Current Events > La Times: Kim Jong Un, like his father, is essentially a rational player

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-north-korea-scenarios-20170414-story.html

“The most unpredictable part of this story is Trump, not North Korea. North Korea is doing what it always does,” said Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA analyst who specializes in North Korea. She believes that Kim Jong Un, like his father, is essentially a rational player who will not launch a suicidal attack that would bring about the end of his regime. “There is a lot of brinksmanship going on, but people can miscalculate,” she warned. “And things could go very, very wrong.”

lol k
---

the only time rational and kim jong un belong in the same sentence is if you are saying "Kim Jong Un is not rational"
---

While I may not necessarily agree with her or see where she's coming from, it's 100% likely that she knows more about North Korea than you do.
---

AdviceMan posted...

While I may not necessarily agree with her or see where she's coming from, it's 100% likely that she knows more about North Korea than you do.

what is your point? that since she is an expert claimed by the article that Kim is actually indeed rational and his father too?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

While I may not necessarily agree with her or see where she's coming from, it's 100% likely that she knows more about North Korea than you do.

what is your point? that since she is an expert claimed by the article that Kim is actually indeed rational and his father too?

My point is that you don't really have an argument. This topic is like "expert CIA analyst said something, I think she's completely wrong despite knowing comparatively little about the issue." It's not like you made an argument that he isn't a rational actor. And with no supporting argument, I'm inclined to believe that she is likely right, and you are likely wrong.
---

"I don't agree with her but she's right"
---

AdviceMan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

While I may not necessarily agree with her or see where she's coming from, it's 100% likely that she knows more about North Korea than you do.

what is your point? that since she is an expert claimed by the article that Kim is actually indeed rational and his father too?

My point is that you don't really have an argument. This topic is like "expert CIA analyst said something, I think she's completely wrong despite knowing comparatively little about the issue." It's not like you made an argument that he isn't a rational actor. And with no supporting argument, I'm inclined to believe that she is likely right, and you are likely wrong.

Lol, you literally telling us that we know nothing on the subject of if the Kim family is rational or not.
You literally went there.
WOW
---

If he's so rational and aware that war with the US would likely spell the end of his regime, why is he so intent on provoking us?
---

FireTemple posted...

If he's so rational and aware that war with the US would likely spell the end of his regime, why is he so intent on provoking us?

@AdviceMan
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

While I may not necessarily agree with her or see where she's coming from, it's 100% likely that she knows more about North Korea than you do.

what is your point? that since she is an expert claimed by the article that Kim is actually indeed rational and his father too?

My point is that you don't really have an argument. This topic is like "expert CIA analyst said something, I think she's completely wrong despite knowing comparatively little about the issue." It's not like you made an argument that he isn't a rational actor. And with no supporting argument, I'm inclined to believe that she is likely right, and you are likely wrong.

Lol, you literally telling us that we know nothing on the subject of if the Kim family is rational or not.
You literally went there.
WOW

It's the appeal to authority fallacy in motion. She's an expert and we're not so she must be right.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

It's the appeal to authority fallacy in motion. She's an expert and we're not so she must be right.

but why
even he disagrees with her
---

It seems like a standard show of power or a following of Kim Jong-Il's patterns as a prerequisite for leading North Korea. Kim Jong-Il was significantly more fucking nuts than Kim Jong Un ever was. Not that it matters though, I'm pretty sure the generals that were alive during Kim Jong-Il's era are much more in power there nowadays, and you'd have to look at them
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

It's the appeal to authority fallacy in motion. She's an expert and we're not so she must be right.

but why
even he disagrees with her

People argue for the sake of arguing. Let it go. He knows he's wrong, he won't come back here anymore.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

FireTemple posted...

If he's so rational and aware that war with the US would likely spell the end of his regime, why is he so intent on provoking us?

@AdviceMan

Because, no other American President would go to war with him over what he's doing. Because there is no "real" benefit to America doing so. Which is what she said. The volatile one is Trump. And rationality for weaker nations is different that rationality for stronger nations. Weaker nations will posture, and try and get a favorable deal. They don't want weapons to use them, they want weapons for leverage. (You can't fuck with us or we'll topple shit).

