If Kim-Jong-Un Dies Without a Son Who Will lead North Korea

[Kongfucius]

phaedruss said:

Kongfucius said:

 

The Chinese back them to hedge American influence in East Asia - they're not massively supportive but so long as they're there,  their threats discourage a stronger military presence or other measures which the Chinese may not be very keen on - basically they ratchet up the tension and stop the west or Japan from getting hasty just in case they do have viable nukes or other WMDs

I don't normally support interventionism and that kind of policy, but in the case of North Korea I can make an exception lol. I really don't get what China has to gain from antagonizing the west and Japan at this point, especially over some two-bit military dictatorship that has nothing to offer them.

America has backed more than it's fair share of oppressive regimes in S.America over the years though, as they did in South Vietnam

Ultimately the DPRK is threatening enough to make the west think twice but not dangerous enough to make invasion a realistic course of action - from a geopolitical standpoint they strike a balance which makes them useful to the Chinese but not a realistic danger to the USA

Basically, you can make an ethical argument for going in to stop the oppression and abuses, but there are few tangible benefits relative to the cost of the occupation and the strain it would put on relations with China, and as Iraq shows, the west is quite happy to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing unless its to protect an attacked ally and their oil (Kuwait in 1991) or to take out a threat (or what was seen as a threat, even if it was incorrect). When Saddam was gassing the Kurds in 1988, we didn't do shit