Thanks for taking the time to respond. A few points/ follow-up Qs:
1) Is it necessarily helpful to tell people who are already scared, and I would say unreasonably so if we're talking about U.S.-based Americans, to be more frightened (of the N. Koreans, particularly if you recognize that the DPRK is not interested in forcing confrontation)?
2)Thanks for all of this, but I don't think it addresses my question. Again, what does NK gain from being an aggressor? Surely not regime survival. So there must be some other reason. What is it? And if there isn't one, then doesn't that suggest that this issue needs to be viewed from a different perspective?
3) Yes, I understand that the regime promotes this ideology, I'm asking, "why?" Of all the countries that they have to choose from, they picked the U.S. China, though promoted in the U.S. as DPRK's patron, is/was also a threat to them (particularly pre-nuke program "successes". Same w/Russia. So how do they explain their fascination w/the U.S.?
4) > The resistance is to the regime and the way their state is run.
Right, but what is the regionally and geopolitically acceptable outcome?
None of the countries you've mentioned is interested in accepting emigrating DPRKers en masse. Even if they were, how many do you think would remain in those places rather than return to NK? Germany still hasn't fully integrated "East" Germany into the "West" German economy; NHK ran a documentary on NK defectors last year, in which it stated that most who came to SK ended up returning to NK disillusioned by life there. And SK's economy and quality of life for the avg. person, isn't actually all that great.[1]
Whether the regime maintains its (psuedo)control or falls, the country will have to orient itself toward some benefactor(s) (until it can stand on its own, if ever). Depending on the country/ies it chooses, there will be (at least, perceived) repercussions for others.
And the regime has already stated, in effect, that it is interested in (slightly) liberalizing and significantly improving its economy. One example[2]
I'm not asking this rhetorically: The "Arab Springs" were successful in doing what exactly for the affected populations?
[1] I've seen their #s, occasionally follow their domestic news reports, and know people who have lived there and who are there now.
[2] (Fox Biz News interview w/ Jim Rogers) https://www.youtu.be/D4Kk6miiymk
1) Is it necessarily helpful to tell people who are already scared, and I would say unreasonably so if we're talking about U.S.-based Americans, to be more frightened (of the N. Koreans, particularly if you recognize that the DPRK is not interested in forcing confrontation)?
2)Thanks for all of this, but I don't think it addresses my question. Again, what does NK gain from being an aggressor? Surely not regime survival. So there must be some other reason. What is it? And if there isn't one, then doesn't that suggest that this issue needs to be viewed from a different perspective?
3) Yes, I understand that the regime promotes this ideology, I'm asking, "why?" Of all the countries that they have to choose from, they picked the U.S. China, though promoted in the U.S. as DPRK's patron, is/was also a threat to them (particularly pre-nuke program "successes". Same w/Russia. So how do they explain their fascination w/the U.S.?
4) > The resistance is to the regime and the way their state is run.
Right, but what is the regionally and geopolitically acceptable outcome?
None of the countries you've mentioned is interested in accepting emigrating DPRKers en masse. Even if they were, how many do you think would remain in those places rather than return to NK? Germany still hasn't fully integrated "East" Germany into the "West" German economy; NHK ran a documentary on NK defectors last year, in which it stated that most who came to SK ended up returning to NK disillusioned by life there. And SK's economy and quality of life for the avg. person, isn't actually all that great.[1]
Whether the regime maintains its (psuedo)control or falls, the country will have to orient itself toward some benefactor(s) (until it can stand on its own, if ever). Depending on the country/ies it chooses, there will be (at least, perceived) repercussions for others.
And the regime has already stated, in effect, that it is interested in (slightly) liberalizing and significantly improving its economy. One example[2]
I'm not asking this rhetorically: The "Arab Springs" were successful in doing what exactly for the affected populations?
[1] I've seen their #s, occasionally follow their domestic news reports, and know people who have lived there and who are there now. [2] (Fox Biz News interview w/ Jim Rogers) https://www.youtu.be/D4Kk6miiymk