North Korea has been doing this for decades in some capacity. It's effectively rational behavior. But of course it's possible they can miscalculate, due to changes in American politics and regime. So if you're wondering why they're playing this game of chicken with us, it's because they assume we'll act in our best interest and figure out something that we can both agree on. Make no mistake. A war with Korea will be expensive and cost a lot of lives, and the displaced refugees will be our responsibility. We lose a lot, they lose a lot more, but nobody actually wins anything.
---

legendarylemur posted...

It seems like a standard show of power or a following of Kim Jong-Il's patterns as a prerequisite for leading North Korea. Kim Jong-Il was significantly more fucking nuts than Kim Jong Un ever was. Not that it matters though, I'm pretty sure the generals that were alive during Kim Jong-Il's era are much more in power there nowadays, and you'd have to look at them

What did his father do specifically that made him more crazy iyo?
---

I remember reading something about how Saddam kept denying weapons inspections because he was more concerned with scaring off Iran than avoiding US intervention.

Similarly, KJU puts on a show not to provoke the US but to scare off South Korea.
---

FireTemple posted...

If he's so rational and aware that war with the US would likely spell the end of his regime, why is he so intent on provoking us?

They do it to demand more aid from the world. They aren't seriously going to attack.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

It's the appeal to authority fallacy in motion. She's an expert and we're not so she must be right.

No. Appeal to authority is in response to an argument. This is common sense. Basically, you should assume that someone who has studied and specialized in a subject knows more about it than you do. From your understanding, he's not rational. But you know very little about international relations, North Korea, or such. She knows comparatively more. It's why we defer to experts in fields in say... court cases. Because they know more.

For example if a historian who specialized in European Relations theorized of the factors that led up to world war II, and I said "LOL, it's cuz germans are racist", it would be asinine to assume that we both have an equal chance of being correct. Chances are she knows more facts pertaining to their situation than I do, so even though knowing what I know would allow me to come to a conclusion, I might very well be wrong.

Now, is it possible she is wrong? Of course. But it seems a little odd to dismiss an expert's estimation of something because you as a layman don't understand why she came to that conclusion. That's my point.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

legendarylemur posted...

It seems like a standard show of power or a following of Kim Jong-Il's patterns as a prerequisite for leading North Korea. Kim Jong-Il was significantly more fucking nuts than Kim Jong Un ever was. Not that it matters though, I'm pretty sure the generals that were alive during Kim Jong-Il's era are much more in power there nowadays, and you'd have to look at them

What did his father do specifically that made him more crazy iyo?

Are you kidding? You know most of those rumors about how the NK dictator got hole in ones all the time or how he's the strongest man in the world or some shit are all based on what Kim Jong-Il claimed himself to be. Kim Jong-Il was a legitimate threat and one of the most modern fascist dictators that existed within even in our lifetime.

In comparison... Kim Jong Un is quiet. He doesn't seem commanding nor ambitious in his few global appearance. I remember when he went on power, people thought that he was too young or honestly really weak compared to Kim Jong-Il, and I still think so.

Btw, some history lesson: https://www.quora.com/Is-North-Korea-communist-or-fascist-What-is-the-difference

Technically, North Korea is supposed to be a democratic nation
---

legendarylemur posted...

Are you kidding? You know most of those rumors about how the NK dictator got hole in ones all the time or how he's the strongest man in the world or some s*** are all based on what Kim Jong-Il claimed himself to be. Kim Jong-Il was a legitimate threat and one of the most modern fascist dictators that existed within even in our lifetime.

Un does the same thing. I had a thread here once discussing all his supernatural feats. Many are hilarious.
---

Kim Jong Il literally kidnapped his favorite director and actress to force them to make movies about him and wanted to kidnap Michael Jordan.
---

I would call it consistent, but not rational. They've basically been playing Russian Roulette with the world for years now in the hopes that nobody calls them on their crazy, but every time they test a nuke or threaten an ally they're pulling the trigger. It just SEEMS rational because nobody wants to actually go through the effort.
---

Also, rational actor doesn't mean "good person". Rational actor means effectively, "will they do what they think is in the best interest of their country in terms of international relations". She's saying that he will not basically get his regime destroyed, knowing that it will get his regime destroyed. He's not "suicidal".

