The way they're behaving is quite rational. They looked at what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam, as well as how the new administration is seeking to tear down the Iran deal, and came to the conclusion that the US/West could not be trusted to honor a nuclear disarment deal long term.

This means a credible nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure the regime's survival.

Lest people think I'm engaging in apologetics, what they're doing to keep in power is reprehensible. But they're not mad men looking for a symbolic "win" at the cost of suicide.

No they don't. Why would they want this radioactive toxic dumpster fire as their full responsibility? They're much better it being within their sphere of influence - so that anybody who wants anything done has to deal with China and make suitable offers to get things done - while having pretty much zero responsibility for the welfare of the people and not being subject of criticism for any atrocities that happen there, and not granting the people there even minuscule rights that Chinese subjects have. Current situation - at least until it explodes into a hot war - is a huge win for China, they are indispensable as the only power capable of putting a leash on Crazy Kim, they look relatively good in comparison to him, and they don't have to spend anything on it or bear any responsibility.

I don't see why you say this. I wouldn't say they are especially competent, but they seem to have stayed in existence and played off various larger rivals successfully for 70 odd years.

It dates back quite a long time. Development started as a response to the US putting nuclear artillery on the border with North Korea in 1958 and pointing it directly at Pyongyang.

>What else is their development of nuclear arms about? NK is a signatory of the NPT.

They withdrew from the NPT in the run up to the totally provoked and necessary invasion of Iraq. Around this time Bush famously branded them part of the "axis of evil" and casually threatened nuclear annihilation, among other provocations.

I guess something led them to believe that they needed a nuclear deterrent?

They did at the time make an offer to the US in light of the provocations: sign a non-aggression treaty and let them to continue developing nuclear power. The US didn't, so they withdrew.

>What they actually want is to win

No, they want some kind of military parity before joining the negotiating table because Iraq shows what happens when you don't have parity...

You don't think seeing what happened to Gaddafi has anything to do with it? Libya got rid of their nuke development plans in 2003. If Libya had nukes, would the Libyan revolution have played out as it did? Do you think Kim Jong Un wants to get dragged around, anally raped and murdered by an angry mob? Probably not.

> Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

Not even close. China would rather NK sank into the sea than try to take 25M malnourished, undereducated more people.

I think they are, from their perspective. First, non-rational actors don't survive to establish and hold political power, for years (generations for the Kim family) in dictatorships where failure means death. Kim Jong-un's behavior would be madness in a democracy and where we care about fellow citizens, but it's successful (by his terms) and makes sense in a dictatorship.

Second, consider the history of U.S. regime change from an outside perspective:

1) Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program; the U.S. said it did, invaded, and overthrew the regime.

2) Libya did have a minor nuclear weapons program. In an agreement with the U.S. (and maybe with others too) it gave up the program. Soon after, the U.S. bombed the Libyan military and helped the opposition overthrow the regime.

3) Iran had a very capable nuclear weapons program. It gave up the program in a treaty with the U.S. Now the U.S. is at high risk to renege on the treaty, continues to threaten Iran, and continues to talk about regime change.

It seems that no matter what you do, what the U.S. says, or what international law is, if the U.S. doesn't like you then it pursues regime change. That's the Russian point of view, too, to an extent. It's openly discussed that perhaps the only way to protect yourself is to own nuclear weapons.

(As a side note, when people question the value of following international law, this is it: If the U.S. reliably followed international law, NK could trust that a deal to give up its weapons would be followed and others wouldn't feel the need to acquire them. On the other hand, if the U.S. withdraws from the Iran agreement, why would NK - or anyone - bother even discussing an agreement? So they can disarm and be destroyed?)

> Sometimes you need to stop being Chamberlain, and start being Churchill.

And sometimes you need to stop being Bush and start being (name your favorite peace-maker). I'm not sure what that proves - sometimes one tactic is appropriate, sometimes another, and often a a completely different approach. Also, this situation does not at all seem similar to WWII.

annex what? I don't think China's interested in maintaining a peaceful region, as much as they are scared of losing control of their country and desperately trying to keep their country in one piece, having witnessed the fall outs from the collapse of the Soviet.

