Your flaw is that you ignore the problems of centrally planned economies which have been abandoned due to their inherent inflexibility and instead try to blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on America and all of North Korea's problems on America. The North Korean regime failed at life and the ex-Soviet states decided it wasn't worth funding them anymore with handouts.
Sure, America played a role but the Soviets were trying just as hard to collapse the capitalist system. Unfortunately for them, the western system is much more robust, flexible, and efficient than state socialism and tyranny, so it didn't really work out that way.
I love this one:
You also fail to acknowledge that their "military first" policy kills their own people at the expense of their military. While America spends a relatively large amount of money on her military, it's less than 5% of the GDP. Compare this to ~20% in the USSR and 30-50% in the DPRK.
1. America was the main reason for the Soviet unions collapse, they could not compete with the US. Took on large debts which could not be re-payed to restart there industries, which was not sustainable. The soviet union was not giving them handouts, they were economic partners. This idea that the relationship with North Korea and Russia is just not true, they were economic partners.
This distaste for ideas that you do not agree with is blinding your judgment, this idea that capitalism is much more robust, flexible, and efficient are unfair to other systems. As in many capitalist countries namely the one I keep bringing up Mexico, that is a country that is not robust, flexible or efficient at all.
I think capitalism is a good system, but saying what you are saying is considered a stereotype of the system.
All things should be judged on a case by case bases, and in North Korea's case, they have problems with industry because they lost there largest economic partner.
2. 5% of GDP in America accounts for over 35% of the budget, more than any other government program so save me the comparison. America spends vastly to much on military, more than any country on the face of the earth. The USSR may not of been efficient, but what it did do was allow in the span of 1 generation bring most of Russia from the 3rd world living conditions to what is considered 2nd world. That is unheard of with any system.
The problem with the system rose when energy, a commodity which they could not obtain efficiently lead the nation to economic collapse. It was not centralizing the government or anything of the like, the US won the war over fossil fuels and pushed them to collapse.
Because of this, whether that was a good thing or not, tons of countries are back to 3rd world conditions, including much of North Korea.
Just as building bridges to no where (in America) in the grand scheme of things does not do much to offset the budget, building missiles that can reach the US in the grand scheme of things does not do much to offset there already weak budget.
By forcing the Norks to comply to what we want them to do will only do exactly what it did to Germany after WWI...
Push toward Nazism or something worse.
You really think Kim is bad, wait tell he is overthrown and a true tyrant takes control of North Korea.
