give up on reunification and its nukes. That might work if we thought the regime were rational, but it pretty clearly isn't.
More likely, if it were brought into the family of nations, it would have a much larger and better equipped army to take on the south. As they did in the 1950s.
Kim Il Sung was a nasty piece of work, but not stupid. Kim Jong Il was also a nasty piece of work, but from all we know was also very stupid and incapable of concentrating on anything for more than five seconds. Kim Jong Un we don't have a lot of public data about. But either he or somebody in his government seems to combine the bone-headed stupidity of Kim Jong Il with the ruthlessness and determination of Kim Il Sung.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
I'm starting to think Mr Kim might be like the leader of a death cult and he is going to do something even though he knows it lead to the probable death of himself and many of his people...
So Chappers is getting top metrocentric media Brownie points tweeting to his luvvie mates whilst hard grafting journos are getting on with digging up the juice on Junker's expenses to minimal luvvie coverage ?
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
So Chappers is getting top metrocentric media Brownie points tweeting to his luvvie mates whilst hard grafting journos are getting on with digging up the juice on Junker's expenses to minimal luvvie coverage ?
And people wonder why we voted to leave..
Juncker's expenses don't fit in with the Remainiac narrative that the EU all sweetness and light...
And Chappers tweets are fantastically entertaining in a "car crash" and "my god what a fruitcake" kind of way...
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Strictly speaking the European Economic Community was only one of three communities that we joined, hence European Communities. The ballot paper in 1975 merged them into just 'the European Community'.
Euratom and ECSC were merged into the EEC in 1967, before we joined. Are you confusing it with the three pillars of Maastricht, of which the EEC was one?
No I'm not. They remained separate communities but with common institutions. The 1972 act was explicit that we were joining the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC in one go.
OK, fair point. However, none of those refer to it as a political project, and the whole was referred to as the 'European Economic Communities.'
I wasn't around in the 1970s, but I can see how that might have been considered a mis-selling, especially in the days before the internet when the French ambitions to use the Treaty of Rome as a springboard to a federal Europe might not have been immediately accessible.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
This is not meant as a serious proposal but suppose SK were given to them on a plate. Could they maintain control? Even a repressive regime prepared to commit extreme mass brutality would surely struggle when faced with modern economy with a population of 50 million prosperous people who are prepared to stand up to them.
If there is to be a solution to North Korea I would have thought it would have to be the Austrian solution. Reunification under one government (which in practical terms would have to be the South Korean government, as no way would the government of the North be up to the task of managing it) but non-aligned and with weapons for self-defence only.
But whether China, the US and Russia would agree to such a solution in such a strategically and economically important area is another question entirely.
Mr. Jessop, but the South and US can't be unaware of the possibility of a sudden attack.
It's possible that both sides are ultimately underestimating the threat from the other.
One thing that frightens me silly is the idea of NK fifth columnists within SK, waiting to strike at the right moment. A few well-placed individuals could cause chaos for the SK and US militaries and civic systems.
I'd also expect any NK attack to be immediately preceded by a faux-attack on them, which they can use as an excuse. That's happened before in history, although might be a little sophisticated for NK.
But imagine a NK fifth-columnist embedded in the SK military. All he needs to do is direct some mortar fire across the DMZ and NK has every excuse for war. And SK would know that one of *their* soldiers started the war.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Strictly speaking the European Economic Community was only one of three communities that we joined, hence European Communities. The ballot paper in 1975 merged them into just 'the European Community'.
Euratom and ECSC were merged into the EEC in 1967, before we joined. Are you confusing it with the three pillars of Maastricht, of which the EEC was one?
No I'm not. They remained separate communities but with common institutions. The 1972 act was explicit that we were joining the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC in one go.
OK, fair point. However, none of those refer to it as a political project, and the whole was referred to as the 'European Economic Communities.'
I wasn't around in the 1970s, but I can see how that might have been considered a mis-selling, especially in the days before the internet when the French ambitions to use the Treaty of Rome as a springboard to a federal Europe might not have been immediately accessible.
I don't want to bore people (really!), but in the main prime time BBC TV debate, Heath characterised the debate as being between those who are content to remain with the nation state and those who want to move forwards into a new organisation.
Peoples main motivation may have been about trade, but any argument based on their being some grand deception is highly propagandistic.
If there is to be a solution to North Korea I would have thought it would have to be the Austrian solution. Reunification under one government (which in practical terms would have to be the South Korean government, as no way would the government of the North be up to the task of managing it) but non-aligned and with weapons for self-defence only.
But whether China, the US and Russia would agree to such a solution in such a strategically and economically important area is another question entirely.
That's what I've suggested in the past as being the best end-game. It might also be achievable *if* the US and China cooperate.
The main thing is that none of the major players: China, US, Japan and Russia, see the status quo and the leadership in NK as being in their interests.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
This is not meant as a serious proposal but suppose SK were given to them on a plate. Could they maintain control? Even a repressive regime prepared to commit extreme mass brutality would surely struggle when faced with modern economy with a population of 50 million prosperous people who are prepared to stand up to them.
