Jump to content

The US and Korea


RomaVicta

Recommended Posts

Welp.. nothing ventured nothing gained.  Good effort.  Sanction the shit out of them again (I don't know if we rescinded any to begin with) and move on.  They aren't ready to come to the world table and you can't force them to.  
Jaggy more like. Keep hoping in one hand and shitting in the other and see which one fills up first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much. NK needs another 20 years before they can even be approached. Maybe longer. We’ll have every president talk about it and eventually try it (if they are 2 term guys) but nothing is going to happen until the Un family is done. 

Ubfortunate. Isolate kindly and don’t provoke and let their economy do it’s thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Once again, Elton John fails to bring peace to the world. 

 

1 hour ago, Jhawk said:

Pretty much. NK needs another 20 years before they can even be approached. Maybe longer. We’ll have every president talk about it and eventually try it (if they are 2 term guys) but nothing is going to happen until the Un family is done. 

Ubfortunate. Isolate kindly and don’t provoke and let their economy do it’s thing. 

No you’re wrong. Trump said he fixed it. Were you not listening? What’s the matter with you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The commander-in-chief confirmed on Tuesday that he has a copy of a CD containing Elton John’s “Rocket Man” for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but Secretary of State Pompeo did not deliver the album during his recent trip to Pyongyang.

“They didn't give it. I have it for him. They didn't give it. But it will be given at a different period,” Trump told reporters at the White House before leaving for a trip to Europe for a NATO summit, a stop in England and a controversial sitdown with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump nicknamed Kim “Rocket Man” last year as tensions ran high and North Korea upped its missile and nuclear tests.

The President added that he has a little something in store for his Russian counterpart as well.

“I actually do have a little gift for him, but you'll find out what that gift is when I give it,” he said when asked if he has any gifts for Putin.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-trump-rocket-man-putin-gift-20180710-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I actually do have a little gift for him, but you'll find out what that gift is when I give it,” he said when asked if he has any gifts for Putin.

Narrator: It was Crimea...and an assortment of flavored lubricants that they could try together later that night. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


“I actually do have a little gift for him, but you'll find out what that gift is when I give it,” he said when asked if he has any gifts for Putin.

Narrator: It was Crimea...and an assortment of flavored lubricants that they could try together later that night. 

Maybe. I was thinking something more along the lines of the keys to the White House.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Pompeo's North Korea meeting went 'as badly as it could have gone'

Quote
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's overnight visit to Pyongyang last week failed to demonstrate any progress on denuclearization talks, leading one source with knowledge of the discussions to say the White House felt it went "as badly as it could have gone."
"The North Koreans were just messing around, not serious about moving forward," the source told CNN's Michelle Kosinski, adding that Pompeo had been promised a meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, and so not getting that meeting sent a big message.
 
 
"By now it's abundantly clear that this approach is a dead end," said Adam Mount, a senior fellow and director of the Defense Posture Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where he covers US nuclear strategy, deterrence and North Korea.

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/pompeo-north-korea-intl/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, deech said:

Imagine that.  Starting a trade war with China was not the best strategy for trying to accomplish something with North Korea.  Shocking

On the bright side, Trump's moronic strategy towards NK was going to fail even without the trade war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I spend a week every year with a cousin by marriage who is one of our country's go-to guys on North Korea.  He's met Kim more than once, has toured certain nuclear facilities, negotiated for hostage releases, the whole deal.  He has briefed folks in the current administration several times.  He just got back from a recent meeting with one of the other nations that took part in the six party talks back in the day.

He had both positives and negatives to say about where we are.

1 -- The DPRK is a nuclear power.  It is going to remain a nuclear power.   They are never going to give up their weapons, and why would they?  Truly, we're the only nation that seems to still have that as a goal.

2 -- now that they have nukes, they're probably SAFER to deal with than they were before.  They're not scared.  Everyone in the room has a gun, now they do too.  That makes them feel much less nervous.

So, what should our goals be?  Most importantly, limit the number of nukes that they have.  That means letting them keep the weapons they have, but having them surrender fissile material and plutonium.  IF you have a limited number of nukes, the games you can play are limited.  If you have 100, you can play much more dangerous games (survive a first strike, counterstrike selected targets, and still have more weapons for a second counterstrike).

How do we get there?  Well, it's a slow game, like it always has been. We  could trade a relaxation of sanctions, but that cat's already out of the bag (at least by South Korea and China).  Honestly, we don't have a whole lot of leverage -- Trump gave it away.

