Let's Sweep The Board

Buoyed by the exciting developments in Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East, I am going to dust off an old idea for bringing regime change to North Korea. 

The basis for the proposal is a Wall Street Journal editorial from January 2003, excerpted here.  The essence of the proposal for regime change is simple - the US should offer a substantial number of green cards (one million? half a million?) to refugees who flee North Korea.

From the WSJ:

The historical model here is East Germany in 1989. Hungary permitted tens of thousands of East German refugees to pass through its borders en route to the West, contributing to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Now, there are plenty of questions.  The population of North Korea is estimated at 23 million.  Could one million green cards do the trick?  How about half that?  Could the "tens of thousands" that brought down East Germany be enough here?

And what about the rest of the region?  Would China object to the whole exercise as hopelessly destabilizing?  Might a sensible US response be, "destabilizing compared to what?"  South Korea, Japan, and Australia will also want to be heard (as will everyone else).

How much might this cost?  At $100,000 per refugee, the US is "out of pocket" $50  to $100 billion.  Since the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion (and counting) ,that might seem to be a bargain.  But is there any basis for the $100,000 number?  No, and we are open to suggestions.

Could the US handle one million immigrants from North Korea, or even half that?  Well, the experience following the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975 suggests it would be a stretch.  (More here).

Well, that may just mean this concept needs to be tweaked.  Could we subsidize the settlement of refugees in other countries?  If the North Korean government collapses, could we simply repatriate the refugees and have the US contribute to the rebuilding of North Korea?

It is not as if there is a surfeit of good ideas on how to resolve the North Korean situation.  We are throwing out an idea here, and remember - anyone can find objections; the goal is solutions.

Comments

[MattJ]

I would gladly let one live with me, or sponsor 1 person of a family to live elsewhere.

I've sometimes wondered if there is some sort of program for refugees like there is for exchange students.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

How would they get here? Not over the DMZ, certainly. I guess we could radio the word to the NKs, then have our military comb the coast. We will be blamed for any deaths when ill-made boats sank, or when NK-ers killed anyone they caught off their coastline.

Another thought -- they can escape to China and get here from there. This would require some kind of cooperation from the Chinese. Would we get it? Probably, if enough people started flowing over the border, they would put them in camps, rather than just sending them all back or just shooting them. If we just announced we had this program, and could get word of this to the NKs, I would imagine there could be a flood of refugees to China. This would likely cause problems for the Chinese that they would not thank us for. Whether that should be a concern of ours is another question...China is the nation that can bring North Korea down. Something like this might encourage them to do it.

A final thought -- a flood of refugees does not necessarily mean the collapse of the regime driving them away. You remember W. Germany 1989. Do you also remember Cuba, 1980?

I don't know whether I'd say hate the idea. I think unilateral action (without the buy in of the Chinese) carries risks that are probably not worth the rewards. With the buy-in -- or at least acquiesence -- of the Chinese, this is a definite do.

[TM]

Cuba, 1980 - that almost went into the post, actually. Well, you got me.

With the buy-in -- or at least acquiesence -- of the Chinese, this is a definite do.

I should re-write that post a bit - pretty clearly, the Chinese border is the way out, which means we need *at least* a nod and a wink from them. Getting their active encouragement is probably not possible.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Sorry TM but there is no way the Chinese would agree to something like this. First off this would cause massive destabilization in China itself as people scrambled to join in and pretend that they're NKs. Another reason is that the Chinese don't want the NK government to go poof because that would cause about 20 million NKs to swarm over the Chinese border.

Seriously. If you really want to destabilize the NK government and cause it to go poof there is only one somewhat certain way. Have the US government buy a couple airplane loads of disposable Chinese cell phones, with non-contiguous serial numbers, fully charged and loaded for 1000 minutes of talk time. Now drop these all over NK by individual parachute. Sit back and watch everything goes poof.

The biggest problem with getting any change in NK is the lack of information available to the masses of people. The only reason why there is serious destabilization going on now is the availability of Chinese cell phones, which allows the spread of information.