I would very much doubt it. They have an army of 1.3 million men (I believe - I haven't checked the figures) but their government institutions are obviously pretty ramshackle. They would also have no experience in managing a large and complex economy so everything would grind to a halt. While they can get away with that in the North because people have never known a better life, in the South that would cause chaos.
The other thing to remember is that South Korea already has one of the most advanced communication systems in the world, with standard broadband speeds that are slightly faster than our optimum speeds. So a revolution could spread rapidly - probably more rapidly than the North Korean military could respond.
Ultimately, in a fast-changing situation I think they would get confused and lose control very quickly. Then they wouldn't know how to regain it because they've never faced a widespread uprising before.
However, the misery and damage caused in the meantime would be immense, and the resentment of the Koreans for being abandoned would rankle for years.
Mr. Glenn, you might be surprised. That sounds like a re-run of the Stanford Prison Experiment with tens of millions of unwilling participants.
For those unaware, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological experiment conducted before ethics codes had been developed. A small number of participants were divided into prisoners and guards, and acted out prison life. It had to be halted after a few days because the brutality of the guards was excessive.
It's a fascinating look at how quickly people can devolve into thuggish domination when they have power.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Doethur, that does depend on the North not having/being willing to use weapons (perhaps including chemical/biological agents) to massacre huge numbers of people.
What a cheery conversation this is. And yet, relevant to the current situation.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
This is not meant as a serious proposal but suppose SK were given to them on a plate. Could they maintain control? Even a repressive regime prepared to commit extreme mass brutality would surely struggle when faced with modern economy with a population of 50 million prosperous people who are prepared to stand up to them.
Throughout history, populations have chosen to live under barbarism rather than fight for freedom. The few who fight the barbarism are often ruthlessly dealt with.
Look at the way the vast majority of the French population knuckled down and just lived under the Vichy government.
You've told one just there. The 'Common Market' evolved into the 'Single Market' (both of which are non-official names). The 'European Communities' evolved into the 'European Union'.
Strictly speaking, it was called the European Economic Community. It wasn't renamed the European Community until the founding of the European Union.
Strictly speaking the European Economic Community was only one of three communities that we joined, hence European Communities. The ballot paper in 1975 merged them into just 'the European Community'.
Euratom and ECSC were merged into the EEC in 1967, before we joined. Are you confusing it with the three pillars of Maastricht, of which the EEC was one?
No I'm not. They remained separate communities but with common institutions. The 1972 act was explicit that we were joining the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC in one go.
OK, fair point. However, none of those refer to it as a political project, and the whole was referred to as the 'European Economic Communities.'
I wasn't around in the 1970s, but I can see how that might have been considered a mis-selling, especially in the days before the internet when the French ambitions to use the Treaty of Rome as a springboard to a federal Europe might not have been immediately accessible.
I don't want to bore people (really!), but in the main prime time BBC TV debate, Heath characterised the debate as being between those who are content to remain with the nation state and those who want to move forwards into a new organisation.
Peoples main motivation may have been about trade, but any argument based on their being some grand deception is highly propagandistic.
I posted a few days ago about Peter Hitchens shift from true Brexiteer to 'we must stay in single market and that outweighs Brexit'...
One of the commenters (JJ?) noted that many of the anti-establishment pundits and politicos now find themselves in the awkward position of supporting the government, which doesn't make for good copy/entertaining outrage.
Doesn't mean they are right now or that they were right then... but we may see some of the Brexit media/thinkers watering down support, or perhaps saying - well I wanted this sort of Brexit and now the govt has messed it up.
The opposition to Brexit is in cabinet. Either they are incompetent, or they know concrete preparations are not needed as we will back out. I suspect the former:
I don't think they are incompetent, and I think the overwhelming majority of Cabinet are committed to Brexit. They just realise it's a big job, and have civil servants turning up every day with new challenges. How many for instance had even heard of Euratom before it became an issue?
The critical issue here, and one which the cabinet (any politicians) are unprepared for is that there is a firm deadline. Think of any previous "most important issue", housing, for example. Every previous government has managed to kick the can down the road and not grasped the nettle and the issue remains critical and outstanding today.
A50 means there is a deadline so the government can't obfuscate, draw up plans, call for reviews, or set up inquiries. It has to act and it has to act to a strict timetable. Of course a transition period gives some can-kicking wiggle room but this will be perceived as a failure (and of course betrayal by doltish Brexiters).
We are in a quandry but the obstacles to a top down new party are overwhelming. The SDP had much more promising prospects in every respect than any putative new anti-Brexit party could plausibly muster.
Looking through Chapman's twitter feed it looks to me like the disconsolate ranring of people who have rarely if ever been denied anything in life and who now cannot come to terms with the fact that they lost a democratic vote in 2016.
I don't see what is gained when there is already a manifestly pro-EU party in the LibDems.
If you hate Brexit and believe it is going to be a catastrophe you vote Liberal surely?
Well, not if you also hate Liberals and believe they are going to be a catastrophe, I guess. If so, what then?
