North Korea Could Be Anywhere

01/14/18 • 20 min

Rate The Majority Villain Villain Podcast on iTunes! https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/majority-villain/id877298705?mt=2

We’ve all heard the reports about North Korea.

There’s no shortage of information about the nation most people love to hate. We hear a lot regarding missile tests, prison camps and brainwashing. We know the stories of Kim Jong-un and his late father Kim Jong-il, but not too much about the true patriarch of the nation; Kim Il-sung. Reports and discussions over the behavior of North Korea are abound, while self-reflection of the roots of these resentments and ill-feelings remain silent.

Today, on Majority Villain we will consider the questions:

Why does North Korea hate America? Or more succinctly put: why does it seem that way? Will we have a WWIII? Can Korea launch a nuclear attack against America?

And two far-less talked about questions... What happened during the Korean War? And most importantly... Is there a peaceful solution?

So, let’s have at it, shall we? This is Majority Villain.

Are we going to have a nuclear war with North Korea?

This question gets thrown around. A lot. So much so that I fear we don’t anticipate what it would mean. The levity with which we pose the question seems to traverse beyond varying degrees of caution and concern, instead springing head first into some kind of patriotic excitement on how a full-on war could somehow revitalize the American spirit. The two longest wars in American history raging on right now in Iraq and Afghanistan would suggest otherwise. It seems to me then, we ought to be wary of the words we use to describe such a scenario, lest we not anticipate what would likely be the consequences. Regardless, we continue to ask: Are we going to have a nuclear war with North Korea? Variations of the question include whether or not we should (as if choosing to have a war would place us into some type of scenario where there would be clear advantages. There probably wouldn't be). Other variants include WWIII references (beyond scary), the duty of America to be the peace-enforcer (paternal), how evil or crazy Kim Jong-un is (ironic), and more recently how the United States should use its strong arm over China to wield its powerful influence in bringing North Korea under control (dream weaving).

Let’s talk fire power.

Occasionally, people scoff at the idea that North Korea could ever successfully attack the United States with a nuclear payload missile, citing a three decade-long program littered with international embarrassments; early on it was only short-range tests, and then later a total overhype of test trajectory, and sometimes tests were flat-out failed launches. It’s not the most solid track record on missile tests in history, and that tends to lead a lot of people to thinking that the United States is safe. On the other hand, North Korea’s weapons program is young (just over 10 years old), they have an unknown number in their arsenal, and most terrifyingly - as recently as November, 2017 have they launched a successful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) experts say is capable of reaching anywhere within the continental United States. Is North Korea's program riddled with flaws? Yes. Does the United States have a missile defense program designed to shoot these things out of the sky? Yes. But do we know how many the United States would need to shoot down, has that missile defense system been tested, and are we even sure the United States would be the target of that attack? No, no and no.

Most experts says that the United States partner-country, South Korea would be on the receiving end of what would certainly be far too many missiles to defend against. By all accounts, South Korea would be decimated in unimaginable ways.

That makes Donald Trump’s, and more generally, the United States’ tough guy approach all the more scary — not to Americans — but to South Koreans particularly, because they would take more than their fair share of the bombardment.

Unfortunately, it’s much easier to carry a big stick than it is to speak softly. Specifically, to speak about the nuance regarding North Korea, namely, the people. It’s easy to forget that there are a lot of innocent people in North Korea, both imprisoned and free who don’t necessarily agree with the aims and goals of the Kim regime. When we say things like, “North Korea is crazy” we undermine the reality of millions of citizens who are trapped in very real ways. The North Korean propaganda machine is the best in its class, censorship on rogue ideas is strictly forbidden, and dissidents who speak or act out are not given very many second chances — if ever. Most of the country is under an electric blackout and quality food sources are scarce — even among those who are not imprisoned or in labor camps. The bottom line...

Rate The Majority Villain Villain Podcast on iTunes! https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/majority-villain/id877298705?mt=2

We’ve all heard the reports about North Korea.

Today, on Majority Villain we will consider the questions:

Why does North Korea hate America? Or more succinctly put: why does it seem that way? Will we have a WWIII? Can Korea launch a nuclear attack against America?

And two far-less talked about questions... What happened during the Korean War? And most importantly... Is there a peaceful solution?

So, let’s have at it, shall we? This is Majority Villain.

Are we going to have a nuclear war with North Korea?

Let’s talk fire power.

Previous Episode

Net Neutrality

Welcome to Maj-j-j-j-jo-o-o-rity Vil-l-l-l-lain-n-n-n The future of the internet under the elimination of Net Neutrality

What is Net Neutrality?

Today, the internet and access to it remain open. It remains accessible. It remains “free”, because anyone, anywhere at anytime can use it.

But that very freedom is scheduled to be rolled back dramatically on December 14th when the Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote to remove the internet as a public utility from Title II of the Communications Act.

