NORTH KOREA CONDUCTS NUCLEAR TEST

Prados,

Vital statistics for the DPRK are estimates, and 23,000,000 might well be accurate. The size of the population is primarily a function of the ratio between birth and mortality rates. Infant deaths in the DPRK are believed to be high especially in those areas hardest hit by famine. The numbers directly murdered by the regime may be in the thousands each year, but the real killer in the DPRK is the lack of adequate nutrition. Even so, the population is believed to be statistically younger than in most other countries, and that indicates a short overall life span. So why isn't the population crashing? The birth rate is very high.

Asherman wrote:

Prados,

Vital statistics for the DPRK are estimates, and 23,000,000 might well be accurate. The size of the population is primarily a function of the ratio between birth and mortality rates. Infant deaths in the DPRK are believed to be high especially in those areas hardest hit by famine. The numbers directly murdered by the regime may be in the thousands each year, but the real killer in the DPRK is the lack of adequate nutrition. Even so, the population is believed to be statistically younger than in most other countries, and that indicates a short overall life span. So why isn't the population crashing? The birth rate is very high.

Yes, the birthrate is high and the average age of the population according to the CIA factbook is about 30. That still doesn't allow for 10 million deaths to have occurred over the last 12 years. The more children in the population the smaller the % of women of child bearing age. There haven't been 10 million births in those 12 years. It would be almost mathematically impossible.

Yeah, the CIA factbook is an arm of the NPRK.



Why don't we try to stick to reputable sources here instead of making outlandish claims.

This all started when the claim was made that 10 million North Koreans have died at the hands of the present leader there in the last 12 years.

Since we don't have any evidence one way or the other, which statement should we believe?

October 22, 2006
TOKYO --North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a Chinese envoy his regime has no immediate plans to carry out another nuclear test but whether it will do so in the future depends on U.S. policy toward his country, a news report said Sunday.

Kim made the remarks to Chinese envoy Tang Jiaxuan during talks this past week in Pyongyang, Kyodo News agency reported from Beijing, citing unnamed officials.
Tang met with Kim to discuss the North's nuclear test on Oct. 9.

parados wrote:

This all started when the claim was made that 10 million North Koreans have died at the hands of the present leader there in the last 12 years.

Since we don't have any evidence one way or the other, which statement should we believe?

Learn to read. 2 to 10 was the claim and with good reason. Did you watch the video? That's one of few... but I thought it was the most compelling (from memory)... and definitely not Bush propoganda. Think, before you answer.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

parados wrote:

This all started when the claim was made that 10 million North Koreans have died at the hands of the present leader there in the last 12 years.

Since we don't have any evidence one way or the other, which statement should we believe?

Learn to read. 2 to 10 was the claim and with good reason. Did you watch the video? That's one of few... but I thought it was the most compelling (from memory)... and definitely not Bush propoganda. Think, before you answer.

Right at the first part of the video it says..
"Up to 3 million of its people have starved to death in the last 10 years."
" crisis .... 3 million more people at risk"

Maybe you should think before you attack others for not thinking.
Still a far cry from your 10 million claim. The video in no way supports the 2-10 million claim. It refutes the upper end rather nicely I would say.

I never said the man wasn't a monster.

Since the man is a monster why the hell do you have to make up stuff about him? Isn't the truth bad enough?

I didn't read it that way - I read it as "If the facts indict him, why make shyt up?"

snood wrote:

I didn't read it that way - I read it as "If the facts indict him, why make shyt up?"

I understand that. But why go out of your way to try and make a case that the facts might be in question, unless the intent was to defend him? I'm not sure if his intent was to defend the monster, but that is what he's doing, and I'm just curious why. I'm sure he has a reason ... I'm just curious as to what it is, that's all. I'm not trying to indict him as a NK supporter or anything like that.

But it sure seems as though hatred for Bush causes strange bedfellows at times.

parados wrote:

I never said the man wasn't a monster.

Since the man is a monster why the hell do you have to make up stuff about him? Isn't the truth bad enough?

I'm curious why you are defending him, if you think he's a monster and all.

parados wrote:

Yeah, the CIA factbook is an arm of the NPRK.



Why don't we try to stick to reputable sources here instead of making outlandish claims.

I haven't checked about North Korea specifically. But in general, the CIA Factbook gets its data from World Bank statistics. The World Bank, in turn, gets its data from the census bureaus of the nations that the statistics describe. I remember an earlier online quarrel about Cuban mortality statistics, where it turned out the CIA had indeed copied the World Bank's copy of the Cuban communists' own statistics.

In view of this, my working hypothesis is that the CIA's data about North Korea does not come from a reputable source. I expect it to come from a census agency in North Korea that lies and manipulates for a living. Occom Bill has good reasons to be skeptical about the data.

a repeated opinion of a possibility

After all, it was a repeated opinion of the possibility of the existence of WMD* that got you** into Iraq.