North Korea policy

[billvon 3,078]

A thread to discuss the US's North Korea policy, which has been oozing into other threads.

Some applicable recent quotes:

Pence, Feb 2018: "For all those in the media who think I should have stood and cheered with the North Koreans, I say the United States of America doesn't stand with murderous dictatorships, we stand up to murderous dictatorships"

Trump, Jun 2018: “I learned [Kim] is a very talented man and I also learned he loves his country very much. . . . A worthy negotiator ... a very worthy, very smart negotiator. We had a terrific day and we learned a lot about each other and our countries.  We'll meet many times.”

Trump, Feb 28 2019: "I think you will have a tremendous future with your country.  A great leader!"

Trump, same day: "Some really bad things happened to Otto — some really, really bad things. But he tells me that he didn't know about it, and I will take him at his word."

Parents of Otto Warmbier, Mar 1 2019: "We have been respectful during this summit process. Now we must speak out. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for the death of our son Otto. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity. No excuses or lavish praise can change that."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I think the continued pandering to and approval heaped on strong men, dictators and murderers is an absolute disgrace.

[Phil1111 1,149]

trump's pandering to dictators who like to murder their own citizens and the citizens of other countries. Goes hand in glove with lying, fraud, scams and the loyalty of his base.

Until there is accountability there will never be an epiphany of action. I have my doubts that  even prison would change trump. Because he, like Jong-un, is very much like Bernie Madoff.

All three of them are the same. As is Putin, MBS,  Duterte, etc.

Kim has won because he will continue missile and nuclear development thought the trump administration. He is building nukes at the rate of 5-7 a year.

[billvon 3,078]

18 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Kim has won because he will continue missile and nuclear development thought the trump administration. He is building nukes at the rate of 5-7 a year.

And getting all the international prestige and support that comes from regular, groveling visits by a US president.

"Oh, please, great leader, won't you stop building bombs and murdering US citizens?"
"No."

"Oh, OK.  See you in six months!  I really look forward to seeing you again.  We have a tremendous future together and will see each other many times."

[AlanS 1]

We should link trade talks with China to North Korea de-nuclearization. 

This is an existential threat to the US and we need to treat it that way.

 

China is the key to bring down the Kim Dynasty, his train is traveling through China, after all, to get to the latest talks. If China wants to continue trade with the US, bring down North Korea. If they don't just increase tariffs on imports from China until they decide to help, and we can help other countries in the Pacific Rim (that don't support North Korea) grow their economies. 

[gowlerk 2,253]

6 hours ago, AlanS said:

We should link trade talks with China to North Korea de-nuclearization. 

This is an existential threat to the US and we need to treat it that way.

The only nation that possesses enough weapons to pose an existential threat to the world is the good 'ole USA. And we need to treat it that way.

[jakee 1,564]

7 hours ago, AlanS said:

China is the key to bring down the Kim Dynasty, his train is traveling through China, after all, to get to the latest talks. If China wants to continue trade with the US, bring down North Korea. If they don't just increase tariffs on imports from China until they decide to help, and we can help other countries in the Pacific Rim (that don't support North Korea) grow their economies. 

You know, whenever there seems like a neat and simple solution to international policy dilemmas you can pretty much guarantee it's completely wrong. International Politics is never neat and simple because the players rarely act logically and prestige is more important than almost anything else. 

 

China will not let themselves be forced into betraying an ally by the US, even when it's an ally they don't particularly like. If you push them, they'll just push back - and the existential threat to the security and economic wellbeing of the US that would come from another trade war with China is far greater than that which will ever be posed by North Korea.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 hours ago, AlanS said:

We should link trade talks with China to North Korea de-nuclearization. 

This is an existential threat to the US and we need to treat it that way.

 

China is the key to bring down the Kim Dynasty, his train is traveling through China, after all, to get to the latest talks. If China wants to continue trade with the US, bring down North Korea. If they don't just increase tariffs on imports from China until they decide to help, and we can help other countries in the Pacific Rim (that don't support North Korea) grow their economies. 

In what way does the DPRK pose an 'existential threat' to the US?

 

Handful of nukes, no delivery system, no real navy. 

 

They are a regional threat, and really not that much of one. Any really aggressive action would result in their destruction.
KJU knows that. 

 

And how would you propose China 'bring them down'? Replaced with what? (that was the real mistake in Iraq)

The Mango Mussolini has imposed idiotic tariffs on Chinese imports. Their retaliatory actions have done far more damage to us than ours did to them. 

