We all see and hear what goes on over there. Kim will execute kids if they don’t cheer hard enough at his birthday party or something? He’s always threatening to nuke countries and is probably has the highest domestic kill count out of any world leader today.
So I ask? Why don’t any other countries step in to help those people. I saw a survey asking Americans and Escaped North Koreans would they migrate to North Korea and to the US if given the chance (hypothetical for the refugees). And it was like <0.1% to 95%. Obviously those people live in terror.
Why do we just allow this to happen in modern civilization? Nukes on South Korea? Is just not lucrative to step in? SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE!?
Because China.
China sees NK as a buffer to the US, sort of a little brother that’s a bit too crazy so they have to tug on the leash to get them to chill every now and then.
We’ve already got bases in SK, but the Yellow sea separates us from China. NK is the land barrier.
Are you familiar with the Korean war? There was a massive conflict which got drawn out into a stalemate and everybody agreed a temporary ceasefire was preferable to even more destruction.
Trying to topple a regime that has nothing to lose and a highly indoctrinated population is not an easy ask. We can only hope that like most authoritarian regimes they eventually succumb to the weight of their own opression. It’s better than torching the whole continent in the name of freedom.
The difference is that the North Koreans still fight with the same technology as back then while the other side has made some advances.
Even if true, an old nuke will destroy your city just fine, don’t worry about that.
Countries are not good or bad they don’t have friends they have interests. Is always a good rule of thumb when thinking about Geopolitics.
You can’t treat governments like they’re people. The same detachment from the human spirit applies as it does to any sufficiently large corporation, multinational, politburo, royal court, whatever.
Even if your specific nation holds your specific code of ethics and standards, there can be severe consequences to holding all other nations to the same standard.
Unless you’re a superpower, in which case you’re the oppressor, simply by engaging in diplomacy.
Given all of this, what you’re asking for is for one nation to have perfect foreign policy that would compel change in North Korea. Then, all other nations would need to adopt and extend the same policy, but independently and without external pressure.
We live in a sad world, western democracy with high standard regarding human right are the exception, not the norm.
So are we gonna start war against every dictatorship? Look at the results in Afghanistan instead of freeing them, they now rank worse than North Korea in the economist democracy index not only they got a 20 year long war, but in the end stayed one one of the worst dictatorship in the planet, not really a success
The western democracies who support the longest occupation? That organized ton of coups? That support genocide??
Because that roads leads to war. The moment one country decides it has the authority to overule another’s sovereignity because they disagree with what’s going on there, it becomes a free for all.
This line of thinking is the very reason why there are two Koreas today, because of two superpowers who thought they knew better and could make a nice profit in the process.
We have a word for this: Colonialism.
And we certainly don’t do THAT anymore.
If NK was oil rich and off the coast of the US, we’d colonialism the shit out of it.
It’s not because the world is now too enlightened for colonialism. It’s because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. NK has nothing of value, and China wants it to stay there as a buffer to SK.
-
China would be really pissed off about that.
-
The major problem is what do you do with the massive humanitarian crises you after you remove the regime?You will have to care for millions of people who have had everything given to them.
-
Tthis is really messed up, what is the economic interest in doing something about it?
-
America was never about helping the people of the world. Many who believe that are mostly victims of propaganda. It’s all about American interests. If it’s in their interest they will give some reason like liberating a people as a pretence to enable military action.
Because - improbably, given its track record elsewhere - the world has worked out that the solution to someone killing kids isn’t to kill more kids.
But not after having killed a lot of kids first.
It’s the same reason why the world is leting Israel commit genocide, or not get involved in the Yemen Civil War, or ongoing genocide in Maynamer, or the dozens of current active war zones.
The world simply doesn’t care. The wold only cares when the global economy is being threatened.
It’s not that people “don’t care”. We’ve tried intervening with force in e.g. Afghanistan, where the oppressive regime was forcibly removed, and military power was used to ensure that elections were held and the results were respected.
We have observed, several times, that everything goes to shit when we leave. Not only that, but people generally don’t seem like it when outsiders take over and tell them how to run their country, who should be allowed an education, and that <insert group> cannot be oppressed. So a side effect of the armed intervention is that a lot more people hate you now.