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
The attack you propose doesn't sound credible to me. South Korea has double the population, which man for man is in a much better physical condition. It has conscription, advanced weaponry, and has made extensive preparations. How can NK expect to prevail against them in a blitzkrieg?
They could inflict immense damage on Seoul causing horrible civilian casualties, but even without allies I don't see how the North can win a conventional war against the South.
The biggest danger to world peace is the continuing existence of the North Korean government. Appeasement cum containment has failed, in no small part thanks to the Chinese.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
This is not meant as a serious proposal but suppose SK were given to them on a plate. Could they maintain control? Even a repressive regime prepared to commit extreme mass brutality would surely struggle when faced with modern economy with a population of 50 million prosperous people who are prepared to stand up to them.
Throughout history, populations have chosen to live under barbarism rather than fight for freedom. The few who fight the barbarism are often ruthlessly dealt with.
Look at the way the vast majority of the French population knuckled down and just lived under the Vichy government.
Given that there was still a war going on and by the end of 1942 it was pretty clear the Germans were going to lose it, that wasn't necessarily an irrational choice. Being patient and waiting for the Germans to be driven out so you can then join in the rout did work in the end. Although that's not in any way to excuse those who actively co-operated in say, the deportation of France's Jews.
Have you ever read Nevil Shute's Most Secret, which is about commando operations to support rebel fighters in Brittany? Ultimately, the man in charge tells the Bretons to stop thinking about killing lots of Germans and awaiting an Allied invasion when a sudden uprising would actually be helpful.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
‘Face’ is traditionally important in the East of course. As important as win-win here. However, do we really know that the relatively young man apparently in charge in NK is actually in charge? It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
I think Kim Jong Un wants a war. Not an all out war, which even he must realise would obliterate him, but a limited war.
He's unhinged.
A man who executed his own uncle with an anti-aircraft gun following a show trial and a man whom people, even inside his own regime, are terrified of.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
I disagree. Put yourself in Kim Jong-Un's shoes. He's seen what happened to Iraq and Libya. His strategy is to develop an effective nuclear deterrent. To do this, he needs to demonstrate his capability - which he is doing. He also needs to show he won't be cowed or bullied - which he is doing.
I noticed Tillerson said, in early August "We are not your enemy" “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek the collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/rex-tillerson-north-korea-talks-donald-trump Shortly after this, China supported the US resolution on NK at the UN.
KJ is a brutal dictator but he is not crazy. I think he is quite smart and realises that any offensive move would be the end of him. Which is why Guam (and SK) are safe. But he is better practised at high pitched rhetoric than even Trump is.
I think (hope) the end game is that KJ decides that he has established a sufficiently credible deterrent, stops the testing, the rhetoric diminishes and the brutal NK regime continues under tightening economic sanctions.
If one of those N Korean missiles strays into the territorial waters of Guam, art 5 is triggered I think ?
As is they are firing just outside, so whilst the destruction of Pyongyang is starting to look overdue to my eyes I don't believe we should per se involve our arsenal.
Doesn't mean they don't still disagree with it and will get angry at the ongoing Tory incompetence. If the narrative changes seriously, they will shift back from passive to active opposition.
The key problem for us all is that while May's government is weak and erratic, there is no alternative setup that wouldn't be considerably worse.
Can anyone honestly see Corbyn and Macdonnell making a better fist of it? One is thick as five posts and the other is an unabashed Maoist. As for Starmer, he's good at words but he proved graphically and beyond doubt as DPP that he's not only dogmatic but hopelessly disorganised.
Vince Cable is 74 and appears to be rapidly disappearing up himself (oh for Danny Alexander to have survived 2015). Moreover the mighty rump of 13 MPs he leads has only two - Norman Lamb and Jo Swinson - who might be considered truly talented.
A national government would have to include the SNP, whose only interest at Westminster is screwing things up and causing trouble to further the cause of independence (not that this strategy has been noticeably successful).
So while we can mutter and grumble, the reality is there is no better option than May, Hammond and even Davis waiting to take over.
That's not a cheering thought.
I thought the idea yesterday that we should be importing some foreign political talent to make up for the dearth produced domestically had some merit. There is definitely a skills shortage.
Bryan Gould was a useful addition to our politics. Had he beaten Smith for the Labour leadership in 1992, he'd almost certainly have won the 1997 GE and our political history could have taken a substantially different turn. Quite possibly a better one.
Mr. Barnesian, that's a credible turn of events, perhaps even the likeliest.
But there's a significant downside. The whole world will learn the lesson that you can get away with concentration camps and wholesale oppression, provided you get your hands on nukes quickly enough.
We might avert mass bloodshed in the near future only to drastically increase the chance of nuclear Armageddon.
Still, we can't be too surprised. We did vote to leave the EU.
I disagree. Put yourself in Kim Jong-Un's shoes. He's seen what happened to Iraq and Libya. His strategy is to develop an effective nuclear deterrent. To do this, he needs to demonstrate his capability - which he is doing. He also needs to show he won't be cowed or bullied - which he is doing.
