North Korea - how serious should we take them?
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
skyrover said:
LoonyTunes said:
Cobnapint said:
LoonyTunes said:
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Kim OFFERED to give up his nukes, thats what triggered the talks. Any bridge building should be both ways - it was NK that invaded the South remember.Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
And it was ideological in purpose. From that wiki link you posted above:
However, President Truman later acknowledged that he believed fighting the invasion was essential to the U.S. goal of the global containment of communism as outlined in the National Security Council Report 68 (NSC 68) (declassified in 1975):
Communism was acting in Korea, just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had ten, fifteen, and twenty years earlier. I felt certain that if South Korea was allowed to fall, Communist leaders would be emboldened to override nations closer to our own shores. If the Communists were permitted to force their way into the Republic of Korea without opposition from the free world, no small nation would have the courage to resist threat and aggression by stronger Communist neighbors.
The US had liberated Korea not that long ago from the Japanese, so had a vested interest.
Cobnapint said:
Trump has offered something in return right from the outset and it follows the usual pattern - sanctions will be lifted when you stop being an arse, get rid of your nukes and stop developing any more. He's also promised financial aid and a way out for those least able to help themselves (as long as Kim doesn't blow it on other stuff).
You say Kim said they didn't want all sanctions lifted - when did he say that? Via state TV when he got home to keep the locals happy? My guess is that they smell impeachment for Trump coming and DID play their hand early.
There's a process to follow. Blowing up a couple of garden sheds and an old entrance to a disused underground facility just doesn't wash. And it certainly doesn't count as keeping your promises when the promises themselves are meaningless.
Based on the last 20yrs history why would any dictator give up their Nukes, it's their life insurance policy.You say Kim said they didn't want all sanctions lifted - when did he say that? Via state TV when he got home to keep the locals happy? My guess is that they smell impeachment for Trump coming and DID play their hand early.
There's a process to follow. Blowing up a couple of garden sheds and an old entrance to a disused underground facility just doesn't wash. And it certainly doesn't count as keeping your promises when the promises themselves are meaningless.
WestyCarl said:
Based on the last 20yrs history why would any dictator give up their Nukes, it's their life insurance policy.
It's only a life insurance policy if you have as many as the opposition and you stand a good chance of getting most of them through. NK is lacking on both fronts there (at the minute).The threat from NK nukes is more towards the South. The west doesn't want to see a situation arise where NK is able to stick 500,000 troops on the border and start threatening Seoul with unification or else look what you've got coming.
And the same goes with Japan (without the reunification bit), another arch enemy of NK.
skwdenyer said:
Trump seems to be acting as if he thinks all negotiations can be sorted out in an afternoon - that there is a big ask and a big concession or "walk away." I do agree that Trump's approach to getting in to the negotiations in the first place was pretty good; but having opened the door perhaps he should have let some others get into the grinding work of inching things forward?
Reminds me of when I was a young sales guy taking our MD, who was ex-sales himself, and had all the chat etc, to see the Purchasing Director of one of our big customers, a defence contractor, after they'd queried our T's & C's.My boss just waved his concerns away, saying 'don't worry about it, if we have a problem there's nothing we can't sort out over a beer'. The PD's face was a picture - 'I don't think that's going to work if there's a nuclear sub stranded at the bottom of the sea and they're blaming one of your parts', he said. He pulled out a copy of our T's & C's and he'd crossed out about 75% of it.
That situation took some rescuing by me and the Buyer.
Cobnapint said:
WestyCarl said:
Based on the last 20yrs history why would any dictator give up their Nukes, it's their life insurance policy.
It's only a life insurance policy if you have as many as the opposition and you stand a good chance of getting most of them through. NK is lacking on both fronts there (at the minute).The threat from NK nukes is more towards the South. The west doesn't want to see a situation arise where NK is able to stick 500,000 troops on the border and start threatening Seoul with unification or else look what you've got coming.
And the same goes with Japan (without the reunification bit), another arch enemy of NK.
WestyCarl said:
No it's not. It's such a destructive weapon that no country would risk an invasion / regime change against a dictator with Nukes unless absolutely necessary.
MAD doesn't work.Look at India and Pakistan right now. Two nuclear powers willing to go hammer and tongs into each other.
MAD requires all parties to be rational actors, dictators are rarely rational actors.
However Kim's insurance policy isn't nuclear weapons (it still hasn't actually been ascertained if he's actually got one, he's only claimed it), it's China. Pyongyang exists solely at the pleasure of Beijing. Its China that has kept western powers from shutting down the Kim regime for 60 years.
The US has shown before that it can topple a regime without violence as long as no-one else is willing to prop it up. The only thing stopping them with NK is the fact China likes having a nice buffer zone between themselves and the West in Korea
captain_cynic said:
MAD doesn't work.
Look at India and Pakistan right now. Two nuclear powers willing to go hammer and tongs into each other.
except they're not trying regime change and the rhetoric is cooling off.Look at India and Pakistan right now. Two nuclear powers willing to go hammer and tongs into each other.
captain_cynic said:
MAD requires all parties to be rational actors, dictators are rarely rational actors.
However Kim's insurance policy isn't nuclear weapons (it still hasn't actually been ascertained if he's actually got one, he's only claimed it), it's China. Pyongyang exists solely at the pleasure of Beijing. Its China that has kept western powers from shutting down the Kim regime for 60 years.