BUT,  he also gave credit for Trump.  Sure, he'd have much preferred that  he went into the summit prepared, having spent time negotiating a pre-packaged deal that ended the war, expressed a commitment to denuclearize the peninsula, and actually had the DPRK surrender some fissile material (and of course, formal relaxation of some sanctions).  But he did say that only a Republican could meet with Kim, and an outlier like Trump was the kind of guy who could  do it.  And, even if no concrete terms were agreed to, the relationship created and general  commitments made should mean no war in the near future (and that's, you know, a good thing).

He also observed that Pompeo's recent visit was a disaster, mostly because the admin wasn't listening to the experts.  Pompeo went to North Korea thinking he was going to meet with Kim.  He didn't, and it was embarrassing.  And the DPRK has the upper hand right now.  They can slow-play all of their "commitments," and there's not much we can do about it.

Good news: war unlikely.

Bad news: negotiations with this new nuclear power will take strategy and finesse, and the admin has demonstrated neither.

So, there you go.  I plied him with several good Ballast Point beers to get this info.  Enjoy.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, I spend a week every year with a cousin by marriage who is one of our country's go-to guys on North Korea.  He's met Kim more than once, has toured certain nuclear facilities, negotiated for hostage releases, the whole deal.  He has briefed folks in the current administration several times.  He just got back from a recent meeting with one of the other nations that took part in the six party talks back in the day.

He had both positives and negatives to say about where we are.

1 -- The DPRK is a nuclear power.  It is going to remain a nuclear power.   They are never going to give up their weapons, and why would they?  Truly, we're the only nation that seems to still have that as a goal.

2 -- now that they have nukes, they're probably SAFER to deal with than they were before.  They're not scared.  Everyone in the room has a gun, now they do too.  That makes them feel much less nervous.

So, what should our goals be?  Most importantly, limit the number of nukes that they have.  That means letting them keep the weapons they have, but having them surrender fissile material and plutonium.  IF you have a limited number of nukes, the games you can play are limited.  If you have 100, you can play much more dangerous games (survive a first strike, counterstrike selected targets, and still have more weapons for a second counterstrike).

How do we get there?  Well, it's a slow game, like it always has been. We  could trade a relaxation of sanctions, but that cat's already out of the bag (at least by South Korea and China).  Honestly, we don't have a whole lot of leverage -- Trump gave it away.

BUT,  he also gave credit for Trump.  Sure, he'd have much preferred that  he went into the summit prepared, having spent time negotiating a pre-packaged deal that ended the war, expressed a commitment to denuclearize the peninsula, and actually had the DPRK surrender some fissile material (and of course, formal relaxation of some sanctions).  But he did say that only a Republican could meet with Kim, and an outlier like Trump was the kind of guy who could  do it.  And, even if no concrete terms were agreed to, the relationship created and general  commitments made should mean no war in the near future (and that's, you know, a good thing).

He also observed that Pompeo's recent visit was a disaster, mostly because the admin wasn't listening to the experts.  Pompeo went to North Korea thinking he was going to meet with Kim.  He didn't, and it was embarrassing.  And the DPRK has the upper hand right now.  They can slow-play all of their "commitments," and there's not much we can do about it.

Good news: war unlikely.

Bad news: negotiations with this new nuclear power will take strategy and finesse, and the admin has demonstrated neither.

So, there you go.  I plied him with several good Ballast Point beers to get this info.  Enjoy.

Good info.

What leverage do you think the US lost? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I spend a week every year with a cousin by marriage who is one of our country's go-to guys on North Korea.  He's met Kim more than once, has toured certain nuclear facilities, negotiated for hostage releases, the whole deal.  He has briefed folks in the current administration several times.  He just got back from a recent meeting with one of the other nations that took part in the six party talks back in the day.
He had both positives and negatives to say about where we are.
1 -- The DPRK is a nuclear power.  It is going to remain a nuclear power.   They are never going to give up their weapons, and why would they?  Truly, we're the only nation that seems to still have that as a goal.
2 -- now that they have nukes, they're probably SAFER to deal with than they were before.  They're not scared.  Everyone in the room has a gun, now they do too.  That makes them feel much less nervous.
So, what should our goals be?  Most importantly, limit the number of nukes that they have.  That means letting them keep the weapons they have, but having them surrender fissile material and plutonium.  IF you have a limited number of nukes, the games you can play are limited.  If you have 100, you can play much more dangerous games (survive a first strike, counterstrike selected targets, and still have more weapons for a second counterstrike).
How do we get there?  Well, it's a slow game, like it always has been. We  could trade a relaxation of sanctions, but that cat's already out of the bag (at least by South Korea and China).  Honestly, we don't have a whole lot of leverage -- Trump gave it away.
BUT,  he also gave credit for Trump.  Sure, he'd have much preferred that  he went into the summit prepared, having spent time negotiating a pre-packaged deal that ended the war, expressed a commitment to denuclearize the peninsula, and actually had the DPRK surrender some fissile material (and of course, formal relaxation of some sanctions).  But he did say that only a Republican could meet with Kim, and an outlier like Trump was the kind of guy who could  do it.  And, even if no concrete terms were agreed to, the relationship created and general  commitments made should mean no war in the near future (and that's, you know, a good thing).
He also observed that Pompeo's recent visit was a disaster, mostly because the admin wasn't listening to the experts.  Pompeo went to North Korea thinking he was going to meet with Kim.  He didn't, and it was embarrassing.  And the DPRK has the upper hand right now.  They can slow-play all of their "commitments," and there's not much we can do about it.
Good news: war unlikely.
Bad news: negotiations with this new nuclear power will take strategy and finesse, and the admin has demonstrated neither.
So, there you go.  I plied him with several good Ballast Point beers to get this info.  Enjoy.


