You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
Innside Pudgy's Brain
2013-04-14
When Kim Jong Un first appeared in Pyongyang's carefully stage-managed public spotlight in the fall of 2010, North Korea watchers began scouring for clues to learn whether the pudgy heir apparent would be a reformist or simply the newest face of a despotic regime.
I didn't insert that word, pudgy, it's right out of the WaPo!
Nearly 16 months after taking the reins of the hermit state following the death of his stoic father, North Korea's 30-year-old fat leader appears to be careening toward the latter -- at least on the surface.

Having disavowed his country's armistice with South Korea and threatened to fire his increasingly capable missiles toward the United States, Suet Face Kim has put the Korean Peninsula and Washington on a war footing. His behavior follows the playbook of his predecessors, with one notable and potentially dangerous departure that appears to have him backed into a corner.

"His father and his grandfather always figured into their provocation cycle an off-ramp of how to get out of it," Adm. Samuel Locklear III, the commander of U.S. troops in the Pacific, told Congress this past week. "It's not clear to me that he has thought through how to get out of it. This is what makes this scenario, I think, particularly challenging."

As Kim Jong Un eases into the top job of a nation whose elite has long been presumed to be rife with intrigue and rivalries, he appears determined to assert a tight grip on the levers of power.

"He has an inferiority complex," said Kongdan Oh Hassig, a North Korea expert at the Institute for Defense Analyses in Alexandria. "He is trying to show that he has a strategic mind, that the military stands behind him and that no one stands against him."
I used to think he was just dangerous, but with an inferiority complex... inherently unstable comes to mind.
Posted by:Bobby

#12  The irony here is that for the two Koreas to reunify, both NOKOR + SOKOR may need to dev Nukes.

However, the above must be weighed agz the notion that most Perts believe China will never accept a non-Commie, non-Chinese-dominated, pro-Western or pro-Democratic unified Koreas on the Peninsula - MORESO WID FORMAL SINO-TAIWAN REUNIFICATION STALLED INDEFINITELY.

In "Mahanist" China's mind, TAIWAN = China's equivalent of "Mahanist" America's "PEARL HARBOR/HAWAII/HAWIIAN ISLANDS' for entry into the Pacific during the late 19th-early 20th Century. China has times said that widout soveriegnty or control of Taiwan, there is NO China or Chinese "Manifest Destiny" as "post-US", future "World #1" in place of the USoA.

Both Taiwan + the PHIL are US Allies, espec wid the US as existential "guarantor" for democratic Taiwan as China is for Commie NOKOR, hence "Pudgy" = KJU/NOKOR = China? aims its "MUSUDAN(S)" at China's historical rival Japan.

Something has to change = "give" as per starving North Korea, + something has to also change vee China's anti-US "Manifest Destiny".

NORTH KOREA PER SE IS FACING DE FACTO CHINESE TAKEOVER NO MATTER THE SCENARIO, IMO HENCE ITS WILLINGNESS TO THREATEN TO ATTACK EVERYONE.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2013-04-14 20:12  

#11  he was "present", which is a lot like someone else we know...
Posted by: Frank G   2013-04-14 18:49  

#10  So when KJU took the brinksmanship course, did he pass, fail, drop out, or skipped classes? Or did he do it by correspondence?
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2013-04-14 18:28  

#9  Elmeret .. the USA may have withdrawn nukes from S. Korean soil. But that doesn't mean they were dropped from the defense strategy. They are (presumably) still on US aircraft carriers. And the USA usually has at least one carrier within comfortable sailing distance of "hot spots" in Asia. So the implied threat is still there.

But you raise a good question. If the USA says that de-nuclearization is the new (intended) policy - how exactly does that get implemented? How would N. Korea ever know whether the US has nukes stationed in Guam, or on an aircraft carrier - and therefore how they would be deployed? Basically, the US strategy can never be verified by the N. Koreans - so why should they go for "de-nuclearization"?
Posted by: Raider   2013-04-14 15:09  

#8  "what happens when you mix an inferiority complex with a narcissistic complex?"

D.C., Bobby. :-(
Posted by: Barbara   2013-04-14 12:47  

#7  Bobby did you really set up such an obvious shot? 8^)
Posted by: AlanC   2013-04-14 12:30  

#6  More to the point, perhaps -- what happens when you mix an inferiority complex with a narcissistic complex?
Posted by: Bobby   2013-04-14 12:05  

#5  "but if the US removes nukes from the peninsula then it's also likely that future non-nuclear conflicts will be a definite reality."

The United States withdrew the last nuclear weapons from South Korea in December 1991.
Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660   2013-04-14 12:04  

#4  he's stoic now
Posted by: Frank G   2013-04-14 11:05  

#3  unfortunately - if this de-nuclearization policy goes forward then Pudgy's reckless behavior will be rewarded in a big way. His fight to obtain full control of the N. Korean military will be won, and he will have learned a major lesson - if you don't get what you want ... act even more reckless.

I'm in favor of not seeing Seoul or Pyongyang get nuked ... but if the US removes nukes from the peninsula then it's also likely that future non-nuclear conflicts will be a definite reality.
Posted by: Raider   2013-04-14 10:59  

#2  his stoic father

WTF? Can we get a ruling here please?
Posted by: Shipman   2013-04-14 08:45  

#1  The double "n" in the title was sticky fingers, but maybe it's also a pun?
Posted by: Bobby   2013-04-14 08:34  

00:00