Add into the package:

A small instructional handbook + appropriate wall recharger and/or a handcranked recharger AND a small cheap battery/handcrank powered audio speaker.

A bunch of toll free Korean language phone numbers.

An SMS based Korean news service direct to cell phone.

Trivia contests and cell phone based quiz shows plus opportunities to win prizes. The most obvious prize being additional minutes credited to the cell phone.

Occasional music shows featuring popular South Korean artists.

...

The entertainment possibilities are probably pretty rare. I could easily imagine people getting hooked on the quiz shows, trivia contests and the like. Add in SMS based quickie news reports and the thing would be extremely hot. People who already have cell phones would want them. Meanwhile you've got a population of people tuning in, learning and getting information.

Entertainment and information, would be a corrosive combination that would be difficult to resist for anybody.

[Brian]

I'm especially taken by the "destabilizing compared to what" line of reason.

That was a big objection to US intervention in Iraq, particularly throughout Europe. Of course, anyone familiar with the region knows that Saddam was destabilizing, and it couldn't get much worse simply be cause of our intervention.

As they say, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make... um, well, anything out of eggs...

[Sando]

What's all the hubbub? Today's LA Times has an article from a NK "Businessman" assuring us that all is well.
--- The most important point the North Korean said he wanted to convey in the conversation was that his nation was a place just like any other.

"There is love. There is hate. There is fighting. There is charity…. People marry. They divorce. They make children," he said.

"People are just trying to live a normal life."---

So nice of the LAT to give "Mr. Anonymous" the opportunity to
"to clear up misunderstandings..."

[TM]

Sorry TM but there is no way the Chinese would agree to something like this.

Well, suppose we suggest something that China can agree to?

What if, (with "You Can't Always Get What You Want" playing in the background) US diplos cut a deal with China - China gets to install a China-style friendly dictatorship in NoKorea; we agree to lead an international rebuilding effort.

Key provisos - no nukes in the new North Korea (China should like that); the new NoKo as open to foreign investment as China itself (or how can we aid them, anyway?)

The US does *not* get a democracy in NoKo. But we get a safer, more open regime subject to the same pressures that are causing China to liberalize. And we wait some more.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Nuke 'em and call it a day.

If we can't all agree to that how about stopping the fuel and food shipments and have them rot in place.

[Pouncer]

"Add into the package:
A small instructional handbook + appropriate wall recharger and/or a handcranked recharger AND"

...

Some modern version of this sort of thing ...

http://www.90thdivisionassoc.org/90thDivisionFolders/mainpages/liberator.htm

[Paul Zrimsek]

Whatever you may think, Tom, my time on that other comment section you just dragged me away from was not wasted. If not for what I learned there, I would have objected that since North Korea doesn't have a free press, and the cooperation of its government is unlikely, it would be kind of tough to get the word out. But that was only because of my foolish belief that a free press is one that's allowed to publish what it wants. Someone has since done a Nice Job of explaining to me that a free press is actually one where the governemnt polices the boundary between Real Journalism and Fake Journalism, and invites only Real Journalists to its briefings. I've no doubt that Kim does that! So let's give it a whirl.

[The Kid]

There’s a way to handle the Chinese on this and some other issues, namely to recognize their push to be a world power by goading them to act like one. The NorK problems is an ideal starter.

Hey, China, listen up! You’re an economic powerhouse, and your itching to be a military powerhouse, but that don’t get you into the best seats at the best clubs, casinos notwithstanding. How about you guys stepping up to the plate on with the NorKs and help tip Li’l Kim. Hey, we’ll give you all the credit. Open the border, set up some camps – we’ll get others to foot the bill for that – and start whacking some of the NorK troops who shoot their fellow citizens. There will be a flood of sorts for a bit, and you may have to move in to restore order, but guess what? You get the credit for toppling a cruel dictator.

You secure the nuclear facilities while the SouKs and Japs pay for reconstruction. Sweet deal, no? You’re going to have to put up with a unified peninsula, but we’ll work with you to make sure it stays nuke-free.

