North Korea leader Kim Jong Un hails accord with South as landmark

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

I do believe North Korea just blinked. Who knows, maybe this is a tectonic shift.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/north-korea-leader-kim-jong-un-hails-accord-235421854.html

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korean leader Kim Jong Un called this week's accord between the rival Koreas "a landmark occasion" paving the way for defused military tension and improved ties, but said it was the strength of its armed forces that made the deal possible.

North and South Korea agreed early on Tuesday to end a military standoff that sparked an exchange of artillery fire and had ratcheted up tension on one of the world's most heavily-fortified borders.

The two sides also agreed to open a new channel of dialogue to discuss a range of issues with the aim of improving ties, raising hopes for a fresh push to restore talks and exchanges that had been cut off since 2010.

"The joint press release published at the contact provided a crucial landmark occasion of defusing the acute military tension and putting the catastrophic inter-Korean relations on the track of reconciliation and trust," the North's KCNA news agency on Friday quoted Kim as saying in a meeting with military aides.

Kim noted the accord was reached "thanks to the tremendous military muscle with the nuclear deterrent for self-defense built by the great party as a pivot and matchless ranks single-mindedly united around the party," KCNA said.

The comments were made at an enlarged meeting of the Central Military Commission of the North's ruling Workers' Party of Korea, the same venue led by Kim last week that warned of military action unless Seoul stops the propaganda broadcasts.

(Reporting by Jack Kim and Ju-min Park; Editing by Richard Pullin)

**Ouze**

wait what? I thought North Korea just said they were on the verge of ~~declaring~~ resuming war.

**Ketara**

'Bout time for another food aid delivery then?

**generalgrog**

They do this all the time. Manufactured crises so that Kim can cry victory over some small success, when the "crises" is averted.

Kim is a master manipulator.

Haven't you seen the interview ?

GG

**Spetulhu**

lol military strength? If the North actually starts a war the US won't even have time to come to the aid of the South before they turn the North into a parking lot. Having a huge military budget in % as the US media likes to tell is nice, but the NK budget is third world in size to begin with. They're outranked by such military superpowers as Norway and Sweden!

**Frazzled**

Until NK turns Seoul radioactive.

**Lord of Deeds**

Spetulhu wrote:
lol military strength? If the North actually starts a war the US won't even have time to come to the aid of the South before they turn the North into a parking lot. Having a huge military budget in % as the US media likes to tell is nice, but the NK budget is third world in size to begin with. They're outranked by such military superpowers as Norway and Sweden!

I don't think the real concern is whether or not the RoK can defeat the DPRK by themselves decisively, but the damage that the RoK will sustain in the initial phases of the war, specifically to Seoul. Also the mess the RoK would be left with in the North when they, and presumably by extension the US, instantly inherit the feth pool that is the DPRK. Mind you that a defeated DPRK might have engaged in a scorched earth policy that will make the inevitable humanitarian crisis that much worse.

As alluded to, the DPRK needs incidents like these to reinforce the cult of pesonality and win aid that is desperately needed to maintain that cult of personality.

I think the only true red lines for RoK and the US is a significant attack on a major population center by the DPRK, or the use of a nuclear device that was effectively manufactured by the DPRK, i.e. the DPRK in need of hard cash supplies a terrorist group a nuclear device that is then set off against a US target.

**Grey Templar**

If war breaks out, the North will use nukes. If they use nukes, we use nukes.

There won't be as big a humanitarian crisis as you think as a large chunk of NK's population will be killed in the strikes or quickly die from the radiation/starvation that plays out in the first few weeks afterwards. Humanitarian aid wouldn't go in for a while with the radiation that will be around.

Seoul is boned if this happens regardless of the outcome.

**SagesStone**

It's like watching the drama of a highschool couple tbh. NK is a jerk who never calls, and shows off to try to attract the other nations but can't give up on SK and always crawls back. SK is dumb and bothers to listen to NK's crap even though NK is only there because China didn't want to go to the prom with them.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ketara wrote:
'Bout time for another food aid delivery then?

Pretty much. I wonder is this an indication that there is a power struggle in the DPRK? A lot of executions of high ranking people recently shows that there must be a level of dis-satisfaction with the current regime.

**Chute82**

Hey kids let check out what's on North Korea TV, great another military parade

**jhe90**

China have him on a tight choke chain, they would not back him if he goes batgak crazy.

Plus US has enough air power to level them many times over.
There air defences would crumble in hours and then comes the steel rain.

**Psienesis**

Grey Templar wrote:
If war breaks out, the North will use nukes. If they use nukes, we use nukes.

There won't be as big a humanitarian crisis as you think as a large chunk of NK's population will be killed in the strikes or quickly die from the radiation/starvation that plays out in the first few weeks afterwards. Humanitarian aid wouldn't go in for a while with the radiation that will be around.