As a side note:

Fox hammered on Obama for even considering talking to KJU & the DPRK. When Trump did it, they just about fell over themselves praising him. 
Disgusting, even for them.

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/fox-news-different-reactions-regarding-negotiations-with-north-korea

[gowlerk 2,253]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

You know, whenever there seems like a neat and simple solution to international policy dilemmas you can pretty much guarantee it's completely wrong. International Politics is never neat and simple because the players rarely act logically and prestige is more important than almost anything else. 

Sometimes a situation is so complicated and difficult that not even the greatest negotiator in history can solve it. This is one of those things that are like building a hotel in Moscow. It just can't be done. Not even by the Greatest Bamboozler America Has Ever Known. The Dotard.

[BillyVance 34]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

The only nation that possesses enough weapons to pose an existential threat to the world is the good 'ole USA. And we need to treat it that way.

Wrong. Russia does also. Why do you think both of us had the arms race?

[gowlerk 2,253]

42 minutes ago, BillyVance said:

Wrong. Russia does also. Why do you think both of us had the arms race?

Yeah, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that at least half of the Russian arsenal is out of service by now. Putin and company can't turn a profit on them. Plus Russia is controlled by pragmatists. America is controlled by fundamentalists.

Edited March 4, 2019 by gowlerk

[jakee 1,564]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

Why do you think both of us had the arms race?

Institutional stupidity.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

9 hours ago, AlanS said:

This is an existential threat to the US and we need to treat it that way.

Putin told you this wasn't true. Why don't you believe your leader?

[billvon 3,078]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

Wrong. Russia does also. Why do you think both of us had the arms race?

Because both countries were run by idiots at the time.

[billvon 3,078]

Trump has reached the third stage of the standard GOP cycle with regards to the North Korea talks:

1) They went GREAT!

2) OK they didn't go so great but that's fine.

3) It's the Democrat's fault.

“For the Democrats to interview in open hearings a convicted liar & fraudster, at the same time as the very important Nuclear Summit with North Korea, is perhaps a new low in American politics and may have contributed to the ‘walk.'  Never done when a president is overseas. Shame!”

 

[normiss 858]

What's Oliver North up to these days???

[gowlerk 2,253]

Seriously, despite the Bolton/Pompeo hardline managing to keep Trump from giving away the farm to Kim for a short term political gain, the damage has already been done. It was done in the first round when Russia and China began to more and more ignore the sanction regime that the Obama team had them reluctantly following. Not that I think that would have lasted either. The goal of Kim now is to force the US and the west into accepting NK as a small time nuclear power. This latest summit did nothing much to advance or to slow down this process. It just keeps it slowly moving along. NK did not make the sacrifices needed to get this far to just give up its weapons.

The Great Negotiator has not really had any great effect one way or the other on what the real outcome will be. But he sure has managed to give Kim a great chance to put on a show for the folks back home.

[billvon 3,078]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Seriously, despite the Bolton/Pompeo hardline managing to keep Trump from giving away the farm to Kim for a short term political gain, the damage has already been done. It was done in the first round when Russia and China began to more and more ignore the sanction regime that the Obama team had them reluctantly following. Not that I think that would have lasted either. The goal of Kim now is to force the US and the west into accepting NK as a small time nuclear power.

That has been NK's goal ever since they started their nuclear program.  They want the global power and influence that comes with being a nuclear power.  Presidents up until Trump have denied him that.

[Phil1111 1,149]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Institutional stupidity.

In an indirect way the arms race with the Soviet Union, nuclear and conventional. Helped lead to the downfall and breakup of the Soviet Union. Which led to the freedom of many republics from communist party central control. Its unfortunate that Putin came along to piggyback upon the institutionalized corruption of communism. From the corruption of Russian privatization. Thankfully Poland, E. Germany, etc. managed to shed the corruption of central government controls.

The US and NATO deserve equal credit for this and thankfully there has never been a test of nuclear deterrence, aka MAD.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

...The goal of Kim now is to force the US and the west into accepting NK as a small time nuclear power. This latest summit did nothing much to advance or to slow down this process. It just keeps it slowly moving along. NK did not make the sacrifices needed to get this far to just give up its weapons.

The Great Negotiator has not really had any great effect one way or the other on what the real outcome will be. But he sure has managed to give Kim a great chance to put on a show for the folks back home.

The goal of KJU is to stay in power. Keeping his nukes is only a part of that, although an important part.