Exactly. That legalese is most likely what your internet service provider, commonly called simply ISPs, has been counting on in order to keep consumers willfully ignorant about the future of the internet. But here’s where the rubber meets the road: it’s not working. Yep, as high as 2/3 of Americans from all walks of the political spectrum are keen to this corporate coup. And for good reason, right? From ridiculously long and non-intelligible user agreement forms to shoddy bundling packages with landlines that most kids in the year 2017 don’t even know exist, to simply trying to terminate your cable plan with customer service representatives who are more beast than man (Video of guy cancelling). This last video went viral after that man repeated those cancellation requests to Comcast customer service for nearly 20 minutes. Hell, I personally was sent to collections by Comcast over their mistake for about $30. Cable companies and internet service providers clearly have one lasting motive: the bottom line.

So is Net Neutrality just the latest gimmick? Most experts say it’s much more serious than that.

Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu first used the term “Net Neutrality” in 2003 when discussing “common carriers”. Companies that have a purpose of moving goods or services from one point to another. They “carry” your phone call from your mother, they “carry” our oil in pipelines, our Christmas packages on railways, and even “carry” precious YouTube videos all the way to your ears. Obviously, some applications may be more useful than others.

The important part is that the goods get to you when you need them, and are done so efficiently and quickly.

So what might happen in the aftermath of the death of Net Neutrality? Some are saying:

The Death of Online Activism the Expansion of Censorship

Right now, I can say whatever I want about Verizon. I can say that President Trump’s FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, whom he personally appointed, is a dirty former lawyer of Verizon that likes to play with his poopy for foreplay in front of his corporate overlords at weird Verizon headquarter sex parties where the board of directors dress up like futuristic S&M dolls and virgins are led to the slaughter at the hands of anatomically correct killer robots all for the purpose of revitalizing their decrepit old skin in bizarre witchcraft rituals. And while this is clearly a true statement, under proposed FCC guidelines, they could simply block this very website altogether if they chose to.

This past December 7th saw some of the largest organized efforts to stop the FCC’s proposed changes as nationwide protests in front of Verizon stores took place. Those organizers like verizonprotests.com and battleforthenet.com could be in a state of perpetual loading if their ISP doesn’t like the content. Imagine if verizonprotests.com were located in an area where their only ISP was Verizon. There is literally nothing stopping Verizon from simply shutting down that operation. It sure doesn’t sound like a booming success for consumers, does it? It doesn’t resonate with options or protections for Jon and Jane Doe. The question presents itself then as a debate over whether or not access to the internet is a right. Should it be designated a common carrier and should consumers have proper access to it, as regulated by the government?

The words “more government” automatically give a lot of people the heeby jeebies. Fair enough, let’s look at why eliminating Net Neutrality is a good thing.

Probably the most common argument for ending Net Neutrality is economic. That argument goes like this: Why would ISPs continue to invest in internet infrastructure if the incentive for building it is financially undermined by everyone having the same access to it. Instead, internet service providers argue that being able to provide faster internet to those willing to pay for it will help create the financial incentive to build a faster internet for everyone, fast lanes for all, faster lanes for some. Sounds simple enough.

Companies like Comcast, Charter and Cox have said for sometime that slowing down internet speeds for most consumers wouldn’t be the goal of these new internet rules. Instead, they make the claim that consumers already have robust options in the internet market, and therefore this wouldn’t be a giveaway to the major ISP players. In...

Next Episode

2 Minutes to Midnight

The Doomsday Clock is now two minutes to irrevocable worldwide destruction; the closest it has been since 1953, when the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists wrote, “Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization.”

The Bulletin, a group accredited by the membership of its 15 Nobel laureates, began with former Manhattan Project scientists who could, “not remain aloof to the consequences of their work.” Their warning to the human species came as humankind entered the age of nuclear war, and the tense relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union quickly deteriorated.

The clock, a metaphor of humanity’s countdown to midnight, coarsely whispers the warning to our species if we are unable to change our trajectory. The minute hand has only moved 22 times in that 73 years, and since 2007 it has also reflected the effects of climate change.

Citing the Trump administration’s outright rejection of the scientific community’s consensus on climate change, and President Trump’s disturbing comments toward North Korea, Iran and Pakistan in January of this year, the Bulletin saw the need to move the minute hand a half-minute closer to global catastrophe, stating the current situation is as dangerous as it has ever been since World War II.

Tragic irony rings deep echoes in noting that it was Barack Obama who was the first US President to call for a “nuclear-free world”, but it was also Obama who announced a trillion dollar investment to modernize the nuclear-weapons program — and it was another first when he visited Hiroshima, and then offered no official apology when it was the healing power of reconciliation they truly needed.

There is no doubt that the times we live in are hectic, dangerous and absurd, but the answer to the question of what one could do with two minutes should be all we need to hear: not much.

I’m Gregory Haddock. This is Majority Villain. Status quos are for suckers.

Show Image: Trinity Bomb Test, July 16, 1945, New Mexico

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.