Lewis Page made much the same argument in Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs some years ago - that chemical weapons were a bit of a bogeyman, but nuclear weapons were the real deal and everyone wanted them, not least because they kept away the Americans, Russians, etc (we've also seen what happened to Ukraine, which surrendered its nuclear weapons).
But he might take it too far. Remember, he's young, and if he is in charge he's clearly not very bright. Trump is also unstable and unpredictable. If I were the governor of a province in Manchuria, right now I would be yelling at Xi to actually do something.
Is this NK standoff genuinely dangerous? What's the probability of action. Lots of hype in press makes it hard to judge.
Not sure I'm a member of any 'brains trust', but here's my view:
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
‘Face’ is traditionally important in the East of course. As important as win-win here. However, do we really know that the relatively young man apparently in charge in NK is actually in charge? It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
I think Kim Jong Un wants a war. Not an all out war, which even he must realise would obliterate him, but a limited war.
He's unhinged.
A man who executed his own uncle with an anti-aircraft gun following a show trial and a man whom people, even inside his own regime, are terrified of.
What I can't work out though is that if Kim is constantly going around killing his staff, generals and family members, wouldn't that make the situation ripe for a coup d'etat?
I mean, it's hard to swear absolutely loyalty and allegiance to someone that you know in all probability is going to kill you by anti-aircraft gunfire or by feeding you to dogs, etc?
Not only is working for Kim terrible for your career prospects it's also bad for your health.
So Chappers is getting top metrocentric media Brownie points tweeting to his luvvie mates whilst hard grafting journos are getting on with digging up the juice on Junker's expenses to minimal luvvie coverage ?
And people wonder why we voted to leave..
And Chappers tweets are fantastically entertaining in a "car crash" and "my god what a fruitcake" kind of way...
Chapman does come across as unhinged. His comments to Oakshott border on bullying and misogyny. Someone around Mrs May made a mistake by trusting him a year ago.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
The attack you propose doesn't sound credible to me. South Korea has double the population, which man for man is in a much better physical condition. It has conscription, advanced weaponry, and has made extensive preparations. How can NK expect to prevail against them in a blitzkrieg?
They could inflict immense damage on Seoul causing horrible civilian casualties, but even without allies I don't see how the North can win a conventional war against the South.
The biggest danger to world peace is the continuing existence of the North Korean government. Appeasement cum containment has failed, in no small part thanks to the Chinese.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound credible to you; it's whether it seems credible to the NK leadership. And the same advantages you give the SK can also be large disadvantages.
NK has had nearly seven decades to prepare, and have put large parts of their economy into their military. It'd be very dangerous to assume they're clueless fools.
Certainly I don't agree with Barnesian. There is no logic to the current behaviour of North Korea. It's rapidly alienating all its allies and leaving them exposed to legitimate military retaliation by the US. Moreover, in its murders on foreign soil it's behaving in the same paranoid way Israeli Intelligence does, without even the justification that some of the targets pose a credible threat. The nuclear porgramme must also be soaking up nearly all the country's wealth.
Whoever is in charge is either stupid, or crazy, or both. The main question to my mind is whether that is Kim or somebody else.
So Chappers is getting top metrocentric media Brownie points tweeting to his luvvie mates whilst hard grafting journos are getting on with digging up the juice on Junker's expenses to minimal luvvie coverage ?
And people wonder why we voted to leave..
And Chappers tweets are fantastically entertaining in a "car crash" and "my god what a fruitcake" kind of way...
Chapman does come across as unhinged. His comments to Oakshott border on bullying and misogyny. Someone around Mrs May made a mistake by trusting him a year ago.
One wonders what sort of career his thinks he is entering into next ? Restaurateur ?
Kim Jong Un’s antics appear follow the plot of a hilarious novel of the 1950s entitled The Wrath of Grapes. (In the US it was called The Mouse that Roared and was made into a film of that title with Peter Sellers.) The aim of the European Duchy of Grand Fenwick (= North Korea), having fallen on hard times, is to declare war on the United States so that the ensuing Marshall Plan type support from the victor will restore the country’s fortunes. But by a series of accidents they win the war by obtaining a the US’s nuclear bomb. etc
Perhaps the Potus could engage a Hollywood script writer to intercede with Kim.
So Chappers is getting top metrocentric media Brownie points tweeting to his luvvie mates whilst hard grafting journos are getting on with digging up the juice on Junker's expenses to minimal luvvie coverage ?
And people wonder why we voted to leave..
Juncker's expenses don't fit in with the Remainiac narrative that the EU all sweetness and light...
* Expenses are a "small price to pay" for being part of the wonderfulness of the EU - but Westminster expenses are proof of how venal and awful Britain has become"
"Those awful Uk tabloids and their nefarious methods of getting news.."
I understand and sympathise with many of the reasons why people voted leave. As I've said passim, unless the EU changed direction we'd have been forced to leave eventually anyway. But not without a plan ...
