NuKes [North Korean nuclear policy and diplomacy]

Get It? NK? Nukes? Just me? Oh well.

I've been sick for a while, so I didn't get to post about a topic that carries two of my interests.

Basically, long story short:

North Korea had nukes on a small scale, but no missiles
[story begins]
North Korea plans to test a missile that could launch said nukes
Trump responds by sending Mike Pence to the DMZ
Pence says some stuff, to no effect
Trump sends battleship to scare North Korea
North Korea, much like the honey badger, doesn't care and tests its missile anyway
The missile blows up and is a failure
North Korea holds a parade
Battleship comes back to America
Everyone is confused
Turns out we sent the battleship to South Korea for unrelated reasons
It's weird
[story ends]


While I understand that the DPRK and the US aren't the best of friends, I hope war doesn't break out. Their policies aren't half bad [economic policy, not necessarily their more authoritarian nature], and I think they could be the key to a unified Korea. I know that NK is controversial, so talk! Discuss!

What economic policies in particular are good?

Pushing state-financed industries to provide work for citizenry and goods for distribution or otherwise utilization.

It's the basic principle of the Command Economy, the stepping point between Capitalism and Socialism, which is, itself, the stepping point between Capitalism and Communism.

Again, implementation is poor by focusing on a defense-based economy while having an insufficient infrastructure.

I feel that the current administration in North Korea is too far gone to reunify with South Korea. When a leader is venerated as a demigod by his people and has been raised to believe he himself is one, it creates a system that is not open to change. The proper course of action would need to be in some way getting the government to collapse and its replacement with a less rigid and threatening leadership before they figure out how to create nuclear missiles. Whether this is done by an outside force or internally is not important so much as it occurs

Well, then we are benefited by the hereditary nature of the DPRK. When Kim Jong Un dies, for any reason, especially old age, the state is incredibly open to change. While a collapse or assassination would trigger backlash, a calm death would yield more calm policies in reverence to their deceased leader.

This wouldn't occur because Kim Jong Un has a daughter, and if for whatever reason she is denied the leadership it would likely go to whatever extent family exists such as uncles, cousins, etc. Unless all living relatives end up dead either by coincidence or in a March Revolution type event, there will always be an heir

Precisely. The heir always acts in reverence to the former leader, lest they risk attack by that leaders surviving supporters. The next leader is always either calm or vengeful in a hereditary government.

I doubt there is any overlap between the group of people with power in North Korea and the group of people who would oppose whoever is leading at the time.

I think the Un loyalists could backlash if the heir did not follow in his footsteps or show reverence to their fallen leader, especially so early in their reign.