Why not? Well, surviving does tend to sap your energy for plotting revolution. And the regime is very accomplished at managing hunger in its most discontented regions (we’ll probably learn much more about that one day). So in fact, people are probably more likely to rise up when they’re fed adequately to have some physical and mental energy.

There have been plenty of scattered rebellions and acts of dissent. They were isolated, contained, and crushed because (a) news can’t travel easily in North Korea, and (b) people are too afraid to join efforts with which they may sympathize.

Is this Chris from the old FNK site? If so, I’m always glad to hear from you. If not, it’s still a good comment. Thanks.

The decisive factor will be when food becomes more important than fear. Remember that the Russian Revolution of February 1917 began as a riot by mothers in Petrograd who couldn’t find enough food for their children. The Tsar’s troops’ bloody crackdown only encouraged more people to join. By the end of the day, Karensky was in power and Lenin was on his way back from exile.

So my question is this: Are we at a “tipping point” for the regime and if so, how many months will it be before a collapse? More importantly, how will South Korea react if the North collapses in an “overnight” fashion?

I guess I mean that there are some points of departure from which even train loads from China cannot save the regime.

With all the various factors and ebbs and flows, North Korea walks a think tightrope. It has been doing so skillfully for years. But on a tightrope it does trod.

That is why if NK collapsed tomorrow, it wouldn’t be a surprise to those who watch it. Nor would it be if the collapse doesn’t come for another 10 years.

North Korea is a survivor. But it is also terminal. And it will collapse ultimately in any one of a possible chain of events.

As for the long term, however much China wants to keep the North alive, it has to factor in costs-to-benefits. NK means more to China than it did the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union ended up regretting the funding it wasted on the North for so long. China will not end up perpetually running an open-ended comittment to the North.

Is there? I honestly cannot recall any post-presidency accusations. Refresh my memory. Moreover, some of the women who claimed to have had sexual relations with Clinton, like Gennifer Flowers, did so voluntarily. That is not sexual harassment. A better analogy: saying that North Korea’s regime could collapse in six months is a lot like saying someone else could step forward to accuse the Bush administration of lying about Iraq.

Most of all, what got my ears to prick up were the actions and words coming out Pyongyang on a variety of issues. To me, as I’ve said before, NK testing a nuclear device so soon after launching the ICBM was a very big event. To me, the most likely reason was pure desperation within the regime. Other things over the past year from the North have also seemed desperate for a regime that likes to project strength.

Any high level of desperation in Pyongyang most likely means they are afraid the end is near. And they would know better than any outside expert (unless they were delusional, but in that case, they would usually fail to see the coming collapse than be too eager to proclaim it).

I thought, however, when Bush flipflopped on the North, especially perhaps turning back on NK’s illegal money laundering avenues (though I don’t really know to what extent the sanctions have been reversed????), that my no 2009 prediction was dead in the water.

This from Jane’s makes me feel a lot better about it, and there was another item the last couple of months from experts far more knowledgeable than me that gave me hope, but I have completely forgotten where I read it….

Of course, time will tell………….