In a lot of ways I'm sympathetic to the idea that Brexit is mistimed - but if we are having this much trouble extricating ourselves now, imagine how much harder it would be after 10 or 20 years of integration.
A plan would help though. Would have been very useful if it had been a referendum with a Leave-backing government that was seeking permission to execute its Brexit strategy, rather than a government that strongly disagreed with Brexit and had no plan or parliamentary majority for it.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
This is not meant as a serious proposal but suppose SK were given to them on a plate. Could they maintain control? Even a repressive regime prepared to commit extreme mass brutality would surely struggle when faced with modern economy with a population of 50 million prosperous people who are prepared to stand up to them.
A government which doesn't care how much suffering it inflicts on the population (and NK has such a government) can stay in charge for many years.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
This is not meant as a serious proposal but suppose SK were given to them on a plate. Could they maintain control? Even a repressive regime prepared to commit extreme mass brutality would surely struggle when faced with modern economy with a population of 50 million prosperous people who are prepared to stand up to them.
Throughout history, populations have chosen to live under barbarism rather than fight for freedom. The few who fight the barbarism are often ruthlessly dealt with.
Look at the way the vast majority of the French population knuckled down and just lived under the Vichy government.
Given that there was still a war going on and by the end of 1942 it was pretty clear the Germans were going to lose it, that wasn't necessarily an irrational choice. Being patient and waiting for the Germans to be driven out so you can then join in the rout did work in the end. Although that's not in any way to excuse those who actively co-operated in say, the deportation of France's Jews.
Have you ever read Nevil Shute's Most Secret, which is about commando operations to support rebel fighters in Brittany? Ultimately, the man in charge tells the Bretons to stop thinking about killing lots of Germans and awaiting an Allied invasion when a sudden uprising would actually be helpful.
No, I haven't read it. But I've just bought it on Kindle, thanks. (My reading pile, both real and virtual, is getting very high)
I think you make a good point: it isn't irrational to chose to accept a worse lifestyle than no life at all, if it's clear that resistance might well mean death for you and yours. It must be a terrible choice to make, and makes those brave men and women who do fight even more exceptional.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
The attack you propose doesn't sound credible to me. South Korea has double the population, which man for man is in a much better physical condition. It has conscription, advanced weaponry, and has made extensive preparations. How can NK expect to prevail against them in a blitzkrieg?
They could inflict immense damage on Seoul causing horrible civilian casualties, but even without allies I don't see how the North can win a conventional war against the South.
The biggest danger to world peace is the continuing existence of the North Korean government. Appeasement cum containment has failed, in no small part thanks to the Chinese.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound credible to you; it's whether it seems credible to the NK leadership. And the same advantages you give the SK can also be large disadvantages.
NK has had nearly seven decades to prepare, and have put large parts of their economy into their military. It'd be very dangerous to assume they're clueless fools.
i don't think they could swiftly overrun SK. But, as you say, they may well think they can.
Mr. Barnesian, that's a credible turn of events, perhaps even the likeliest.
But there's a significant downside. The whole world will learn the lesson that you can get away with concentration camps and wholesale oppression, provided you get your hands on nukes quickly enough.
We might avert mass bloodshed in the near future only to drastically increase the chance of nuclear Armageddon.
Still, we can't be too surprised. We did vote to leave the EU.
I agree that there are significant downsides of the nuclear deterrent including their actual use as well as the protection of brutal dictatorships.
The most dangerous regimes are those that declare that they might make first use of nuclear weapons rather than reserve them as a deterrent.
No first use (NFU) refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.
China declared its NFU policy in 1964, and has since maintained this policy. India articulated its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons in 2003.
NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy, arguing that pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
That doesn't necessarily follow. It may be decided that losing SK to NK is not worth the risk of direct attack by NK on the allies' homelands. Which may be why NK has been developing such long-range strategic weapons.
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
I disagree. Put yourself in Kim Jong-Un's shoes. He's seen what happened to Iraq and Libya. His strategy is to develop an effective nuclear deterrent. To do this, he needs to demonstrate his capability - which he is doing. He also needs to show he won't be cowed or bullied - which he is doing.
I noticed Tillerson said, in early August "We are not your enemy" “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek the collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/rex-tillerson-north-korea-talks-donald-trump Shortly after this, China supported the US resolution on NK at the UN.
KJ is a brutal dictator but he is not crazy. I think he is quite smart and realises that any offensive move would be the end of him. Which is why Guam (and SK) are safe. But he is better practised at high pitched rhetoric than even Trump is.
I think (hope) the end game is that KJ decides that he has established a sufficiently credible deterrent, stops the testing, the rhetoric diminishes and the brutal NK regime continues under tightening economic sanctions.
A smart dictator would surely get out while the going was good, and with his fortune intact.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
...
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
The attack you propose doesn't sound credible to me. South Korea has double the population, which man for man is in a much better physical condition. It has conscription, advanced weaponry, and has made extensive preparations. How can NK expect to prevail against them in a blitzkrieg?