 

Trump has done a hell of a lot to help him in that goal. The ground he has given KJU is substantial, and taking it back is going to be difficult if not impossible.

The prestige of sitting down as an equal with the POTUS, the praise, fawning and kowtowing Trump has done, even the 'walking away' from the table. That little stunt made KJU look like the stable, rational adult at the table. 

 

The preliminary crap, where the US said it wasn't going to hold the DPRK accountable for all it's nukes pretty much gave KJU the acceptance he wants. There's virtually no way that the Rest of the World will be able to get him to give them up, now, near future or distant future. 
He's also moving along with his missile program. Supposedly, as part of the 'negotiations', Trump wanted to limit that. Now it's unlikely to happen. 
And the reality is that the DPRK having nukes, or even missiles* isn't that big of a threat. What it does do is make it virtually impossible to 'bring them down'. The threat of nukes makes KJU very secure. Which is what he wants. KJU remembers quite clearly how long Khadaffi lasted after he completely surrendered his nuke program.

 

* - The DPRK 'missile program' is a long, long, loooooong way from being an effective threat. Getting a missile to launch is one thing. Not easy. Re-entry (in one piece) is a lot harder. Accurately targeting the Re-entry vehicle is harder yet. For the DPRK to be able to accurately target, say Hawaii (like the false alarm a while back) will take a lot more development. Development that will cost a lot of money. Possibly more than the DPRK can afford.

[billvon 3,078]

7 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

* - The DPRK 'missile program' is a long, long, loooooong way from being an effective threat. 

He's not an effective threat to US right now.  However, once we have a rational president at the helm, North Korea's ability to threaten our allies will grant North Korea power for decades to come.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

He's not an effective threat to US right now.  However, once we have a rational president at the helm, North Korea's ability to threaten our allies will grant North Korea power for decades to come.

Absolutely. 

He may never be a direct threat to the US. While Russia & China may well sell him missile technology, I think they are doing it more to make money than to destabilize the region. While having KJU be a threat to the US has advantages, the idea that he may actually launch an attack is a 'bad thing'. 

 

But to your point, Trump's idiocy at the 'negotiating table' has given KJU a lot of power. That will not go away quickly or easily. Maybe not at all.

[AlanS 1]

14 hours ago, jakee said:

...

China will not let themselves be forced into betraying an ally by the US, even when it's an ally they don't particularly like. 

 

Perhaps this is the sign that we shouldn't be trading freely with China.     Just saying.

 

Quote

the existential threat to the security and economic wellbeing of the US that would come from another trade war with China

This is wrong.

We buy much from them than they buy from us.  The Communist Party of China needs us to keep its citizens employed and passive. We have done this at the expense of our own industrial-base and citizens that could be working in those factories. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by AlanS

[AlanS 1]

16 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

In what way does the DPRK pose an 'existential threat' to the US?

Handful of nukes, no delivery system, no real navy. 

1

Here is a list of countries that have nuclear weapons and have launched satellites. 

#1) Russia
#2) China
#3) North Korea

Kwangmyongsong-4 or KMS-4 is an earth observation satellite launched by North Korea on 7 February 2016. On February 7, 2016, roughly a month after an alleged hydrogen bomb test, North Korea claimed to have put a satellite into orbit around the Earth.

North Korea will have more than 100 nukes by the end of 2020  And someone recently helped them miniaturize their nuke design so they could fit on the tip of a missile better.  In addition, the unreliable liquid-fuel rockets they use to launch (and we use to laugh at) suddenly were replaced by much more reliable solid-fuel rockets, again with someones clandestine help.

It isn't 2015 any longer. We should not be complacent in thinking we can just shoot these things down.  Even with the most favorable conditions, we test our anti-ballistic missile systems with, the success-rate is depressingly low.  These tests don't even take into account that counter-measures as simple as a mylar balloon - the kind you could buy for a kids birthday party - could fool the radar systems trying to track such missiles. 

And in a real attack, the first nuke likely will be an airburst designed to blind our radar and surveillance systems.   Google "EMP" to understand what that means. 

It would take some luck, but North Korea could with an EMP first strike follow up the launch with something that could hit Seattle or San Francisco or Los Angles.  (The rockets don't need to be that accurate to do an EMP attack or hit a city)

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by AlanS

[jakee 1,564]

1 hour ago, AlanS said:

Perhaps this is the sign that we shouldn't be trading freely with China.     Just saying.

What are you saying, you should only trade with countries you can control? You're not the world boss, y'know