Western countries “aren’t doing anything” because we’ve both learned from experience that military intervention doesn’t really work, and been repeatedly told by the rest of the world to mind our own business.
Western countries “aren’t doing anything” because we’ve both learned from experience that military intervention doesn’t really work, and been repeatedly told by the rest of the world to mind our own business
The west and israel literally wanted to overthrow the regime in iran few weeks ago
“The west” isn’t really a cohesive unit regarding Israel/Iran. You have some western countries supporting a genocide and committing blatant violations of international law, while others condemn them for it and try to pressure them to stop.
Sadly, one rogue state can cause a lot of damage, and countries typically have a very high bar for using military force against their closest allies in defence of a third party.
“The west” isn’t really a cohesive unit regarding Israel/Iran. I would say the major one france, uk, canada, the usa, germany
Kinda shocking to me how anyone can present such a whitewashed take on the Afghanistan War in 2025. It didn’t go to shit when we left, it was shit from the beginning.
We shortsightedly allied with brutal local warlords, and the failure at local politics blew up in our faces. We bombed 100s of villages, losing the hearts and minds of the people. We sent innocent people to be tortured in Pakistani black sites, creating a fanatical resistance willing to martyr themselves. We forcefully changed the main agricultural output from wheat to opium poppy, leading to widespread drug abuse and addiction. I could go on and on…
I’m not sure if there is a military intervention model that works, but American-style military intervention with mass civilian deaths and warcrimes from beginning to end is a proven failure.
It didn’t go to shit when we left, it was shit from the beginning.
It seems like you didn’t observe the thousands of people swarming the airport in Kabul trying to get out with the last planes. It also seems like you haven’t picked up on the people crying about how people are being brutally punished for getting an education or listening to music now.
I’m not denying that shit was really bad while coalition forces were there, but acting like it didn’t get worse for a lot of people when the left is just closing your eyes.
Regardless, it’s ludicrous to claim that western countries “aren’t doing anything because they don’t care”. It’s not like we’ve spent truckloads of money and thousands of lives over 20 years of trying to get a functioning system in place while preventing a humanitarian crisis because we “didn’t care”. People saw it as immoral to just turn our backs on Afghanistan and let them solve their own problems. The result was largely that we learned that you can’t force democracy and human rights onto someone else, as proven by the almost complete absence of people willing to fight for just that once the coalition left.
I did not close my eyes when America turned it’s back on the thousands of Afghans who helped the American regime during the war. The people who helped America were left resourceless and with giant targets on their back. We betrayed them.
I did not close my eyes when the flimsy and deeply flawed education system America propped up instantly failed the moment we left.
The abandonment of Afghan allies and the destruction of girl’s education in Afghanistan are just two more data points showing the deep failures of the American model of foreign intervention.
We did not spend truckloads of money trying to get a functioning system in place. A lasting functioning system was never the goal. I urge you to read into our military’s functions and objectives in Afghanistan, because you are deeply misinformed. Anyone who suggests our goals were “democracy and human rights” is obviously infected with US propaganda.
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here?
My point is that, while flimsy and flawed, there was in fact an education system and a humanitarian system in place that was propped up by coalition forces. This system did fall apart, leaving no system at all when the forces left. And yes, a bunch of Afghanis have every right to feel betrayed. I never said otherwise.
It’s not like Afghanistan is the only place where schools, hospitals and infrastructure has been financed by western countries. By and large, we spend a lot of money on these things because a significant portion of the population sees it as the right thing to do. Because we care, and want to help people.
What became very clear in Afghanistan was that you can’t force a population to be a liberal democracy. They have to be willing to fight for it themselves. The Afghan army (on paper) had several hundred thousand men, loads of heavy equipment, and several years to train and prepare for coalition forces leaving. There was a government structure in place. These things instantly folded when the coalition left because, clearly, enough people preferred Taliban to what the outsiders had forced upon them.
I guess I’m saying it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. If you stay, you’re an oppressive occupier. If you leave, you’re a traitor that permits a humanitarian crisis to occur.
The OP here asked “why doesn’t anybody do anything about NK”, and my answer is that we (seem to) have learned that you can’t force democracy and human rights on a country. Chalking it up to “we don’t care” is reductionist.
Since you are still completely missing the basics, let’s do a little history lesson then.