So talking about NK's human rights abuses is not an answer to the idea of whether or not Un is a rational actor.
---

Antifar posted...

I remember reading something about how Saddam kept denying weapons inspections because he was more concerned with scaring off Iran than avoiding US intervention.

Similarly, KJU puts on a show not to provoke the US but to scare off South Korea.

this is back in January

http://nypost.com/2017/01/19/north-korea-plans-to-nuke-trumps-inauguration/

North Korea is “readying two intercontinental ballistic missiles” to “nuke” Donald’s Trump inauguration, it’s been reported.

Military officials say the rogue state wants to send a “strategic message” to the incoming US president by timing launches to ruin his big day on Friday.

In a statement, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the reports could not be confirmed but that the military was monitoring the situation closely.

However, according to news reports in South Korea, two missiles have already been placed on mobile launchers.

The devices “are estimated to not exceed 15m [49 feet] in length, making them shorter than the North’s existing ICBMs.”

“Judging by earlier behavior, they usually like to greet a newly elected American president with some kind of nice surprise like a nuclear (test) or missile launch,” he said.

The threat comes after it was revealed that Kim Jong Un’s military will have nuclear warheads capable of striking US territory within a year.

Since taking power, the North Korean dictator has dramatically increased his country’s nuclear weapons program.

But they not trying to provoke US?
---

You're kidding. They've been doing that same shit for decades. Seriously, this is like babby's first North Korea news ITT
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

legendarylemur posted...

Are you kidding? You know most of those rumors about how the NK dictator got hole in ones all the time or how he's the strongest man in the world or some s*** are all based on what Kim Jong-Il claimed himself to be. Kim Jong-Il was a legitimate threat and one of the most modern fascist dictators that existed within even in our lifetime.

Un does the same thing. I had a thread here once discussing all his supernatural feats. Many are hilarious.

Actually, they were all based off of claims that Kim Jong-Il passed around, and Kim Jong Un simply inherited it. Kim Jong Un never claimed he completely beat Dennis Rodman in basketball in some ridiculous score. Kim Jong-Il would've never let Dennis Rodman leave in the first place
---

s0nicfan posted...

I would call it consistent, but not rational. They've basically been playing Russian Roulette with the world for years now in the hopes that nobody calls them on their crazy, but every time they test a nuke or threaten an ally they're pulling the trigger. It just SEEMS rational because nobody wants to actually go through the effort.

After a certain point, consistency becomes rationality. If you keep doing the same thing, and the same thing keeps happening for decades, there's no reason to believe that's not how things are. That is to say, if I'm an asshole to all my friends, but they all love me for 20 years, I have no reason to believe that my assholishness will ever turn them away from me.

Nobody goes through the effort because nobody benefits from going through the effort. That's the thing with preemptive strikes. What do we get from putting North Korea in the ground. You can argue safety... but that's only a good argument if they WERE going to attack us. If they weren't, then we literally wasted resources and displaced refugees for no reason.
---

legendarylemur posted...

You're kidding. They've been doing that same shit for decades. Seriously, this is like babby's first North Korea news ITT

you believe like Antifar that this isn't intended to provoke the US?

that you will Nuke inauguration is not a message to Trump but a message to South Korea?
---

AdviceMan posted...

After a certain point, consistency becomes rationality. If you keep doing the same thing, and the same thing keeps happening for decades, there's no reason to believe that's not how things are. That is to say, if I'm an asshole to all my friends, but they all love me for 20 years, I have no reason to believe that my assholishness will ever turn them away from me.

Well if the argument is they do this for posturing, and they haven't been able to secure a deal with the international community for decades by doing the same thing, then we're in the definition of insanity.
---

legendarylemur posted...

You're kidding. They've been doing that same shit for decades. Seriously, this is like babby's first North Korea news ITT

That was exactly my point. It was someone who knows nothing about North Korea mocking someone who knows a lot about North Korea, because something was said that they don't understand.
---

AdviceMan posted...

legendarylemur posted...