They could inflict immense damage on Seoul causing horrible civilian casualties, but even without allies I don't see how the North can win a conventional war against the South.
The biggest danger to world peace is the continuing existence of the North Korean government. Appeasement cum containment has failed, in no small part thanks to the Chinese.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound credible to you; it's whether it seems credible to the NK leadership. And the same advantages you give the SK can also be large disadvantages.
NK has had nearly seven decades to prepare, and have put large parts of their economy into their military. It'd be very dangerous to assume they're clueless fools.
I don't think it's even vaguely feasible, militarily. And I think they must know that, despite the bluster, and precisely because of the seven decades of planning.
The main point of the article I posted was to point out that the Koreans have a very long history of getting shafted by foreign powers, and that has arguably developed a cultural acceptance of potential very large losses of life to preserve national integrity, since acceptance of foreign domination has led to very bad outcomes anyway.
In a modern context, that doesn't really make sense, but national cultures change slowly - and under a regime like that of the awful Kims, not at all for the better. The 'embrace them through economic development' strategy might well have worked in an earlier age - though their alliance with communist China made that impossible - the idea being that over time an increasingly prosperous population will no longer acquiesce to a semi-lunatic military dictatorship, I guess. Now they have nuclear weapons the calculus changes. It's not clear that we have time to play a long game anymore.
Comments
Both sides, but especially the NK, need a way of saving face. The latest statement from NK will be very hard for them to step down from: doing so would make people wonder if they *really* had the capability of firing four missiles as they claim.
I'm also unsure that Trump can really be blamed for any of this (and I'm no Trump fan). Like GWB after 9/11, he has been handed a hot potato by his predecessor's inaction.
The big question is what is NK's endgame? Their actions make no real sense to me: all it will do is further splits with China and make sanctions stronger. The worst answer is that they don't have an endgame; that they're just doing random sh*t as sanctions and other measures bite.
I'm hoping that it is an entirely biased and one-eyed view.
If not, then, well, man...!
I can only say that my impression is that it is the real thing.
"What a tangled web we weave
When first we venture to deceive."
We've been deceiving ourselves. Deceiving ourselves about what's needed to integrate people from different cultures, deceiving ourselves that if we don't describe the facts about the perpetrators those with malicious agendas won't use this silence, deceiving ourselves that turning a blind eye will make the problem go away.
Interestingly, there is a lady from the Muslim Womens Network on the radio saying that Asian women are also victims of abuse.
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/895539221389352960
The UK signs up to them and generally enforce them, Germany certainly does (diesel emissions excepted). Scandinavia usually approves of them and does their best. The Mediterranean countries sign up gleefully to everything and never enforce. The EU doesn't even expect the smaller, newly-joined one to do so.
To make the project cohesive, you have to create one country, and that has been the aim all along. But shush, don't spook the horses. Boil the frogs slowly (and I'm not talking about the French).
It’s difficult to know, isn’t it whether Obama’s policy made things worse, or whether his having a tougher line would have brought us to where we are quicker. Although is it a question of developing the technology? The latest release says that they’re preparing a plan and will send it to Kim Jong-un in mid August, which suggests there’s a bit of wriggle room.
I'm hoping it won't be seen as an example where inaction was much a negative decision as action ...
As is they are firing just outside, so whilst the destruction of Pyongyang is starting to look overdue to my eyes I don't believe we should per se involve our arsenal.
Edit:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
And clause 6 is relevant as well:
“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."
I voted for Leave, because I felt there was an element of deception in the project from the beginning. That is why the name changed gradually from Common Market (which most people approved of) to European Union once the ground had been prepared. Not so much outright lies (although the odd ones were told when necessary), as evasions.
From my acquaintances, few people have changed their minds, but most Remainers did accept the result. A few noisy ones in the media didn't, but they are the puffed-up, self-important ones. If there were to be another referendum, I'd vote Leave even more determinedly just to annoy these people.
Yes, Leave has a few undesirables attached, but Remain has some even worse - those who think they can and should ignore democracy when it suits them because they always know better, they are superior beings, you see. Better an honest bigot than a true fascist.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all[...]
Article 6 then goes into more detail of what areas count, but it doesn't include islands in the Pacific.
I'd argue that leavers arguing against another referendum, and against justifiable court cases (and even attacking the judges in those cases) are far more guilty of ignoring democracy.
As it happens, I think leave would win another referendum by an increased majority if the same question was asked. A referendum on the final terms is a different matter, but war-weariness would probably see them handsomely over the line.
I'm also unsure throwing around terms like 'fascist' and 'bigot' is helpful, or even accurate.
"The UK’s total trade deficit (goods and services) widened by £2.0 billion between May and June 2017 to £4.6 billion, due to increases in imports of both goods and services; ."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/june2017
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/09/donald-trump-north-korea-history-215473
As far as what is to be done, it's the usual I wouldn't start from here story...
In the referendum campaign of 1975, and indeed all through the 60s and the period leading up to our accession, it was always clear that this was a political project.
It would be worse than that time in Yes Prime Minister when Westminster Abbey put Iraq and Iran next to each other, with Israel and Jordan on either side.