The US has shown before that it can topple a regime without violence as long as no-one else is willing to prop it up. The only thing stopping them with NK is the fact China likes having a nice buffer zone between themselves and the West in Korea
However Kim's insurance policy isn't nuclear weapons (it still hasn't actually been ascertained if he's actually got one, he's only claimed it), it's China. Pyongyang exists solely at the pleasure of Beijing. Its China that has kept western powers from shutting down the Kim regime for 60 years.
The US has shown before that it can topple a regime without violence as long as no-one else is willing to prop it up. The only thing stopping them with NK is the fact China likes having a nice buffer zone between themselves and the West in Korea
Do you think Saddam and Gadaffi would still be dead if they had Nukes?
WestyCarl said:
I don't disagree about China, but nobody will topple a regime with Nukes except as a last resort.
Do you think Saddam and Gadaffi would still be dead if they had Nukes?
Yep. Do you think Saddam and Gadaffi would still be dead if they had Nukes?
Probably doubly so for Gadaffi because he was killed by an uprising, not a foreign invasion. Nuking your own people isn't a good way to quell an uprising. It'll bring foreign powers in on the side of the rebels without question.
Iraq was invaded expressly because the had been believed to have weapons of mass destruction (we all, of course, knew it was fake).
The problem with using nukes as a defensive weapon is that you either have to be capable of sending them to the homeland of your invader... or nuke your own people, either way it's a death sentence. Iraq in 2002 barely had the capability to send a telegram to Tehran, let alone a nuke to Washington.
captain_cynic said:
Iraq was invaded expressly because the had been believed to have weapons of mass destruction (we all, of course, knew it was fake).
I think the logic of that sentence needs a little work 
If we all knew the WMDs were fake then it wasn't expressly about it. Perhaps "purportedly" would be closer to the truth...skwdenyer said:
captain_cynic said:
Iraq was invaded expressly because the had been believed to have weapons of mass destruction (we all, of course, knew it was fake).
I think the logic of that sentence needs a little work If we all knew the WMDs were fake then it wasn't expressly about it. Perhaps "purportedly" would be closer to the truth...mko9 said:
It is known for a fact that Iraq had WMD programs - chemical and nuclear - in the past. Their destruction could not be proven. As a result, ever questionable item was then assumed to indicate WMDs still existed and were being hidden. Saddam actually did a fair amount to perpetuate that bad assumption, in order to look strong to nearby rivals like Iran. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a credible source that was saying in 2001-02 that Iraq didn't have a covert WMD program.
Absolutely spot on. Saddam was leading the inspectors a merry dance. Nearly every visit was intentionally delayed for one reason or another.It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the chemical weapons were buried under 50 ft of sand somewhere.
Cobnapint said:
mko9 said:
It is known for a fact that Iraq had WMD programs - chemical and nuclear - in the past. Their destruction could not be proven. As a result, ever questionable item was then assumed to indicate WMDs still existed and were being hidden. Saddam actually did a fair amount to perpetuate that bad assumption, in order to look strong to nearby rivals like Iran. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a credible source that was saying in 2001-02 that Iraq didn't have a covert WMD program.
Absolutely spot on. Saddam was leading the inspectors a merry dance. Nearly every visit was intentionally delayed for one reason or another.It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the chemical weapons were buried under 50 ft of sand somewhere.
Now explain to NK why they should "be a good boy" and just give up their nuclear capability at a stroke in return for promises?
https://www.newsweek.com/computers-north-korea-emb...
Could it be the reason why the meeting was cut short ?
Could it be the reason why the meeting was cut short ?
skyrover said:
So what your saying is, the only way to get North Korea to give up its weapons is to force them by military means, if it's not already too late?
No - that would be lunacy. But we've perhaps run out of lies to try. So far we've had:Iraq: give up your WMDs and we'll leave you alone (oh, oops, you did but we invaded anyhow)
Iran: give up your WMD aspirations and we'll back off on sanctions (oh, oops, you did but Trump reinstated the sanctions)
Libya: people of Libya, rise up against your leader and we'll support you (oh, oops, you did and we didn't support you and now you're a civil war zone with terrorist issues)
There are some real trust issues, essentially founded on this: democracies can't be trusted, because democratic leaders aren't actually in full control and are too sensitive to swings in opinion (or a need for a squirrel to look at).
On the face of it, at least dealing with Russia or China one is somewhat clear that they will follow through on their promises (so long as you make sure the deal has something in it for them).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-asia-47465082
Looks like he's trying to force Trump to lift sanctions. Bad move.
Looks like he's trying to force Trump to lift sanctions. Bad move.
Not much Trump can do
If he sends the F15s in, he will need the support of South Korea which they may not give as NK has an awful lot of conventional artillery which could shell Seoul as retaliation
Kim is probably ahead in the propaganda war at home,claiming he went to the talks for peace and the Americans refused to negotiate.
Kim has to get his timing right, he needs to get concessions from the Americans before Trump gets the boot in 18 months, as the next President will likely shut the door in his face.
American governments like to have a bogey man somewhere, It justifies their military spending and highlights to the world that they are the guardians of freedom and democracy. NK is an easy target, countries like Iran less so.
If he sends the F15s in, he will need the support of South Korea which they may not give as NK has an awful lot of conventional artillery which could shell Seoul as retaliation
Kim is probably ahead in the propaganda war at home,claiming he went to the talks for peace and the Americans refused to negotiate.
Kim has to get his timing right, he needs to get concessions from the Americans before Trump gets the boot in 18 months, as the next President will likely shut the door in his face.
American governments like to have a bogey man somewhere, It justifies their military spending and highlights to the world that they are the guardians of freedom and democracy. NK is an easy target, countries like Iran less so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff