There have been a lot of topics about what the US should do about the DPRK.

Lets think about it from the other side as well (which might be challanging and or amusing). While I myself Kim Jong Il , I would guess most people don't, but lets consider what he should do logically given his goverment's stated aims (which is harder and more interesting perhaps). We've been thinking about how the US can achieve its goals, lets talk about what the DPRK's goals are and how it should go about accomplishing them.

The DPRK basically wants to increase its standard of living and keep the Americans from invading. Currently they have an army of more than one million women and men, and that is enough to prevent the United States and or the Republic of Korea from invading. Maintaining such a large defensive force is increadibly expensive though, since soldiers don't add anything to the economy, they just stand around the DMZ hoping George Bush doesn't loose his mind.

The solution the DPRK came up with to address this problem was to develop nuclear weapons. While they have their million strong army, the US will not invade (even if they can beat the DPRK it would be far too costly politically, economically, and militarily), and if they develop nuclear weapons one of two things will happen. Either the DPRK will give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a non-aggression pact and reparations from the United States, which it would use to improve its standard of living. Or alternatively, the US will refuse to give the DPRK economic assisstence and they will simply keep their nuclear weapons and disband most of their conventional million strong army, allowing them to keep an equally potent deterent of nukes instead of troops, for a lot less money, improving their standard of living. Either way, if the DPRK develops nuclear weapons, it will win economically without compromizing its defense, or at least that is the idea.

So, the question for debate is, what is the DPRK's best forign policy move in order to protect itself and improve its living standards? If you where advising Kim Yong Nam, how would you tell him to handle North Korea's foreign policy?

I don't think developing nuclear weapons and dumping most of the military back to civilian status is a viable option either. It certainly won't help their economic status any, as they don't have the industry or infrastructure to absorb that many jobs in the civilian sector. He has people that are going to starve to death regardless.

If I were him, my better option would be to develop the nukes, and sell them to the highest bidders. As you say, we don't have the manpower to win this war, without a lot of destruction to South Korea as well as to our own troops. I think he knows this. I'm just not sure what our options are in this scenario.

Yes but if the army is demobilized they can work in factories instead, so they'll have more products to export to China and Vietnam, and they can import more goods. The problem isn't not enough infrastructure it is not enough natural resources, the DPRK has virtually no land suitable for agriculture so they need to relay on Chinese rice.

This isn't a capitalist economy where a civilian sector just cannot absorb jobs and there is unemployment, the goverment would reinvest what it had been spending on the military into industry.

This would be essentially the Cuban model for post-cold war socialist development. Cuba basically disbanded its army at the beginning of the 90s and withdrew its forces from Africa and central America so it could use the money it was spending on soldiers on its industry (in Cuba's case its Biotech industry) in order to compensate for losing its trade with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Cuba has a much higher standard of living than the DPRK (or for that matter the rest of Latin America) because they had enough security to go this rout (Cuba does have a non-aggression pact with the US from the October Crisis).

I could see a certain appeal in selling nuclear weapons to other members of the Non-Alignment Movement as a way to both profit and stop imperialism at the same time, but countries with nuclear weapons tend to not want to let anyone else get them.

They would certaintly never sell them to an Islamist terrorist organization (first, keep in mind that these people kill communists) because non-state entities have no accountability for such weapons...nor would they likely have the money to buy one.

I suppose it might not be totally out of the question to think about the DPRK arming Brazil with nuclear weapon technology because it is a major regional power. It might try to send weapons to a socialist country under imminent threat of US invasion, but being the socialist country at greatest risk for US invasion it would seem unlikely.

The best thing the DPRK could do for North Korea would be to seek unification with South Korea.

Well of course they do want peaceful reunification of Korea, maintaining a socialist economy in the north and a capitalist economy in the south, with American troops out.

What they don't want is to be treated as a colony of South Korea the way the DDR was treated as a colony by West Germany (even today laws in the east are different than laws in the west). In Germany, the west German capitalists bought up all of the East German infrastructure for virtually nothing, then started closing down factories, and East Germany is still poor because of it (its not like Frankfurt). The DPRK would not let that sort of a a reunification happen.

Of course the most appealing model for reunification would be the Vietnamese one

Umm - I think the only sort of reunification that North Korea is looking for would be to invade and have Kim Jon Il rule the whole lot. Also I doubt that anyone in the North Korean government is interested in improving the conditions of living for the average North Korean.

Its a despotic regime, paying only lip service to communist ideals. The people in power are extremely wealthy, they LIKE being extremely wealthy and they want to STAY extremely wealthy. They have nukes so that the US won't be tempted to effect regime change and because Kim Jong Il is also crazy.

And West Germany effectively bankrupted itself in its efforts to ensure that East Germany was treated with some degree of equality. The reality is that Soviet-style central planning left Eastern Germany with an inefficient and badly run economy.
Tragiclown the reason that some laws are different in parts of East Germany and West Germany are because it is a system of federal government, whereby the country is split into 'states' and each 'state' makes its own laws. For the same reason, Texas has dissimilar laws to New York.

If I was advising the DPRK I would say:
1) Adopt market style economies (but try and avoid extreme capitalism) - cause command economies don't work.
2) How about letting the public choose their government in unrigged elections?
3) Look for a peaceful democratic reunion with South Korea.
4) Don't rely on China to bail you out of trouble every time.
5) Shoot everyone in charge

I believe the pursual of NK nuclear capabilities is a lot more influenced by their need for a non reliant fuel/energy source. The only reason NK even cares what the US thinks about them is because the oil sanctions and their dependence on oil. I honestly do not think they would bother with any kind of "interaction" with the outside world if it wasn't for this factor. So yes while I am sure the nuclear weaponry they have developed is to their advantage....it is to Americas too...It makes NK seem a lot more rogue like and it makes the situation of our two countries a lot more serious in the international forum...and I think it legitimizes the US' stance.
The real reason NK is pursuing nuclear weaponry is in order to pursue economic independence.

I can't imagine they would ever abandon their military might because it allows them much control over their populous and the ability to safely hold out and suffer international sanctionings. Their willingness to allow their citizens such suffering is one of their most useful negotiating tools.