We all see and hear what goes on over there. Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something? He’s always threatening to nuke countries and is probably has the highest domestic kill count out of any world leader today.

So I ask? Why don’t any other countries step in to help those people. I saw a survey asking Americans and Escaped North Koreans would they migrate to North Korea and to the US if given the chance (hypothetical for the refugees). And it was like <0.1% to 95%. Obviously those people live in terror.

Why do we just allow this to happen in modern civilization? Nukes on South Korea? Is just not lucrative to step in? SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE!?

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    We see and hear what the US state dept wants us to hear. And nothing more.

    As to the core of your question. The answer is nukes. Nukes are the only way to fend off the imperial aggression of the United States and its imperialist partners.

  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    iirc one of the issues is that even if things go perfectly on a military front no one is quite sure how to handle and de-program/rehabilitate 25.5 million people a large quantity of which likely lack any skills that would be useful in western economies.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      a large quantity of which likely lack any skills that would be useful in western economies.

      What an alarming thing to say…

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I’m not saying its a good reason, just a reason. We could easily afford it if we took some of that magic money that goes into military funding blackholes or magical infastructure projects that never get built yet somehow break records on cost. Sadly the decision is being made by people with no sense of empathy or value for human life.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          No, the alarming part is that you view North Koreans as subhuman animals with no skills.

  • Kitty Jynx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    One thing I have not seen brought up yet is that Seoul is within artillery range of North Korea. Even if North Korea didn’t have nukes they could bombard the city with conventional arms or even chemical weapons and kill hundreds of thousands in the first day or two.

  • Wrrzag@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    We all see and hear what goes on over there

    No, you don’t.

    Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something

    Yeah, and then a year later those same kids appear in public alive and well, as it’s happened again and again.

    “In nk people have to push the trains and they kill your family if you don’t whistle merrily while doing it”.

  • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    It’s a whole ocean away which means you are not allowed to invade. And decades of sanctions make it hard for diplomacy.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    NK could not defeat the US or China militarily but it could do quite a bit of damage to SK before anyone could stop them. This is a big reason the US doesn’t intervene.

    China is concerned about the population of NK suddenly becoming millions of refugees they’ll need to recuse and deal with. So they would rather the regime not collapse.

  • PahdyGnome@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Short answer is that NK is pretty much self-contained. Occasional Kim might rattle his sabre but no one is too worried about it. Until they start making serious threats to the stability of other countries it’s just a case of leave well enough alone.

    Sure it sucks what the people of NK have to endure but it’s not for other countries to tell them how they should live unless they directly ask for help or start threatening the sovereignty of other countries.

    As someone else in the comments mentioned, WW2 wasn’t an intervention to protect the German citizens that were being persecuted, it was a reaction to German invasion of other nations.

  • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    World powers typically let countries do whatever they want to their own citizens, it’s only when they do stuff to people of other countries that they get involved.

  • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    3 days ago

    Generally countries in the west only get involved in conflicts if they get something out of it, be it directly via getting wealth from the country, or indirectly like curbing successful non-capitalistic economies before they catch on and their own people start questioning the billionaires. The “we’re there to liberate people” is just marketing speech.

    • a new sad me@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      I wonder why you say “countries in the west” and not just “countries”. It’s not like, I don’t know, Banín is shouting about North Korea every day and nobody listens.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The US has invested a lot in its capacity to police the world (just look at how many bases we have around the world). So it’s logical to ask why the US would or wouldn’t police something. And usually before the US polices something with force, they start talking about it publicly.

        Benin has no such capacity or intentions and so neither polices anything nor telegraphs its opinions.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No one does anything, because it’s not actually that bad. Most of the quality of life issues are due to western imposed (illegal) sanctions, and not the authoritarian leadership.

    You’re sensing the cognitive dissonance between western propaganda vs western actions. Keep going in that direction. You’re close to getting it. Most of what you’ve been told about North Korea is made up bullshit.

  • zxqwas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    3 days ago

    Generally frowned upon to invade countries.

    Ludicrously costly. Your tax payers will want to know why it’s more important than everything else you do with their money.

    Immense suffering. Mostly by the people you’re trying to liberate but also your own troops and their families.

    They have nukes and could probably blow up at least a few regional cities. If the regime is threatened they will most likely use them.

    South Korea or China or Russia are the only countries with land borders. China and Russia find NK useful to have arround to annoy US. Seoul is within artillerty range of the border.

    Building up a new state in it’s place is very difficult. Remember how the Taliban took back power about 15 minutes after the US left Afghanistan?

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      That’s not how it would play out or herw, but even in the best case scenario, you’d end up with a huge area with rampant poverty and discontent that would take generations to develop. We’ve had something similar in Germany. Even after thirty years and vast amounts of money spent, East Germany is still way behind and there are areas that have no perspective at all.

  • boolean_sledgehammer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Feel free to pitch the idea to congress. It will cost somewhere in the realm of trillions of dollars to invade, occupy, and rebuild North Korea. We’re talking an occupation lasting decades. A full time military presence for the foreseeable future as North Korea rebuilds something resembling a functional democratic society.

    Don’t get me wrong, their military would get absolutely bodied in a full on shooting war with any sort of NATO-esque military coalition. But they have a sizable entrenched force with more than a few functional nuclear weapons. It would cost A LOT of lives.

    So, that’s the bill. If you think you can convince congress to go for it, go nuts.

    • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The nukes are recent, and probably not tactically functional. It’s purely a cost benefit analysis. As long as NK isn’t in serious motion to cause more damage outside their country, than it’s worth to stop them, no one will.

      • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah true. Like Turkmenistan. That country is like North Korea, but not in conflict with other countries. So no one cares.