They stay in existence mostly because nobody wants to take the responsibility for 25 million people that are stuck 70 years behind. The West is in no shape to do any nation-building, neither financially nor ideologically, South Korea has no resources to stomach such huge influx of the population with such huge economic disparity (it's like US would get 150 million immigrants from extremely poor country all at once), and China is completely fine with the position of NK being a permanent toxic dumpster fire and China being seen as the only power being able to manage it and thus being irreplaceable and everyone's savior.

They are as "successful" as cancer is "successful" - it's hard to kill the cancer without killing the patient, but that's not a redeeming quality for cancer. In the same way, it's hard to kill Kim's regime without subjecting 25 million people to extreme dangers, exacerbated by the fact that many of them are already on the brink of starvation, and a lot of them are thoroughly brainwashed. It's not a sign of "success" or regime's rationality, it is the sign that it is hard for us to find a solution for this without hurting a lot of people in process.

Put another way. They're not going to play ball. Things cannot be solved diplomatically. Unless you call breaking all diplomatic promises, and developing nukes diplomacy.

A rational actor is a nation that is predictable, and is willing to uphold their word, and agreements. If promises are broken, agreements torn a part I don't think that state is a "rational" actor.

So by that definition it seems that the USA would not be considered a rational actor since the head of the nation and the majority in congress are pretty much the opposite of predictable and willing to uphold their word.

Be that as it may. The USA, China, UK, India, etc. are all far more rational actors than NK. So your assertion is irrelevant as even if it is true the US is far more likely to be rational on the geopolitical stage.

Personally I would trust the USA on its word far more than I would NK. I don't know about you.

Perhaps true, but also completely off topic. It makes you look like you're just looking for an excuse to score points, rather than contributing to the conversation we're having.

I think it is a fair point within the context. It links up with the "NK developing nukes for survival" but it also plays out in the sense that an outside nation of any sort, including our allies, can never be certain that 4 years from now a deal we made will continue to be honored. Iran, Paris agreement, various trade agreements, NATO, etc. have all been brought into questioning as of late. It is impossible for an ally or other country to 100% predict how a vetted agreement will play out once a new administration comes into office. Unfortunate side effect of our system, but I don't think it is a bad system.

Fair point. I read it as an indictment of the unpredictability caused by the change to this administration, not just by the change to a new one, but you're right, it's a larger problem than that.

No this is absolutely relevant. Part of the reason that the Agreed Framework failed was because of the inconsistency and disagreement between the president and congress. And look at Trump criticizing the Iran deal, which the UN has found Iran is upholding. It's clear that the US will do whatever it wants, regardless of whatever deal you have negotiated with them before. This is literally what Trump ran on.

It's very much on-topic.

You discomfort with certain truths of your own country is not a reason to dismiss what he said.

> A rational actor is a nation that is predictable, and is willing to uphold their word, and agreements. If promises are broken, agreements torn a part I don't think that state is a "rational" actor.

No it isn't.

A rational actor is one who acts rationally.

If survival and self-interest is your goal then lying and breaking agreements might be a perfectly rational approach.

It depends entirely what is to be gained.

You’re redefining the term “rational” to mean “honorable”. A rational actor is someone who acts in their own self-interest.

North Korea acting unpredictably and dishonestly has little inherently to do with the rationality of those actions, and there are strong arguments to be made that those actions are rational from the perspective of the North Korean ruling class.

They've stayed in existence with the implicit support of China and periodic tribute in the form of food and fuel from the west.