The bombing of Afghanistan started in retaliation to 9/11. After initial bombing of Al-Quaeda training camps and Taliban headquarters, we asked the Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden. They said “yes we will hand him over if you agree to stop bombing”. George W’s famous response was " we don’t negotiate with terrorists". The bombing continued, and Bin Laden fled to Pakistan to survive for years.
The propagandistic idea that we were there to nation build and create a liberal democracy only entered the picture a year into the brutal bombing campaign because the US populace was turning against the war.
Then, we propped up a classic puppet government that was always destined to fail when we left. Elements of a puppet government include:
- installing a leader from a minority faction
- allowing them to violently repress members of the majority faction
- brutal violence inflicted upon dissenters
- development of natural resources for the desires of the imposing nation, a lack of sustainable development for the local people
- creating a system with very little input from local leaders, and never giving them a reason to participate or have skin in the game
The Afghan army had many huge problems. There is a plethora of news stories from 2008-2021 showing how the army is poorly trained, unmotivated, and largely drug addicted. Military leaders have been saying the entire time that this army would not stand on its own.
The Afghan army did have one strong motivation though: money. It was a mercenary army. But when the US withdrew in 2021 we stole the majority of the funds from the Afghan Central Bank (over $7bln dollars was taken by the Biden administration). Not only did this immoral act of theft cripple the Afghan economy, it destroyed their ability to pay the mercenary army.
No one who was actually paying attention expected the unpaid mercenary army to defend the puppet government once we left. Maybe, if the money kept flowing, they could have held up for a few months, but the stolen Central Bank funds ensured that was impossible.
I’m not saying “we don’t care”. Many individual people did earnestly care, and tried their best. But the military and civilian systems created by the US were never built for the benefit of the Afghan people. Your positive spin on this war is naive and ahistorical.
Great, it seems like we agree on the major points here! I’m not denying any of the major issues of the Afghan war, nor any of the glaring problems with how the whole “nation building” attempt went about. I’m very well aware of the history of the Afghan war, and have seen several of the documentaries you refer to that point out that it was largely known that the Afghan army would likely desert once the coalition left.
I’m not saying we don’t care.
That is quite literally what you said in your first comment, and is literally the only thing I’ve disagreed with you on so far (“the world simply doesn’t care”). If you didn’t mean that, then I don’t see anything I disagree with you on.
Many individual people did earnestly care, and tried their best.
This is literally the point I’ve been trying to make, but it seems like you keep misinterpreting me as saying the whole invasion was a misunderstood humanitarian operation. I’m not saying that.
Nukes baby!
Who knew nukes would be terrible for human rights? /s
But it is great for a country’s sovereignity
Same reason why no one does anything about the atrocities that happen within the US.
So… Nukes.
Part of it.
How many children have been killed because an insurance company refused payment for healthcare.
Comparing “the atrocities” in the US with NK is really out of touch.
Shifting focus on the fact that US has its hands in vat fulls of blood yet the question is “Why isn’t anyone doing anything about NK?!”
Removed by mod
The same reason you never hear from what happens inside abusive households until someone from within speaks up (aka: a “defector”)
Edit: As for the follow up questions:
Imagine you live in the “hood” where the authorities doesn’t do shit, and you see someone who’s part of a gang abuse their child, are you gonna go confront them at the risk of getting your whole family shot to death? That’s what MAD is like on the world stage. North Korea has China as an ally, don’t forget about that.
The short answer is that they have nukes.
First of all, there are a lot of people willing to die for their country as it is. As soon as people are willing to give up their lives, you’re not changing shit. These people didn’t grow up like you and me.
Secondly, there is a world of difference between stepping in and stepping in. One of the main reasons that North Korea is so isolated is because of sanctions. That is also a form of stepping in.
Thirdly, we already saw war and foreign meddling in that area. That’s exactly why America is the great evil opponent of North Korea. That’s not a coincidence or just because Kim Il Sung, Kim Jung Il or Kim Jung Un hated “freedom”.
Now you ask, what other solution is there?!
Well, a lot of people are actually working on that. By launching information campaigns and spreading Western/foreign music into the country. Real change comes from within. But please remember that this country is now lead by the third generation of absolute leader.