Between 2014 and 2016 the UK had a current account deficit of £250bn ie a quarter of a trillion pounds.
Do you think that is sustainable ?
And if not do you have any constructive suggestions as to how the UK economy can be rebalanced ?
Seems a long shot...
I don't regard myself as a bigot for voting Leave, and I'm sure you're not a fascist for voting Remain (I forget sometimes which way round it goes). But the bitterness from a very few means hyperbole is becoming quite common. I no longer take it seriously.
I forgive the young to some extent - I used to see everything in black and white when I was a child too. The media like it though, a slight inconvenience is absolute carnage for them.
I was pleasantly surprised by the result, but a Remain vote wouldn't have been the end of the world, not in the same way as an all-out nuclear war would be.
But you know what will happen in the next few months. Lots of briefing, lots of artificial arguments, and lots and lots of exaggeration. Let the children have their tantrums, but let's get a good deal and get on with it.
EEC, 1958; European Communities, 1967; European Union, 1993 (at which point the EEC was retrospectively rechristened European Community):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#History
Now, unification would be easy for the NK regime to achieve: just step down and let the superior SK system to take over. The fact is they want unification under their system and leaders.
The question facing the world is whether that is something we want. Do we wish to subject millions of SK men and women to the NK regime, if they do not wish it?
The idea that the last seventy years on the peninsula has been 'stable' appears an odd one, as is the idea that such stability can be maintained regardless of NK's actions.
Did she kick out at him?
We need to be ahead of the internet on this one.
Just because he's nuts, or because he'd gain something?
The North could cause immense damage to Seoul, but beyond that, wouldn't they just lose badly in short order?
If North Korea nuked the South, surely the US would have to nuke the North?
Nothing like a bit of plutonium to bring a nation together.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/section/1/enacted
Like the cat-in-the-bin lady from a few year back, this might just be an ordinary member of the public caught being a stupid git on film.
The article sets out the ground conditions more clearly and succinctly than any other I've seen. Whether the proposed solution is viable is quite another matter - clearly it would be a very long term project. Prosperity does tend to make major changes of national policy somewhat easier - China itself is arguably an example of that.
On the other hand, a potential nuclear exchange isn't a particularly appealing prospect, either.
If their recent behaviour is anything to go by, this could include the Kims themselves.
More to the point, I thought it was optimistic. The suggestion was that if NK can be safely brought into the community of nations, then it will be happy to give up on reunification and its nukes. That might work if we thought the regime were rational, but it pretty clearly isn't.
More likely, if it were brought into the family of nations, it would have a much larger and better equipped army to take on the south. As they did in the 1950s.
Kim Il Sung was a nasty piece of work, but not stupid. Kim Jong Il was also a nasty piece of work, but from all we know was also very stupid and incapable of concentrating on anything for more than five seconds. Kim Jong Un we don't have a lot of public data about. But either he or somebody in his government seems to combine the bone-headed stupidity of Kim Jong Il with the ruthlessness and determination of Kim Il Sung.
It looks a very nasty mixture.
And people wonder why we voted to leave..
If the North were to launch a surprise attack, with or without nukes, they may 'win'. At least for a few weeks until the US and allies ramp up. But the US and allies can only do that if NK hasn't taken over the entire peninsula. If NK had taken Pusan in September 1950 then the allies would have lost the war.
That's what the NK will be planning for: a massive, quick blitzkrieg to take the entire peninsula before the US and allies can respond.
And Chappers tweets are fantastically entertaining in a "car crash" and "my god what a fruitcake" kind of way...
I wasn't around in the 1970s, but I can see how that might have been considered a mis-selling, especially in the days before the internet when the French ambitions to use the Treaty of Rome as a springboard to a federal Europe might not have been immediately accessible.
But whether China, the US and Russia would agree to such a solution in such a strategically and economically important area is another question entirely.
One thing that frightens me silly is the idea of NK fifth columnists within SK, waiting to strike at the right moment. A few well-placed individuals could cause chaos for the SK and US militaries and civic systems.
I'd also expect any NK attack to be immediately preceded by a faux-attack on them, which they can use as an excuse. That's happened before in history, although might be a little sophisticated for NK.
But imagine a NK fifth-columnist embedded in the SK military. All he needs to do is direct some mortar fire across the DMZ and NK has every excuse for war. And SK would know that one of *their* soldiers started the war.
Peoples main motivation may have been about trade, but any argument based on their being some grand deception is highly propagandistic.
The main thing is that none of the major players: China, US, Japan and Russia, see the status quo and the leadership in NK as being in their interests.
The other thing to remember is that South Korea already has one of the most advanced communication systems in the world, with standard broadband speeds that are slightly faster than our optimum speeds. So a revolution could spread rapidly - probably more rapidly than the North Korean military could respond.
Ultimately, in a fast-changing situation I think they would get confused and lose control very quickly. Then they wouldn't know how to regain it because they've never faced a widespread uprising before.