Seoul is boned if this happens regardless of the outcome.

And if Seoul is boned, the US economy collapses. We buy a *lot* of stuff from Seoul. Several of the world's largest consumer electronics manufacturers are located there (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and Daewoo, just to name a few.) The US relies on the output of these companies for most of the consumer goods purchased on its shores.

**Grey Templar**

That seems a little extreme.

**Psienesis**

Our economy is built on the sale of consumer goods. Samsung, for example, is one of the largest (if not *the* largest) producers of consumer electronics in the world. If they don't make the whole TV (for example), it is likely that they manufactured some of the components in it, same with Daewoo and LG.

So the loss of these companies means that other companies that rely on them for parts now don't have suppliers for said parts, which impacts their ability to produce and sell goods, which means loss of revenue and profits, which means lay-offs and closings.

It's simply a ripple effect that leads to investor panic, stock crashes, massive unemployment and economic recession and, ultimately, depression.

**Ouze**

I think your fundamentals are accurate but I'm not sure that South Korea is the best example of that - I think China might be a much better example. Hong Kong would be disastrous for OEM's but I don't think - maybe erroneously - that South Korea produces significant enough components that it would hurt worldwide electronic manufacturing. Some specific markets, sure.

I think any nuclear conflict probably anywhere would tank the stock market, and I think that given presumptive Chinese involvement in such a Korean conflict could lead to the scenario you outline, but I don't think it's a given.

**Psienesis**

All of the companies I listed are South Korean and, as I work in the cellular industry, I have a first-hand view on how much that sector of our economy (one of the fastest-growing in the world) is affected by what goes on in Korea. There's a few non-Korean players in the cellular business (Apple and HTC, for example) but, apart from Apple, the rest of them are a fraction of the sales volume that companies like Samsung get. As in, a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction.

In Q1 of 2015, for example, Samsung held nearly 25% market share of all cellphone sales across the world by itself. Apple, by comparison, had only 18% of global market share. It is not until you lump all other manufacturers together that you see any actual challenge to their shares (by comparison, Motorola, under Lenovo, holds just under 6% of market share). While nearly half of all cellular device sales are held by "other" companies (Blackberry, Palm, Audiovox, etc), individually, these companies have tiny shares of the market.

**Ouze**

Yeah, the cellular industry would certainly take an enormous dump. No question whatsoever. Every cellular company in the world would take it in the shorts.

But does the hardware element of the cellular industry really underpin our entire economy? When Thailand had that flooding and hard drives were nearly impossible to get, it certainly hurt the PC industry but it didn't crater the economy.

**Psienesis**

The entire economy? No, but it is billions of dollars that circulate in the economy, with no immediately-present alternative.

**Grey Templar**

I think it would just mean people would switch to other phone providers, who would increase production to compensate.

I think the psychological effect of a nuclear war would have more effect than any concern about cell phone companies. If all those companies were somewhere else, we'd still see a similar dip.

**Psienesis**

Given the variance in device quality between, say, a Samsung and a Huawei device... and the die-hard fandoms of Android vs iOS? Unlikely. And I say this only because I've witnessed this in action in the industry.

**Grey Templar**

Do die hard fans account for a significant portion of sales? Would not the majority simply switch anyway. Or make do with an old phone and spend their money on other things.

If I am a super hardcore fan of X, but I can't get X now, I'll just spend the money I would have spent on it on other stuff.

**Psienesis**

To an extent, yes, but another part of it is just good business practices by companies like Samsung.

Part of it is market saturation (85% of all devices operate on Google's Android platform) and part of it is simply advertisement, but Samsung, specifically, produces devices at all price-points (from cheapest-of-the-cheap up to nearly-a-grand-price tag) and, at every price-point, they are a cut above (quality-wise) competitor's devices.

People, even the non-diehards, love Samsung phones. They're good phones! Their Galaxy series are some of the best-selling devices in cellular history, and that brand recognition has carried Samsung quite a ways.

**Grey Templar**

But that doesn't mean people will refuse to buy anything else. Particularly if it looks like they won't be able to get anything for a while, possibly indefinitely. They'll switch to something else.

**Psienesis**

As we witnessed in the wake of 9/11, it doesn't really matter what consumers will or won't actually do, it's what stock investors perceive what they will do. With the main centers of such major companies out of the picture, their stock values plummet, resulting in investor panic, which results in rapid drops across the market, which results in the downturns I mentioned above.

That we've pinned our economy to such a shaky construction as the stock market, which appears to be operated by a relatively small number of people with the intestinal fortitude of a hyper-paranoiac sheep is... probably best for a different topic, but gods know our economy has taken dives for less-catastrophic purposes.

**Grey Templar**

True enough.