Think about this, but not for long. Spring is coming, and that would be a good time to start the ball rolling. And if you don’t see enough upside in this for you right now, remember that if you do nothing, Tokyo will see that developing nukes of its own would be a great defense against the crazy NorKs. A Toyota-built bomb would be bad enough, don’t even think about what the Lexus version would be capable of…

Shall we say April 30?

[ed]

Hmmm.

Sorry but the Middle Kingdom isn't going to dance to anyone else's tunes. China simply isn't going to upset the current status-quo. So the only way to effect change is to bypass them.

Another reason to provide these cellphone kits, rather than radios, is cross-fertilization of ideas. People could exchange phone numbers, talk to each other over issues. Plus something like this could possibly penetrate the NK military. One of the primary requirements for a totalitarian regime is a working military to force people to obey. Most soldiers are generally kept in the dark so, without an independent source of information, they pretty much go along with their orders. But if you provide them with an independent source of information, that gives them context to their orders, then that gives them the opportunity to refuse the order.

This would be the only way any sort of revolution could take place in the NK. The famines have just done too much damage. *shrug* Subversion is really the only answer. But subversion directed from South Korea would never be as effective as subversion from WITHIN NK.

It's one thing for democratic activists to appeal to a young NK soldier to refuse to participate in a crackdown. It's quite another if the man's family is the one calling him.

[am]

It's very simple:

1: arrange for Taiwan to start making noises about developing nukes because of their deep concern over the noko nuclear program

2: sit back and watch China crush NK

[TM]

Paul, Re: my time on that other comment section you just dragged me away from was not wasted..

That should be *our* time, and quality time it was...

As to Japan and Taiwan going nuclear, that must be one of the key unspoken threats driving Chinese participation in this.

[TM]

Here is an editorial from Nina Hachigian [who is] director of the Center for Asia Pacific Policy at the nonprofit RAND Corporation, which seeks solutions to world problems.

China's policy toward North Korea's nuclear program has long been based on two principles: that the Korean peninsula must be free of nuclear weapons, and that the dispute over the North's nuclear policies must be resolved peacefully.

...For Beijing, the strategic stakes involved with North Korea going nuclear are extremely high. A nuclear-armed North could produce a cascade effect, leading South Korea, Japan, and even Taiwan to consider developing nuclear weapons programs in response. More nuclear powers would make East Asia less stable. With Japan's bloody invasion of China during World War II an ever-present memory for many Chinese, a nuclear Japan would be a particularly threatening outcome for China.

Moreover, the Chinese know that if North and South Korea eventually reunited, the resulting country would eventually become a powerful force in the region that would decide its own geopolitical destiny. China would like to prevent that future country from having nuclear weapons.

...But if China were to cut off food and fuel shipments, the North's economy would be crippled and its government might even collapse. The resulting situation could be very destabilizing for China.

For example, a Chinese economic cutoff of North Korea could create a flood of refugees, perhaps numbering in the millions, streaming across the 880-mile North Korean-Chinese border.

If China lets the refugees in, they would pour into an area of Northeast China already very poor and the site of frequent worker protests.

Well, if we (the West, excluding France) sent enough reconstruction aid, that might be a problem worth tackling. Give the Chinese a say in the structure of the new, Sino-sympatico government, and what's the problem?

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Since no agreed with nuking them, (which has the added bonus of checking the reliability of the ole nuke arsenal), nor starving them out. My last offer is work to make it where the UN General Secretary can only be from the world's newest democracy.

[Cecil Turner]

"That should be *our* time, and quality time it was..."

"You Dick! . . . If we don't get some cool rules, pronto . . ."

Meanwhile, in Korea . . . Back in 1950, with creeping monolithic communism taking over the whole world (okay, but that was the theory), containment was everybody's problem. And without the UNC, the ROK had no chance of surviving against the militarized DPRK with their top-of-the-line Soviet equipment. So we essentially fought a proxy war to a bloody stalemate, and as the dominant military force, the US was the main player on the UNC side. But those days are over.

