North Korea exists for the sole purpose of being opposed to the US and South Korea. If one can take away that opposition, then there is no real reason for North Korea to exist. It may as well be a part of South Korea to make one big Korea. No smart dictatorship will let go of that hatred, as the minute they let go of that hatred, they will lose power. While it is true that had there been no Korean War, there would be no North and South Korea, the fact is that it did happen, for whatever reason. If you have a nation that exists simply for the purpose of opposition to another (eg yours), then it's probably a bad idea to let them get nuclear weapons.

The Allies split Korea into two arbitrary halves (agains the wishes of the Koreans) at the end of WW2. Without allied (US) intervention, it never would have been split. The Korean war was waged to reunite the two halves - without more US intervention, the north would've won and reunited the two halves (under their dictatorship), however, they wouldn't have become an isolated pariah state if not for the cold war isolation efforts... There's no way to know what Korea would be like if they hadn't become collateral damages in WW2 and the cold war.
That said, why is the North's only reason to exist, to oppose the South, but not vice versa. As much as I dislike them, they have just as valid a claim over the whole peninsula as the South does, and the south hates the North just as much as the North hates he south, and both of their existances are just as arbitrary and just as dedicated to resisting the other...
As for nuclear nations that exist only to oppose others, what about Pakistan who broke off from India, or Israel who broke off from Palestine (and still to this day practice apartheid, and deny the existance of Palestine itself -- existing for the purpose of destroying their nation). Both of these are led by unstable religious governments, have nukes, but are US allies...

Indeed, it's not new. They have done/said the current actions/threats before.
Also, if you go read their statements instead of hysterical western propaganda, they have in no way "declared nuclear war on the US". They threatened counter attacks against any aggression from the South/US, including nuclear after the US carried out an exercise where they practiced dropping nukes on the North, and after threats were made against the North's survival.
Telling the whole story doesn't sell papers though, does it? Better to make up stories about boogeymen that are planning to nuke us for no reason at any time.

Incorrect.
Prior to the March military exercise, North Korea had already (also in March) threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against America and South Korea.
Not only that, but those military drills between America and South Korean take place annually. America is not going to simply not uphold an annual event due to North Korea’s threats. But it was because of North Korea’s previous nuclear threats that America tailored its mission the way it did. In other words, America reacting to North Korea, not the other way around.

So what lead North Korea to make a thread before the military exercise? Was it threats from America and the evil West?
No, it was sanctions from the UN, which are only imposed as a reaction to a country’s own actions.

If you rub your dog’s nose into a pile of crap it may get angry. But you wouldn’t have rubbed its nose in crap if it had not crapped on your favorite couch.


You can make America out to somehow be the aggressor here, but:
#1: Nuclear threats from North Korea came early in March, prior to the military exercises, not after. And they were threats of a pre-emptive strike, not a retaliation.
#2: If you keep looking back, you will find it all began in March 2012 when Pyongyang made the first provocative move of moving missiles to a launch pad and then in April launching them. Prior to the launch, Obama had warned him that he has nothing to gain from provocations, a correct and non-threatening warning. A warning which in no way implies that North Korea is in threat of an attack from America. Besides, North Korea forced America into a position in which it had to say something under implied pressure from the UN.
#3: Pyongyang broke International law by going ahead with nuclear tests, even after it agreed not to do so in exchange for food and aid that was already en-route to it. North Korea brought tougher sanctions onto itself and then got mad about it, like a kid who blows up the school toilets with a cherry bomb and then actually gets angry for being grounded over it.
#4: While the rest of the world is just going about their daily lives, North Korea is threatening seas of fire and pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
#5: American military exercises take place every year and North Korea always calls it an exercise to invade North Korea. And yet…after decades, where is the invasion? It is not a drill for invasion. It is a joint military exercise meant to show North Korea that if they try anything funny, the American military is ready to respond. The meaning of these drills is clear to everyone except North Korea, and only because they choose to see it that way. It gives them an excuse to get aid and food.


