I would be happy to try to explain the rest of it in a more comprehensible manner. Can you tell me what you did understand or if there was any easily-identifiable point of confusion?
No problem. I got a lot of replies yesterday and it was a bit too much. From your comment and what others have said, North Korea went through a very intense bombing by the US, and so its leaders fear that they will be attacked again. So they have taken an over-centralized, ‘military first’ approach. This is also why they have nuclear weapons. For North Korea to focus on its people’s well-being, the US etc. have to first stop threatening them. Is this broadly correct?
That’s more what other people were talking about, but yeah, I’d say that’s broadly correct.
The one correction that I would make is that the DPRK is already quite concerned with its people’s well-being, and makes an effort to make sure they have food, housing, healthcare, employment, etc. that already exceeds what most countries do relative their resources, including sacrificing a great deal of their hypothetical economic productivity to make sure that they produce enough food (and other basic needs, but especially food) such that being completely cut off from the world (a reasonable fear imo given their history) would not result in a severe famine. That’s why so much of their economy is agriculture, something western sources don’t deny but rarely mention.
The DPRK does still have a malnutrition problem, not famine but still malnutrition, but I don’t think it’s from government neglect just like I don’t think its widespread poverty is a matter of government neglect. The government and country are poor and the Kims aren’t sitting on a magic wand to make it go away (though you could argue China and Russia had been sitting on one because of the veto power they didn’t use when the DPRK was sanctioned). If the DPRK wasn’t sanctioned, even if the military threats remained just the same, you would see a massive transformation.
But I agree certainly that if they were less threatened, they could spend more resources on other things and that would generally be to the benefit of their population, and I would also say that you would be much more likely to see more rapid social political reforms if they were less threatened by external forces.
![[CW: Transphobia] Congrats to North Korea for winning the U-17 Woman's World Cup!](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/e0f95f39-e410-42a1-8130-454ce954a438.png){kind=link}
I would be happy to try to explain the rest of it in a more comprehensible manner. Can you tell me what you did understand or if there was any easily-identifiable point of confusion?
No problem. I got a lot of replies yesterday and it was a bit too much. From your comment and what others have said, North Korea went through a very intense bombing by the US, and so its leaders fear that they will be attacked again. So they have taken an over-centralized, ‘military first’ approach. This is also why they have nuclear weapons. For North Korea to focus on its people’s well-being, the US etc. have to first stop threatening them. Is this broadly correct?
That’s more what other people were talking about, but yeah, I’d say that’s broadly correct.
The one correction that I would make is that the DPRK is already quite concerned with its people’s well-being, and makes an effort to make sure they have food, housing, healthcare, employment, etc. that already exceeds what most countries do relative their resources, including sacrificing a great deal of their hypothetical economic productivity to make sure that they produce enough food (and other basic needs, but especially food) such that being completely cut off from the world (a reasonable fear imo given their history) would not result in a severe famine. That’s why so much of their economy is agriculture, something western sources don’t deny but rarely mention.
The DPRK does still have a malnutrition problem, not famine but still malnutrition, but I don’t think it’s from government neglect just like I don’t think its widespread poverty is a matter of government neglect. The government and country are poor and the Kims aren’t sitting on a magic wand to make it go away (though you could argue China and Russia had been sitting on one because of the veto power they didn’t use when the DPRK was sanctioned). If the DPRK wasn’t sanctioned, even if the military threats remained just the same, you would see a massive transformation.
But I agree certainly that if they were less threatened, they could spend more resources on other things and that would generally be to the benefit of their population, and I would also say that you would be much more likely to see more rapid social political reforms if they were less threatened by external forces.
Got it, thanks!