Today, the ROK's 650,000-man modern force is quite capable of handling the DPRK's 1.x million (with only marginally improved equipment from the last conflict). Our 37,000 troops (and dropping) don't materially affect the balance of power--though our air assets do. Factor in the predominant beliefs among the South Koreans: 1) that US unilateralism is roughly as dangerous as the DPRK; 2) that we should only attack with a UN mandate or if attacked first; and 3) Us troops in the ROK act as "a regional stabilizer" (job description: "stand around waiting to get shot at). I'd suggest the particular peninsular concerns are no longer primarily our problem.

We are concerned with the DPRK exporting nuclear and missile technology, but that threat is manageable (by blockade, if necessary). To a lesser degree, nuclear proliferation among their neighbors (i.e., ROK and Japan) is a concern. But in the absence of fanatic religious catspaws, the prospect of terrorist WMD attack on the US seems remote, and the missile threat is again manageable. The bottom line, is that the threat is not predominantly ours, and we ought not to let pressure to do something drive us to doing something stupid (e.g., 1994 "Agreed Framework"). The Chinese have far more of a stake in containing the megalomaniac next door (and stemming panicky overreactions from other regional powers). A little benign neglect (and refraining from tying ourselves in diplomatic knots--to the no doubt vast amusement of Beijing), with hints as necessary, is the most likely course to promote some self-interested action in the region.

[TM]

Regarding the "benign neglect" approach, I was at a dinner party a while back, and I said, basically, that we ought to say to China, wow, you live in a scary neighborhood - crazy dictators seeking nukes, industrially advanced economies like Japan, So Ko, and Taiwan wondering what to do about it... well, see ya! Let me know how it works out!

Jaws dropped, natch (presentation is everything, or, in that case, nothing). But it should not be hard to convince the Chinese that the current situation is not stable, not desirable, and can be fixed to their advantage.

Oh, Big Caveat on my initial idea - any ploy to bring down the No Ko gov't that relies on People Power may freak out the Chinese by inducing Tiananmen flashbacks. They may be very sensitive to a local demonstration that the will of the people must be heard.

Of course, that fear can be used as a stick...

[Cecil Turner]

"Let me know how it works out!"

Might be a little too direct for a diplomatic position, but I understand the temptation. The conventional wisdom appears to be that we can't apply pressure because China and the ROK won't go along:

However, such an approach is not viable due to the unwillingness of South Korea and China to adopt pressure tactics against North Korea. Both Seoul and Beijing perceive Pyongyang's nuclear brinkmanship as largely driven by the latter's acute sense of insecurity.

That position, however, is based on the frankly silly premise that this is primarily a conflict between the US and DPRK, and a solution is more important to us than to them. It becomes even more tempting when the new President of South Korea initially proffers positions like:

candidate Roh said he might favor neutrality if a war ever broke out between North Korea and the U.S.

And even now has a distinctly less than helpful and naive view of the nuclear standoff:

He stressed that North Korea understandably justifies its nuclear program as a means of "safeguarding" the country from the United States. Roh implied that in the absence of a U.S. threat Pyongyang would agree to negotiate away its nuclear weapons capability.

Someone perhaps ought to point out we're quite willing to pull US troops off the peninsula and let them try it. ("Let me know how it works out!" Indeed.)

[ed]

Hmmm.

Frankly the NK is a puppet of China. The Chinese were the ones who put Sung Jong Il into power. They could easily remove Kim Jong Il from power. While Jong might have some power of his own, most of it is shared among the extended family. If the Chinese indicated that Jong was unacceptable, then a replacement would be brought forth quickly. So the reason for this situation isn't because China doesn't want to do something about it, it's because China made it happen deliberately.

So asking China to help settle this situation is pretty much a non-starter.

Why would China want the Korean penninsula in an uproar and Japan made to feel threatened? Taiwan. The more of an issue NK is in the region, the more assets the USA has to keep in the area to mollify the ROK and Japan. While the threat of the ROK or Japan going nuclear is a serious one, the Chinese probably figure there'll be enough warning signs to let things die down a bit before that line gets crossed.

In the meantime it's a distraction for the American military at a time when such distractions are not welcome.

Which is why Bush is insisting that China must participate in any regional talks. Otherwise it's pointless.