Want to know a better way to get food and aid?
Knock off the dictatorship crap, focus your money on industrialization, and open your borders to import/export businesses. In other words, do something for your own damned economy. Since being split, South Korea has grown to be the 15th biggest economy in the world, whereas North Korea’s economy is more like regions of Africa that are partially desert.
It’s really hard to be understanding towards a dictator who has the power to let his people start to thrive but instead chooses to spend all of their tax money on weapons.

3 - Why are you obsessed about this topic so much? I mean, sure, I like to read about it, but whatevs on the day-to-day going ons.

I’m not. In fact I had stopped checking here for days and got behind on the posts.
But I live in Tokyo, a likely target if North Korea decides to go out and take as many with it as it can.


L. Spiro

North Korea exists for the sole purpose of being opposed to the US and South Korea. If one can take away that opposition, then there is no real reason for North Korea to exist. It may as well be a part of South Korea to make one big Korea. No smart dictatorship will let go of that hatred, as the minute they let go of that hatred, they will lose power. While it is true that had there been no Korean War, there would be no North and South Korea, the fact is that it did happen, for whatever reason. If you have a nation that exists simply for the purpose of opposition to another (eg yours), then it's probably a bad idea to let them get nuclear weapons.

The Allies split Korea into two arbitrary halves (agains the wishes of the Koreans) at the end of WW2. Without allied (US) intervention, it never would have been split. The Korean war was waged to reunite the two halves - without more US intervention, the north would've won and reunited the two halves (under their dictatorship), however, they wouldn't have become an isolated pariah state if not for the cold war isolation efforts... There's no way to know what Korea would be like if they hadn't become collateral damages in WW2 and the cold war.
That said, why is the North's only reason to exist, to oppose the South, but not vice versa. As much as I dislike them, they have just as valid a claim over the whole peninsula as the South does, and the south hates the North just as much as the North hates he south, and both of their existances are just as arbitrary and just as dedicated to resisting the other...
As for nuclear nations that exist only to oppose others, what about Pakistan who broke off from India, or Israel who broke off from Palestine (and still to this day practice apartheid, and deny the existance of Palestine itself -- existing for the purpose of destroying their nation). Both of these are led by unstable religious governments, have nukes, but are US allies...

I'm not saying that the South has a better claim over the peninsula than the North, I'm just saying that if we could take the hatred, or ideological opposition, out of the equation, then there would not be two countries at this moment in time. East and West Germany became one big Germany once the ideological opposition was gone. Granted, this is not the exact same situation, but there are some similarities. Moreover, I do not believe that Pakistan or Israel should have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is extremely unstable, having gone through multiple leadership changes and exists for the sole purpose of opposing India. One can argue that Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because India developed nuclear weapons, but I would say that Pakistan is after some way to annihilate India, so eventually they would have acquired nukes on their own regardless of India's nuclear status. Pakistan is not using nukes for deterrence, but also as a first strike weapon. They have been developing battlefield delivery systems for some time now, Israel is another nation that I do not trust with nukes. They have shown a lack of restraint in warfare that leads me to believe that they are not using nukes for deterrence but as a first strike weapon. So even though these nations are "allies", I don't trust them with nukes.

I'm not saying that NK is reacting to the US, and it's not fair to say the exact opposite of that is true either. They're both constantly reacting to each other.

Have you read the original NK statements yet, which are just internal news/propaganda articles?
Both the 'sea of fire' and preemptive strike comments are made within the context of explaining their resolve to carry out counter attacks, and they cite these US drills (in past tense) as something they're fearful of becoming a real attack. The pre-emotive strike comment is in a section describing all of the defensive actions they have available to them, it's not worded aggressively, it appears in the same context of threatening defensive counter actions. It's not a direct threat to nuke the US in the immediate future, but a reminder that such actions are possible (it's implied that they're missiles are actually capable...). You find the same (but reverse) reminders on US news channels too, but when an American reminds us that they're capable of a pre-emotive nuclear strike, we don't all go crazy saying that Obama is about to nuke Korea...
Compared to 2nd gulf war, it's pretty tame stuff :P

Why is it provokative for NK to move around weapons and fire them as a show of force, but not provokative when us good guys do the exact same thing? If you read their actual words, they're saying their actions are a show of defensive force, but we choose to ignore that, and just grab the lines that make it look like a random warning of an imminent attack.