Incredible post. Fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackmarketbaby said:

Good info.

What leverage do you think the US lost? 

The biggest thing we had to offer was the meeting itself.  Giving Kim the opportunity to meet with an American President and shake his hand as an equal.  And we gave it away without getting anything concrete in return.  

We don't have a whole lot more to offer them.  We have some bits and pieces (again, relaxing sanctions, maybe supporting them joining up with the IMF, etc.), but those are piecemeal things.  The prize was the meeting, and we could and should have gotten more from it (which we might have done, had we planned it in advance, and had pre-meeting negotiations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The biggest thing we had to offer was the meeting itself.  Giving Kim the opportunity to meet with an American President and shake his hand as an equal.  And we gave it away without getting anything concrete in return.  

We don't have a whole lot more to offer them.  We have some bits and pieces (again, relaxing sanctions, maybe supporting them joining up with the IMF, etc.), but those are piecemeal things.  The prize was the meeting, and we could and should have gotten more from it (which we might have done, had we planned it in advance, and had pre-meeting negotiations).

Where is the leverage though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like we were stood up by the NORKS about securing our fallen soldiers remains. The same remains Trump has already claimed we've gotten back. And the same remains that a bunch of 147 years old parents have been asking Trump about at his rallies. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

So, I spend a week every year with a cousin by marriage who is one of our country's go-to guys on North Korea.  He's met Kim more than once, has toured certain nuclear facilities, negotiated for hostage releases, the whole deal.  He has briefed folks in the current administration several times.  He just got back from a recent meeting with one of the other nations that took part in the six party talks back in the day.

He had both positives and negatives to say about where we are.

1 -- The DPRK is a nuclear power.  It is going to remain a nuclear power.   They are never going to give up their weapons, and why would they?  Truly, we're the only nation that seems to still have that as a goal.

2 -- now that they have nukes, they're probably SAFER to deal with than they were before.  They're not scared.  Everyone in the room has a gun, now they do too.  That makes them feel much less nervous.

So, what should our goals be?  Most importantly, limit the number of nukes that they have.  That means letting them keep the weapons they have, but having them surrender fissile material and plutonium.  IF you have a limited number of nukes, the games you can play are limited.  If you have 100, you can play much more dangerous games (survive a first strike, counterstrike selected targets, and still have more weapons for a second counterstrike).

 How do we get there?  Well, it's a slow game, like it always has been. We  could trade a relaxation of sanctions, but that cat's already out of the bag (at least by South Korea and China).  Honestly, we don't have a whole lot of leverage -- Trump gave it away.

 BUT,  he also gave credit for Trump.  Sure, he'd have much preferred that  he went into the summit prepared, having spent time negotiating a pre-packaged deal that ended the war, expressed a commitment to denuclearize the peninsula, and actually had the DPRK surrender some fissile material (and of course, formal relaxation of some sanctions).  But he did say that only a Republican could meet with Kim, and an outlier like Trump was the kind of guy who could  do it.  And, even if no concrete terms were agreed to, the relationship created and general  commitments made should mean no war in the near future (and that's, you know, a good thing).

He also observed that Pompeo's recent visit was a disaster, mostly because the admin wasn't listening to the experts.  Pompeo went to North Korea thinking he was going to meet with Kim.  He didn't, and it was embarrassing.  And the DPRK has the upper hand right now.  They can slow-play all of their "commitments," and there's not much we can do about it.

Good news: war unlikely.

Bad news: negotiations with this new nuclear power will take strategy and finesse, and the admin has demonstrated neither.

So, there you go.  I plied him with several good Ballast Point beers to get this info.  Enjoy.

