Recently, North Korea made headlines by officially abandoning its goal of reuniting with the South and subsequently amending its constitution to determine South Korea its "primary foe and principal enemy" and then demolishing the reunification monument constructed by Kim Jong-Il.
Shortly after, two "eminent North Korea experts" of the Stimson Center published an article declaring that they believe that "Kim Jong Un has made a strategic decision to go to war".
Is this true?
This market will resolve YES if undisputable evidence emerges that Kim Jong Un has, indeed, made the strategic decision to go to war. This can, for example, happen through unambiguous western intelligence reports or if North Korea actually does attack the South causing a total of at least 1000 combat-related deaths in a single calendar year.
Statements made by North Korean officials will not count as undisputable evidence.
1,000
3.00@MalachiteEagle good question. The market clearly talks about South Korea, but I didn't exclude other countries (wo tf would have anticipated that Korean troops find themselves in Kherson?).
I legitimately don't know.
This is the criteria of the question, which I think the current situation matches: "This market will resolve YES if undisputable evidence emerges that Kim Jong Un has, indeed, made the strategic decision to go to war." -- because North Korea has gone to war to support Russia in Ukraine.
Furthermore, the article you reference explicitly mentions North Korea's deepening relationship with Russia and the war in Ukraine.
I think this qualifies quite clearly.
@traders any thoughts?
@MalachiteEagle there's also the word "strategic" in there. Diverting a small expeditionary force of purely infantry troops to a far away foreign conflict is hardly "strategic".
@Symmetry a "tactical" decision would refer to a minor skirmish in an ongoing conflict north Korea was already engaged in. Deciding to form a new alliance with the goal of joining a war / sending soldiers half way around the world to fight a new enemy is strategic.
@JoshuaWilkes negative, the description uses "for example" to refer to South Korea, implying that other examples qualify
@JoshuaWilkes for the exact same reason if China attacked Japan and North Korea joined on China's side, this would also qualify
@MalachiteEagle I think this is analogous to coalition participation in Afghanistan. At least Germany (where I'm from) did not make the "strategic decision to go to war" back then - despite sending troops.
@MalachiteEagle Double negative. the "for example" refers to the means of resolution. It could be intelligence reports or an actual attack on the South. It's completely congruous with an understanding that this is only about war with South Korea (additionally SK is priorly mentioned twice with out an e.g.)
@MalachiteEagle "for the exact same reason if China attacked Japan and North Korea joined on China's side, this would also qualify"
I obviously disagree for exactly the same reason
@Symmetry well, Germany was in a defensive alliance with the country that was attacked. I would argue that's still a "strategic decision to go to war", but in North Korea's case, they formed a new alliance with a country that was already at war and then joined that. That is quite a level up on the Afghanistan example.
@JoshuaWilkes then your position doesn't make much sense. What if North Korea goes to war with a country and then South Korea joins the other country's side? Does that also not qualify in your mind?
Very clearly, based on this question's title, the way the description is written, and the article this question refers to, the current situation means that this question resolves as yes. I recognise that at the time this question was written, most people did not have "north korean soldiers fighting in Europe" on their radar, but that is included in this question's criteria.
@MalachiteEagle I think this question is/was asking whether KJU made a strategic decision to go to war with South Korea. So yes, if SK troops killed 1000 NK troops in Kursk I don't think that would qualify. It also doesn't seem to qualify if SK attacks NK in the Korean Peninsula,
If this question was about a war between North Korea and South Korea, then it would need to explicitly say that this was the constraint. However, this question does not add such a constraint at all, it merely refers to a NK/SK conflict as an example. The question is primarily about a "decision to go to war" happening in Kim's mind, which has clearly taken place given the current situation
@MalachiteEagle
I appreciate your position. There have been times where I too felt that the criteria clearly allowed a resolution and that it should be applied even though it wasn't the creator's intention. I generally speaking no longer feel that way. If there is a common sense reading of a question it should be applied over a lawyerly one.
I believe that the common sense reading of this question is about a war in the Korean peninsula, with the additional element that the article mentioned clearly considers attacks on Japan or Guam as part of that theatre.
If @Symmetry can genuinely say that this question wasn't about SK, I have no complaints. But if they intended it to be about NK attacking SK, as the description suggests, they should either clarify that in response to your query now, or alternatively ask for other adjudication to determine resolution if they are unclear.
@JoshuaWilkes given that the question is written in such a way as it includes the current situation, and refers to an external view taken by two NK experts, I do not think that excluding the NK intervention in the war in Ukraine makes sense on the basis that it was not on the question author's bingo card when they wrote it. Asking for adjudication by a neutral independent party is one option.
@MalachiteEagle I think I've stated my opposition clearly. I'm happy for the creator and other interested parties to consider it.
Between the two of us it seems unlikely we will agree to agree.