However, the misery and damage caused in the meantime would be immense, and the resentment of the Koreans for being abandoned would rankle for years.
For those unaware, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological experiment conducted before ethics codes had been developed. A small number of participants were divided into prisoners and guards, and acted out prison life. It had to be halted after a few days because the brutality of the guards was excessive.
It's a fascinating look at how quickly people can devolve into thuggish domination when they have power.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Doethur, that does depend on the North not having/being willing to use weapons (perhaps including chemical/biological agents) to massacre huge numbers of people.
What a cheery conversation this is. And yet, relevant to the current situation.
Look at the way the vast majority of the French population knuckled down and just lived under the Vichy government.
They are two different things.
They could inflict immense damage on Seoul causing horrible civilian casualties, but even without allies I don't see how the North can win a conventional war against the South.
The biggest danger to world peace is the continuing existence of the North Korean government. Appeasement cum containment has failed, in no small part thanks to the Chinese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal#Source_of_meat
Standards aren't standards unless they're policed.
Have you ever read Nevil Shute's Most Secret, which is about commando operations to support rebel fighters in Brittany? Ultimately, the man in charge tells the Bretons to stop thinking about killing lots of Germans and awaiting an Allied invasion when a sudden uprising would actually be helpful.
A man who executed his own uncle with an anti-aircraft gun following a show trial and a man whom people, even inside his own regime, are terrified of.
I suspect Xi explained this to Trump last April. "After listening for 10 minutes, I realised it's not so easy"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-xi-jingping-north-korea-history-lesson-10-minute-china-us-talks-mar-a-lago-florida-a7681611.html
I noticed Tillerson said, in early August "We are not your enemy" “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek the collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/rex-tillerson-north-korea-talks-donald-trump
Shortly after this, China supported the US resolution on NK at the UN.
KJ is a brutal dictator but he is not crazy. I think he is quite smart and realises that any offensive move would be the end of him. Which is why Guam (and SK) are safe. But he is better practised at high pitched rhetoric than even Trump is.
I think (hope) the end game is that KJ decides that he has established a sufficiently credible deterrent, stops the testing, the rhetoric diminishes and the brutal NK regime continues under tightening economic sanctions.
Go.
theonion.com/article/waiver-wire-ep-5-35
They are finally getting their wish, it seems.
But there's a significant downside. The whole world will learn the lesson that you can get away with concentration camps and wholesale oppression, provided you get your hands on nukes quickly enough.
We might avert mass bloodshed in the near future only to drastically increase the chance of nuclear Armageddon.
Still, we can't be too surprised. We did vote to leave the EU.
"KJ is a brutal dictator but he is not crazy. "
and
"He (KJ)'s unhinged."
But he might take it too far. Remember, he's young, and if he is in charge he's clearly not very bright. Trump is also unstable and unpredictable. If I were the governor of a province in Manchuria, right now I would be yelling at Xi to actually do something.
I mean, it's hard to swear absolutely loyalty and allegiance to someone that you know in all probability is going to kill you by anti-aircraft gunfire or by feeding you to dogs, etc?
Not only is working for Kim terrible for your career prospects it's also bad for your health.
The Nukes may by flying. Millions may die and mankind as we know it could end... But just *think* about the betting opportunities...
NK has had nearly seven decades to prepare, and have put large parts of their economy into their military. It'd be very dangerous to assume they're clueless fools.
Whoever is in charge is either stupid, or crazy, or both. The main question to my mind is whether that is Kim or somebody else.
I have to go. Have a good morning.
Perhaps the Potus could engage a Hollywood script writer to intercede with Kim.
"Those awful Uk tabloids and their nefarious methods of getting news.."
Coming soon.
A plan would help though. Would have been very useful if it had been a referendum with a Leave-backing government that was seeking permission to execute its Brexit strategy, rather than a government that strongly disagreed with Brexit and had no plan or parliamentary majority for it.
I think you make a good point: it isn't irrational to chose to accept a worse lifestyle than no life at all, if it's clear that resistance might well mean death for you and yours. It must be a terrible choice to make, and makes those brave men and women who do fight even more exceptional.
The most dangerous regimes are those that declare that they might make first use of nuclear weapons rather than reserve them as a deterrent.
No first use (NFU) refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.
China declared its NFU policy in 1964, and has since maintained this policy. India articulated its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons in 2003.
NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy, arguing that pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/895550764487192576
The main point of the article I posted was to point out that the Koreans have a very long history of getting shafted by foreign powers, and that has arguably developed a cultural acceptance of potential very large losses of life to preserve national integrity, since acceptance of foreign domination has led to very bad outcomes anyway.
In a modern context, that doesn't really make sense, but national cultures change slowly - and under a regime like that of the awful Kims, not at all for the better.
The 'embrace them through economic development' strategy might well have worked in an earlier age - though their alliance with communist China made that impossible - the idea being that over time an increasingly prosperous population will no longer acquiesce to a semi-lunatic military dictatorship, I guess.
Now they have nuclear weapons the calculus changes. It's not clear that we have time to play a long game anymore.