*shrug* The Chinese aren't all that imaginative. They're following the same basic imperatives that the Chinese Emperors used to. Frankly the current Chinese government is hardly different from the old feudal system. Instead of Manadarins, you have Directors. Different titles, same things.

And if there's anything the Chinese have historically wanted they are:

1. Buffer zones between China and the "barbarians".

2. "barbarians" kept off balance, and less a threat to China, by a combination of diplomacy, threats and distractions.

*shrug* or at least that's how I read it.

[TM]

Since I seem not to lack for wild ideas today, here is another one - suppose China's long game is to call for "sensible reunifications" - they agree to let No Korea reunite under a de facto So Korean gov't, but the US must agree to let them reunite with Taiwan.

If No Ko is threatening enough (they figure) we might bite.

[Cecil Turner]

"In the meantime it's a distraction for the American military at a time when such distractions are not welcome."

Maybe. It certainly distracts the leadership (primarily at PACOM). But the US assets that make a Taiwan invasion impractical are Navy (esp. attack subs), which are not currently overtasked.

"Which is why Bush is insisting that China must participate in any regional talks. Otherwise it's pointless."

Absolutely.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. I don't think it's possible for an American President to sell a couple million people into virtual slavery and not pay a serious price for it. No matter what the deal is.

2. "But the US assets that make a Taiwan invasion impractical are Navy (esp. attack subs), which are not currently overtasked.":

Hovercraft

The only problem with that thinking is that the most probable form of a Chinese invasion wouldn't necessarily need large ships. The Chinese have several different naval services, much like the difference between the Coast Guard and the USN. Their equivalent of the Coast Guard has several frigates and an unknown multitude of small craft. All capable of supporting an invasion of Taiwan. Additionally all Chinese commerical vessels are also partially owned by the government and are subject to activation.

Then there's the fact that submarines aren't really all that much of a threat to hovercraft or small landing craft. You could use a torpedo, but there's a limited supply of those and it wouldn't be cost effective, or at all effective. Another point to consider is that submarines are not defensive weapons. They are offensive weapons only. To be effective submarines must attack targets and any such attack would immediately escalate it into a major war.

And we're only guessing that the USN isn't going to be overtaxed if NK goes up in flames. If it's like the tsunami, but only 20 times worse, then the USN could end up stretched very thin.

3. I really think that the Chinese are using NK for a number of specific purposes. This doesn't mean that things won't blow up in their faces. One way this could end badly is if the Chinese mis-read American politics, like most people seem to do all over the world.

After all Putin thought Bush fired Dan Rather.

[Cecil Turner]

"1. I don't think it's possible for an American President to sell a couple million people into virtual slavery and not pay a serious price for it. No matter what the deal is."

Not sure what you mean by this. South Korea? has almost 50 million people--it also has a very respectable army. Taiwan? has 22 million, clearly can't win a military showdown with the PRC (and might not fight), but in neither case could an invasion be considered "sell[ing] . . .people into virtual slavery].

"The only problem with that thinking is that the most probable form of a Chinese invasion wouldn't necessarily need large ships."

Interesting article, and I hadn't seen the hovercraft purchase. But the Taiwan Strait is nearly five times as wide as the English channel, and presents a very difficult amphibious landing problem. I doubt they'd even attempt it without complete control of the Strait, and small craft against a defended shore is a recipe for disaster. Throw in a couple of subs (sinking the heavies, not landing craft), and the firedrill is complete. There is also some plausible deniability in a torpedo, and while a sub can't show a presence, it certainly can respond effectively to an amphibious invasion force.

"And we're only guessing that the USN isn't going to be overtaxed if NK goes up in flames."

I thought you were talking about saber-rattling by the DPRK tying up US assets. Obviously if the balloon goes up, that's a different situation (and I expect the USN would be heavily tasked). Starting a war on the peninsula to distract from a Taiwan invasion doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm not Chinese.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. Currently Taiwan is an independent democracy and an ally of America. Handing over Taiwan to China would make it a subject province, in rebellion no less, of a totalitarian state that regularly slaughters dissidents.