Can you explain which laws are broken by testing nukes? AFAIK, you've got to be a NTB/NPT signatory in order for there to be a legal document that can be held against such actions.

Just as a US invasion has never materialized (since the war), a NK invasion never materializes either. The meaning of the NK drills is also to show that if the south/US try anything funny, the North's military is ready to respond. The meaning is the same. It's ridiculous for us to scold NK for doing the same thing that we're doing. This whole thread is an example of how were inflating their actions into shadows of provocation, while laughing at them for inflating our actions into shadows of provocation. It's just selection bias on our part, because they're despicable.

I'm just saying that if we could take the hatred, or ideological opposition, out of the equation, then there would not be two countries at this moment in time. East and West Germany became one big Germany once the ideological opposition was gone. Granted, this is not the exact same situation, but there are some similarities.

The Korean DMZ is quite analogeous to the Berlin wall. Getting rid of the DMZ (and all the weapons on either side, aimed at the other), would be a huge, huge step towards peace.
The other difference was that East Germans knew how bad they had it, and they wanted to escape. We're not sure how wide-spread internal dissent in NK is, nor how many of them know how much better their lives would be had the South won the Korean war (though that's just speculation, maybe Korea would be more like modern Vietnam than modern Japan, had the US not had a reason to prop it up so much -- or maybe if the north had won, whole-Korea would be technologically advanced and peaceful by now -- who knows). We basically need to somehow build communication lines into the country so that the citizenry can encounter foreign influences, without causing the North to either stop these efforts, or just build new gulags for the 'contaminated' minds...
East Germany was also propped up by the USSR, and their collapse was linked to the USSR's collapse. Unfortunately, NK doesn't draw their power from an external source (besides a small amount of trade/aid), so external politics can't really destroy it...
Lastly, the DMZ being mostly minefield instead of wall, presents a challenge to allowing David Hasselhoff to sing on top of it about freedom ;-)

Just as a US invasion has never materialized (since the war), a NK invasion never materializes either. The meaning of the NK drills is also to show that if the south/US try anything funny, the North's military is ready to respond. The meaning is the same. It's ridiculous for us to scold NK for doing the same thing that we're doing. This whole thread is an example of how were inflating their actions into shadows of provocation, while laughing at them for inflating our actions into shadows of provocation. It's just selection bias on our part, because they're despicable.

You are trying to hard to find exact equivalency. The US and South Korea are not free of all responsibility but to claim that both sides are equally at fault for the current tensions is not realistic. As far as I can tell, the current tensions began with the North Korean satellite launch, which even China warned them not to do. After that, you get the cycles of UN sanctions and increasing threats, plus a nuclear test.The current US and South exercises are annual as someone else pointed out, and not exactly out of the blue threats of annihilation. The bomber flights came after the North threatened nuclear attack on the US directly. Even China, the North's only ally, hasn't been blaming the tensions on the South or the US.

Then there are the basic differences between North and South. North Korea spends at least a quarter of it's GDP on defense, the South spends around 3%. And while the South can count on the US, the North has been able to count on China. Then you have the fact of the Yeonpyeong island bombardment and the sinking of the Cheonean, as well as things like tunnels under the DMZ sized for tanks coming from the north and that one time in the 60's someone sent a group of commandos to assasinate the President of South Korea in his home. And Syngman Rhee's grandson is not the Adored Leader of South Korea... plus which side announced the cancellation of the Armistice? And I almost forgot about Korea Air Flight 858. Even Cuba, which is much closer to the United States and has more historical reason to dislike the US (and does not have China next door for support), is a fraction as militarized or blusterous as North Korea.

I also feel the need to point out that the division of Korea wasn't just the US's doing, it was equally the fault of the USSR and the PRC who supported the government in the North and rejected that of the South... it wasn't a one sided game.