This makes sense. NK is valuable to China as a buffer from Western countries. I'm surprised by this announcement simply because from that strategic perspective, it hurts China. If they plan on annexing, that makes more sense.

If they do, I'm sure we won't do much to stop them. We'll complain (us Westerners) but when the rubber meets the road, China is a better holder of that territory. Our only concern will be annexation of SK by China after NK, but I find that unlikely within the next 20 years.

North Korea is rational. They have a very good idea of how far they can annoy everyone else before it starts to hurt them, and they have proven very adept at being able to extract concessions from the rest of the world.

> The NK problem can never ever be solved by diplomatic resolve.

The only way the problem could be solved diplomatically is a grand bargain between China and the US (maybe Russia as well, but China is definitely required) to let the Kim government fall.

> Personally I think while China's interests are in maintaining a peaceful region, we must be wary of the relationship between NK and China. As there is a possibility of another game being played. Perhaps China wants to annex NK.

The real problem with North Korea, and the reason we're in this dangerous unstable equilibrium is that, as much as the relevant powers hate the current situation, the alternatives are even more unpalatable. No one wants to take on the task of absorbing North Korea--China and South Korea are already too rich (the gap is even wider than East/West Germany, and that took 20 years to close). Furthermore, China already has a rural-to-urban migration problem, and North Korean refugees would only exacerbate that issue.

War with North Korea would be a very unpalatable situation. The center of Seoul is only about 30 miles from the North Korean border, and some suburbs are even closer--within artillery range of the border. That gives North Korea the ability to raise the death count to over a million people in a very short amount of time even before rockets or nuclear weapons are involved, not to mention instigating a short-term refugee situation that makes Syria's look small. Furthermore, North Korean rocketry and nuclear weapons gives it the ability to threaten the megacities of Japan, and if Kim Jung Un feels he can't win, he very well could go out with a painful bang.

Put more simply, a war with North Korea, although likely very short, could easily produce a death toll commensurate with World War I. A military option is not a good option. There are no good options when it comes to North Korea. At this point, the least bad option to me is to ignore North Korea's tantrums, publicly reaffirm commitment to the defense of South Korea and Japan in the event of a war at any cost, and quietly work with China to develop post-Kim scenarios.

That would seem to be a good thing, both for NK and the rest of us.

Of course it is.

If you think about it from the perspective of a dynasty trying to save its own skin under any circumstances to avoid having to go through something akin to another Nuremberg trials, then everything the Kim leadership does is rational.

They are even willing to point nuclear weapons at the world and subject the North Korean people to no end of physical and mental abuses just to maintain their grip on power in a country where they live like God-Kings.

They could have done this in the 50s when the red army controlled Norks during the war. They want a buffer state between them and SK.

I don't believe this. I think China wants to avoid the refugee crisis that would ensue on their doorstep if North Korea collapsed.

At the same time, I think it's not far-fetched that China would flex its muscle against the US if we escalate this conflict.

If the DPRK doesn't achieve victory within 72 hours then yes of course they will be flattened, but nonetheless a DPRK victory is within the realm of possibility. Seoul may be reduced to a smoking heap, 20M dead and 10M having emigrated, and it will be a Pyrrhic victory, but it could be a victory nonetheless.

That said, nobody wants a land war in Asia (one of the Classic Blunders) so it would take a lot of stupidity to get there.

Chinese gov. should explain why it let NK have nukes before blaming 'power balance'

What do the 'wealthy' look like in NK? Is there an upper class of non-relatives and, if so, via what means -- government ties (business or personal)? What do they do on a daily basis, for work, fun, etc? It just seems to isolated, and perhaps that's my internet adoration speaking -- but is there a class of wealth in NK, what does it look like, how does it come to be?

And I'm honestly curious: if there is a wealthy class, what do they do for fun/enjoyment/entertainment purposes -- and how will this impact that?