I hope you realise that any handover of Taiwan must result in the creation of re-education camps, or their modern Chinese equivalent. It's possible that China would treat Taiwan with some initial gentleness, in order to extract the maximum technological and economic benefit. But the ultimate goal must be the re-establishment of central authority. An authority that won't be readily accepted by the populace.

2. I think you're making the assumption the Chinese will do a D-Day style invasion. I don't believe that it would happen this way at all. The Chinese have several different avenues from which to choose, or all of them for that matter.

There are a vast number of commerical ships that could be pressed into service for an invasion. There are also purpose built commerical ships that are actually troop transports in disguise. I don't have any proof of this, but it's the most logical thing for them to do. Additionally there are commerical aircraft now flying between China and Taiwan.

The key to an invasion is the period of uncertainty between implementation and recognitiion. During this time nobody in the USN or the Taiwanese forces will risk attacking simply because of the potential fallout from a mistake, and the Chinese won't broadcast their intentions. It is during this time the Chinese will make their greatest advances and it will probably allow them to come easily within range of the Taiwan shore.

The other factor is simple mass. China has a couple hundred infantry divisions. And while their general quality is low, quantity does have a quality all of their own. Nobody knows how much carrying capacity the Chinese have, but the thing to remember is that, until D-Day, the greatest invasion fleet ever assembled was Chinese.

The situation could be fairly simple, and still impossible to defend against. Most weapons are designed to maximize offensive power against a single target. But what if you literally had 1,000 landing craft with each carrying 100 men? A Los Angeles class submarine only carries about 30 torpedoes/missiles. After that it's dry and there's no deck gun.

On the other hand both America and Taiwan are making great strides in railgun technology. A friend told me that some people in Taiwan are experimenting with building railgun turrets underneath the surface of the sea. The railgun could fire through the water, making it possible to fire at underwater targets, and still attack surface targets. *shrug* that might work.

But in the 1,000 landing craft scenario, how many could you kill with just submarines? Or with surface ships? Or with surface ships dodging hundreds of long range anti-ship missiles being volley fired by Chinese shore batteries?

3. Frankly if the Chinese wanted the NK to be stable, they could do it with a phone call. My assumption is that either this will run away from their control or they want the NK to go supercritical. *shrug* the only reason why China would care if NK went supercritical is the inevitable mass of NK citizens fleeing across the border. But the Chinese are establishing bases positioned to support military action along the NK border, so this is a possibility that they're anticipating. That means they expect the NK to go supercritical.

Frankly I'd prefer if the NK just simple rolled over and joined the ROK. My mother's family came from around Pyongyang. She told me stories about what happened to her family during their escape from the advancing Chinese forces. It'll be that bad x 1000. NK is in such bad shape that the current crop of conscripts, for the NK military, are all a couple inches shorter than the previous generation, evidently due to famine. The same thing happened in America during WWII. The Great Depression caused a lot of young men to be classified unfit for service, because of a lack of food during their childhood years.

*shrug* I just don't see how NK couldn't go supercritical. When that happens I fully expect the Chinese to be ready.

[ed]

Hmmm.

BTW, in case you're unfamiliar with it, a railgun is an electrical weapon where the projectile is placed between two charged rails where the projectile acts as a link to close the circuit. This causes the projectile to be sped up along the rail with greaet force. The forces acting on the rails is equivalent to the chamber pressure of a cannon, so there is a force attempting to drive the rails apart. So the rails need to be properly reinforced against this.

However the railgun does not necessarily need an enclosed barrel. By designing the railgun to use an open skeletal network, to reinforce the rails, the railgun could operate underwater.

The USN is currently experimenting with a naval railgun that is to be mounted on the new DD(X) class destroyers. This gun can:

fire about 5-10 rounds per minute
shoots a 10kg solid steel projectile
has a range of about 350 miles
impact will create a 40' diameter, 15' deep crater
can carry about 10,000 projectiles

So it's pretty amazing. And this is a prototype, that they're willing to admit. Expect the final version to be about 50% more powerful in all categories.

[Cecil Turner]

"The situation could be fairly simple, and still impossible to defend against. Most weapons are designed to maximize offensive power against a single target."