So basically all of us libtards here were right about this situation all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically all of us libtards here were right about this situation all along.


It sure looks like it. I’m here to acknowledge that my mild optimism about his actions wrt North Korea was misplaced. In retrospect, I can’t believe I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I should have known by now that there is no redeeming quality in this man. #teamanyonebuttrump.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I spend a week every year with a cousin by marriage who is one of our country's go-to guys on North Korea.  He's met Kim more than once, has toured certain nuclear facilities, negotiated for hostage releases, the whole deal.  He has briefed folks in the current administration several times.  He just got back from a recent meeting with one of the other nations that took part in the six party talks back in the day.
He had both positives and negatives to say about where we are.
1 -- The DPRK is a nuclear power.  It is going to remain a nuclear power.   They are never going to give up their weapons, and why would they?  Truly, we're the only nation that seems to still have that as a goal.
2 -- now that they have nukes, they're probably SAFER to deal with than they were before.  They're not scared.  Everyone in the room has a gun, now they do too.  That makes them feel much less nervous.
So, what should our goals be?  Most importantly, limit the number of nukes that they have.  That means letting them keep the weapons they have, but having them surrender fissile material and plutonium.  IF you have a limited number of nukes, the games you can play are limited.  If you have 100, you can play much more dangerous games (survive a first strike, counterstrike selected targets, and still have more weapons for a second counterstrike).
How do we get there?  Well, it's a slow game, like it always has been. We  could trade a relaxation of sanctions, but that cat's already out of the bag (at least by South Korea and China).  Honestly, we don't have a whole lot of leverage -- Trump gave it away.
BUT,  he also gave credit for Trump.  Sure, he'd have much preferred that  he went into the summit prepared, having spent time negotiating a pre-packaged deal that ended the war, expressed a commitment to denuclearize the peninsula, and actually had the DPRK surrender some fissile material (and of course, formal relaxation of some sanctions).  But he did say that only a Republican could meet with Kim, and an outlier like Trump was the kind of guy who could  do it.  And, even if no concrete terms were agreed to, the relationship created and general  commitments made should mean no war in the near future (and that's, you know, a good thing).
He also observed that Pompeo's recent visit was a disaster, mostly because the admin wasn't listening to the experts.  Pompeo went to North Korea thinking he was going to meet with Kim.  He didn't, and it was embarrassing.  And the DPRK has the upper hand right now.  They can slow-play all of their "commitments," and there's not much we can do about it.
Good news: war unlikely.
Bad news: negotiations with this new nuclear power will take strategy and finesse, and the admin has demonstrated neither.
So, there you go.  I plied him with several good Ballast Point beers to get this info.  Enjoy.


Any discussions on the risk they pose in selling nukes or nuke related knowledge and technology to other problematic states?

Why could only a Republican meet with Kim?

Has he briefed past administrations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good questions, and I actually have answers (we discussed the first two, and yes, he’s been one of our leading experts in the field for 20+ years, so he’s briefed both W and Obama as well, not to mention the relevant Senate committees).

After our enchiladas y mas fix, I’ll follow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Any discussions on the risk they pose in selling nukes or nuke related knowledge and technology to other problematic states?

Why could only a Republican meet with Kim?


Ok, some answers:

The risk of them transferring nukes to other actors is low, but real. That’s a big reason behind our policy goal (again, maybe not the admin’s, but it’s long been a US goal, and Russia actually shares that goal) to get them to hand over fissile material and plutonium in particular; as I mentioned above, limiting them to a lower number of nukes (say the 10-25 they may have) keeps them in a certain range of actions. They can’t keep a large amount in reserve for a secondary counter strike. And they aren’t likely to give any of those away. If they have 150 nukes, and/or the materials for them, then it might be worthwhile for them to sell one.

So, our goal should be to 1) keep them at the current number of weapons, and 2) get them to give up their bomb making materials that aren’t currently in weapons. My cousin was particularly annoyed that we blew an opportunity for option 2).

As for why only a Republican can meet with Kim...political reality. Remember “only Nixon could go to China.” A dem president would have faced too much political heat for meeting with a commie bad guy; the GOP Congress would have made sure of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's cool.  The Trump supporters here assured us that Trump's magnificent policies had forced Kim to crawl to the bargaining table and give up his nukes, or else his regime wouldn't last six months before the people of NK revolt.   So we only have another couple of months until Kim falls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this was so extremely fucking predictable, evidenced by the fact that most of us predicted every aspect of this from the start of this thread and its predecessor threads.   Yet we were just "rooting for war" according to the Trump cultists who substitute faith in Trump for critical thinking.   The worst thing is, it's like this on virtually every issue Trump is involved with.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...