You're kidding. They've been doing that same shit for decades. Seriously, this is like babby's first North Korea news ITT

That was exactly my point. It was someone who knows nothing about North Korea mocking someone who knows a lot about North Korea, because something was said that they don't understand.

If a man beats his wife for 20 years
you believe it is rational because he kept doing it for 20 years?

and when she decides she had enough and leaves, she is the irrational one?
---

s0nicfan posted...

AdviceMan posted...

After a certain point, consistency becomes rationality. If you keep doing the same thing, and the same thing keeps happening for decades, there's no reason to believe that's not how things are. That is to say, if I'm an asshole to all my friends, but they all love me for 20 years, I have no reason to believe that my assholishness will ever turn them away from me.

Well if the argument is they do this for posturing, and they haven't been able to secure a deal with the international community for decades by doing the same thing, then we're in the definition of insanity.

The only way North Korea is going to get anything other than begrudging tolerance from the international community is through a regime change into something more palatable. Obviously that's not in Un's best interest (or his general's interest), so that's not going to happen. So the next best thing is to build up their threat ability in order to force concessions.

And they've gotten them over the years, make no mistake. So it's actually an effective (for the options a shitty regime has), way to get concessions.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

legendarylemur posted...

You're kidding. They've been doing that same shit for decades. Seriously, this is like babby's first North Korea news ITT

That was exactly my point. It was someone who knows nothing about North Korea mocking someone who knows a lot about North Korea, because something was said that they don't understand.

If a man beats his wife for 20 years
you believe it is rational because he kept doing it for 20 years?

and when she decides she had enough and leaves, she is the irrational one?

This is a pretty stupid analogy, but I'll humor it.

If a man beats his wife for 20 years, and she doesn't leave him. It is rational for him to start believing that she will not leave him for beating her. He could end up being wrong. But it's not an unreasonable belief.

Rational =/= Correct.

However if a man's worst case scenario is his wife leaving him, and he knows the second he lays a hand on her, she will leave him, and he does it, that is an irrational action. It's knowingly acting against his own interests.

She is claiming that he wouldn't do the second thing.
---

AdviceMan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

legendarylemur posted...

You're kidding. They've been doing that same shit for decades. Seriously, this is like babby's first North Korea news ITT

That was exactly my point. It was someone who knows nothing about North Korea mocking someone who knows a lot about North Korea, because something was said that they don't understand.

If a man beats his wife for 20 years
you believe it is rational because he kept doing it for 20 years?

and when she decides she had enough and leaves, she is the irrational one?

This is a pretty stupid analogy, but I'll humor it.

If a man beats his wife for 20 years, and she doesn't leave him. It is rational for him to start believing that she will not leave him for beating him. He could end up being wrong. But it's not an unreasonable belief.

Rational =/= Correct.

However if a man's worst case scenario is his wife leaving him, and he knows the second he lays a hand on her, she will leave him, and he does it, that is an irrational action. It's knowingly acting against his own interests.

She is claiming that he wouldn't do the second thing.

no it a great analogy

just cause it shows how stupid your argument is doesn't make the analogy stupid


btw the US and the UN told North Korea to not do certain things or they will pay
one of those is testing nukes which NK did anyways and is threatening to do again

so as the analogy goes
the woman tells her husband that she will indeed leave him, she is tired of this and he beats her anyways thinking she won't leave

and you are defending that such is rational behavior ITT
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

the woman tells her husband that she will indeed leave him, she is tired of this and he beats her anyways thinking she won't leave

and you are defending that such is rational behavior ITT

Once again, rational actor in the international relations sense, does not mean "good" or "what should happen".

America makes threats all the time.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's why you've been piggybacking other people's argument in this topic. You're simply ignorant.
---

AdviceMan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

the woman tells her husband that she will indeed leave him, she is tired of this and he beats her anyways thinking she won't leave

and you are defending that such is rational behavior ITT

Once again, rational actor in the international relations sense, does not mean "good" or "what should happen".