A submarine is admittedly useless against swarms of small craft. And perhaps it's me being blinded by my own training, but I'm having a hard time visualizing the small craft invasion fleet crossing a 100-mile strait (especially organized by the Chinese).

" But what if you literally had 1,000 landing craft with each carrying 100 men? A Los Angeles class submarine only carries about 30 torpedoes/missiles. After that it's dry and there's no deck gun."

They have to come ashore somewhere. If you have 1000 landing craft, meet them with 50 tanks on the shore, and have each expend 20 rounds. Again, assuming a defended shore, this looks to me like a recipe for disaster. IMO, heavy support is essential, and a couple of subs makes that impossible.

"Frankly if the Chinese wanted the NK to be stable, they could do it with a phone call."

If by "stable" you mean "stop saber rattling," I agree. (Which is why we're in vehement agreement on the necessity for the PRC to be present at the negotiating table.) But the DPRK will not be stable until it can start feeding its people, and I don't see that happening under the current regime.

"NK is in such bad shape that the current crop of conscripts, for the NK military, are all a couple inches shorter than the previous generation, evidently due to famine."

Many reports suggest it's even worse than that

On a visit to Seoul this week, James Morris, of the United Nations World Food Program, told the JoongAng Daily that 7-year-old boys in North Korea are on average 20 centimeters, or eight inches, shorter than South Korean boys of the same age. They are also 10 kilograms, or 22 pounds, lighter.

"BTW, in case you're unfamiliar with it, a railgun is an electrical weapon where the projectile is placed between two charged rails where the projectile acts as a link to close the circuit."

I'm familiar with it (hang out in a tank battalion for a couple weeks, and at least one of the bright young officers will sketch one for you). Expanding gases have a maximum expansion rate, and modern cannon (especially tank rounds) already approach the theoretical maximum velocity obtainable with chemical propellants. It's an engineering dead end, and railguns have long been looked at as the next step forward.

However, they rely on magnetic fields accelerating a projectile to high velocities, and unless I seriously misunderstand the process, can't work underwater. Tne new DDX design posits replacing them to replace the deck gun

The rail gun concept would use electricity and magnetic fields to accelerate a projectile, which attacks a target in much the same way as conventional artillery, though with far greater kinetic energy.

[praktike]

Yes, but why?

[DeadHorseBeater]

For information on the fiscal impact (and many other facets) of immigration, get "The New Americans" James P Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds.

Studies have been made of net fiscal of immigrants. IIRC, thos with less than High School education have net fiscal impact of about -$20,000, those with high school education about +/- 0, and those with more than HS education about +$30,000. The signs on all those are right, but I may have the magnitudes wrong.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. "hard time visualizing the small craft invasion fleet crossing a 100-mile strait "

*shrug* I expect the Chinese would be prepared for heavy losses but I'd expect that it would be very possible. It would depend entirely on how rough the seas were.

2. "But the DPRK will not be stable until it can start feeding its people, and I don't see that happening under the current regime."

No I don't think there is any real possibility of long-term stability without a regime change. Internally driven or not. The simple problem is that the Kims are just plain crazy.

3. "Many reports suggest it's even worse than that"

Ugh. It is worse than I thought. They must be subsisting on nothing but rice or millet. While rice can fill you up, it's mostly starch and water. Hardly any real nutrition in it.

4. "Expanding gases have a maximum expansion rate"

Yeah. I think there was some experimentation in using plasma to boost the gas acceleration, but I don't think anything really came of it. As for the railgun not working underwater, I'm surprised. The principle of the railgun is pretty simple and it requires, for high power applications, the rails to be sufficiently insulated that the current will pass through the projectile instead of arcing between the rails. Since there needs to be insulation anyways, it doesn't seem that underwater use would be precluded.

Hmmm. I tried finding some references but there's just too much noise in both Google and Yahoo. Way too many Quake sites, and spearfishing sites, to find easily.

*shrug* maybe I got it confused with a coilgun.

[Max Sawicky]

Five words:

North
Korean
mail-order
brides.