America makes threats all the time.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's why you've been piggybacking other people's argument in this topic. You're simply ignorant.

the old ad hominem when your logic has been destroyed


it is totally rational to ignore warnings from your enemy, the body of world nations and you biggest ally China who gives all your supplies and just go ahead and test another nuke while saying to them all that you will indeed use said nuke wherever and whenever you want /sarcasm

back to the analogy this is like the husband has been beating her for 20 years and then he says tomorrow I will use a sledge hammer to beat you
but thinking she isn't going to do anything about it because she let you beat her with fists for 20 years
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

back to the analogy this is like the husband has been beating her for 20 years and then he says tomorrow I will use a sledge hammer to beat you

You do realize you can't say "back to the analogy" and then change the analogy.

First you asked me if it is rational for a man to beat his wife for 20 years and if she leaves him, she's the irrational one. I answered by saying, it is "rational for him to believe that she will not leave him".

You then changed the analogy to "she told him that she was going to leave him" and then claimed I was defending wife beating as rational.

And now you brought in sledgehammers.

Like how do you function?
---

AdviceMan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

back to the analogy this is like the husband has been beating her for 20 years and then he says tomorrow I will use a sledge hammer to beat you

You do realize you can't say "back to the analogy" and then change the analogy.

First you asked me if it is rational for a man to beat his wife for 20 years and if she leaves him, she's the irrational one. I answered by saying, it is "rational for him to believe that she will not leave him".

You then changed the analogy to "she told him that she was going to leave him" and then claimed I was defending wife beating as rational.

And now you brought in sledgehammers.

Like how do you function?

All I am doing it paralleling it to what NK does in the international community.

The original analogy was to be simple to help you understand.
Surely you could see how a man beating a woman for 20 years is being irrational. You did not.

So I further expanded it to assist you by showing what US and the UN did to NK. They escalated. They said don't test nukes or something will happen! That is the woman saying I will indeed leave if you don't stop.

Then I again compared to how NK also has escalated. They threaten to use actual Nukes. They re-started program for inter-continental ballistic missles. This is the husband saying your next beating will be much worse.


So even you who want to defend a stupid statement by this expert for who knows what reason should be able to see that this is not just the same old same old.
This isn't those first 5 years where the man beat the woman and she said "he will stop, I believe in him."

This is where she has had it and told him. And he responded saying I will be worse now. It is escalated.

And if you don't believe that I can give you an article where the Chinese President actually says yes this is true.
---

You really shouldn't waste your time arguing with darkphoenix, he struggles with basic concepts.
---

CowboyDan posted...

You really shouldn't waste your time arguing with darkphoenix, he struggles with basic concepts.

Do you believe Kim Jong Un is rational Cowboydan?
---

I believe I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with a troglodyte.

That was probably unnecessarily mean, but really, you're not as smart as you think you are bud. Take a step back.
---

@CowboyDan posted...

I believe I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with a troglodyte.

My guess is you agree with me. But you don't want to say it because you hate how like I have destroyed adviceman's arguments, I did yours in the past.

Very sad when a guy loses an argument and then is so salty he continues to troll a user and call him names.

tsk tsk

That was probably unnecessarily mean, but really, you're not as smart as you think you are bud. Take a step back.

I don't think I am that smart. It is very well understood how irrational Kim is. This isn't some intellectual argument, the analogy is very simple.
---

Nevermind, my initial sentiment wasn't too mean.
---

i wouldnt call him rational, but i agree that he doesnt want to be turned into a parking lot
---

Nothing says rational actor like tying your uncle to a post and blasting him with anti aircraft flak for not clapping enthusiastically enough.
---

this dude lol

he literally said he disagrees with her

and yet he cant stop saying shes right
---

CowboyDan posted...

Nevermind, my initial sentiment wasn't too mean.

I mean ad hominems is all you got, you can't really regret using them or you would have no more arguments
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

Nothing says rational actor like tying your uncle to a post and blasting him with anti aircraft flak for not clapping enthusiastically enough.

Of the things he's done, I find this to be one of the more "normal" ones. Countless rulers procecuted their previous regents in demonstration of their power.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

CowboyDan posted...

Nevermind, my initial sentiment wasn't too mean.

I mean ad hominems is all you got, you can't really regret using them or you would have no more arguments

*are, *you've

I know this seems silly, but it's important to recognize the caliber of person making a claim.
---