The Korea Situation; It's Very Serious

[Balta1701]

After reading all of the back and forth between everyone the last few days, i think it is very apparent that there is no sure thing reaction to what we are seeing unfold. people on both sides see the possible loss of life, they just see it on separate continents. NK has been trying to gain access to a nuke for a long time, multiple administrations have tried to prevent that, and unfortunately that just was something we could not prevent no matter what. There is no good answer here. We are dealing with a secretive, reclusive, unhinged dictator. The problem now is we have a boorish, loud, unprepared and frankly unqualified president who seems to be fanning the flames of war. Personally, i dont want war first, thinking later. But i dont have an answer. Frankly, nobody knows the answer here, we all are just speculating from the outside with very little knowledge of what is really going on.

 

Hopefully cooler heads can prevail and loss of life can be prevented

Still incorrect, but whatever.

[Kyyle23]

Still incorrect, but whatever.

 

You dont agree with it fine. But they were going to keep trying and they did, and finally got it,

 

But whatever

[Balta1701]

You dont agree with it fine. But they were going to keep trying and they did, and finally got it,

 

But whatever

Well, they offered up a deal where they wouldn't and we accepted it and then we broke that deal first before they did, so "they were going to keep trying" remains only one possibility.

[BigSqwert]

They should just add North Korea to Jared's plate. He's doing a heckuva job in the middle east.

[StrangeSox]

Well, they offered up a deal where they wouldn't and we accepted it and then we broke that deal first before they did, so "they were going to keep trying" remains only one possibility.

 

Then we did another deal and they broke it with a satellite launch and then pulled out when criticized. There's definitely no guarantee an agreement would work.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, they offered up a deal where they wouldn't and we accepted it and then we broke that deal first before they did, so "they were going to keep trying" remains only one possibility.

 

According to this, they never really honored the deal, and the whole thing was based on Clinton and his admn believing that the NK regime would topple once Kim-Il Sung died. Proving once again we have, at best, an unreliable intelligence community or at worst, a poor one.

 

So keep blaming Bush, Republicans in Congress or whomever, but that wasn't a deal that was going to last anyway. They were dead set on getting a nuclear weapon and we let them. They are currently dead set on building a global delivery system and we're letting them.

[GoSox05]

We must stop blaming Bush, poor guy. He's not to blame for anything.

[greg775]

So yeah, I honestly do hope that the people in the DPRK's chain of command for launching nuclear weapons have more power than the people in the US's chain of command. That doesn't mean I think they do, just that I hope they do.

 

e: for reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverythi...hats-by-design/

There is no chain of command. He tells somebody to fire the nuke at Guam and they fire a nuke at Guam. He tells them to fire a nuke at mainland USA, they fire a nuke at USA. If they don't, bullet to the head.

[illinilaw08]

According to this, they never really honored the deal, and the whole thing was based on Clinton and his admn believing that the NK regime would topple once Kim-Il Sung died. Proving once again we have, at best, an unreliable intelligence community or at worst, a poor one.

 

So keep blaming Bush, Republicans in Congress or whomever, but that wasn't a deal that was going to last anyway. They were dead set on getting a nuclear weapon and we let them. They are currently dead set on building a global delivery system and we're letting them.

 

I still tend to think that Jong-Un (and Jong-Il before him) want nukes as a deterrent. In 50+ years of tense standoffs with South Korea, they have never launched all their thousands of artillery at the South. If we expect Jong-Un to act rationally, then he wants the nukes to deter any idea of an invasion because he can create a ton of destruction with a push of a button.

 

Whoever you want to blame, the US's options were diplomacy and sanctions, or war with North Korea. In light of the massive cost to rebuild the Korean peninsula, and the cost in lives lost, both in North and South Korea, I don't blame any American leaders for continuing to push a diplomatic solution over a military solution. And honestly, I think that's still the right course of action today, even though North Korea has a nuke. Using that nuclear weapon will destroy their standing with China, and it will lead to NK's immediate destruction.

 

As a brief aside, American foreign policy since the Korean War makes a pretty compelling case for countries like North Korea to pursue nukes at all cost as a deterrent. Does the US invade Iraq if Iraq already has the bomb? What does our relationship with Pakistan look like if they did not have nukes?

[illinilaw08]

There is no chain of command. He tells somebody to fire the nuke at Guam and they fire a nuke at Guam. He tells them to fire a nuke at mainland USA, they fire a nuke at USA. If they don't, bullet to the head.

 

SS's point is that this is the same system the US has. President Trump can unilaterally decide to fire off a nuke at North Korea at the drop of a hat. There is no chain of command.

[StrangeSox]

There is no chain of command. He tells somebody to fire the nuke at Guam and they fire a nuke at Guam. He tells them to fire a nuke at mainland USA, they fire a nuke at USA. If they don't, bullet to the head.

 

This is identical to the US command-and-control chain for nuclear weapons, except you'd be court martialed and sentenced to prison rather than summarily executed.

 

I want to stress again that the subtext of that initial comment was that we already have a situation where a madman has unilateral and unquestionable control over thousands of nuclear weapons that he can order to be launched on a whim. The only thing to stop him would be a coup.

[Dick Allen]

Oh boy, evil doers makes a comeback. I do endorse assassination as the best of bad choices, but hopefully it could come from someone not American:

 

Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers who preached the morning of his inauguration, has released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to “take out” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

 

“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh boy, evil doers makes a comeback. I do endorse assassination as the best of bad choices, but hopefully it could come from someone not American:

 

Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers who preached the morning of his inauguration, has released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to “take out” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

 

“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”

 

Oh well that solves it.

[Dick Allen]

Oh well that solves it.

The question I have is since Trump sort of threatened NK with nukes, couldn't it work the other way where God has now given authority to take Trump out?

[RockRaines]

The question I have is since Trump sort of threatened NK with nukes, couldn't it work the other way where God has now given authority to take Trump out?

Evangelical's think god is american

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's what I've been trying to convey, put better by someone else:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45030...le-negotiations

 

But here’s the thing: If you go into negotiations with an enemy who sees negotiations as nothing more than a stalling tactic (or shakedown operation) in its pursuit of a goal, then you have to decide how far you’ll take negotiations. There will always be loud and large constituencies insisting there is more time to talk. There will always be strong forces encouraging leaders to kick-the-can to some future administration. If you don’t decide before you enter negotiations what you want from negotiations, all you are doing is negotiating for more negotiations while your opponent is negotiating for more time in pursuit of a concrete goal. In the meantime, their position becomes stronger and ours weaker, which means future negotiations are less likely to yield more desirable outcomes.

 

 

[GoSox05]

I was just reading that. Jonah Goldberg, Eli Lake. I like that all the pro-Iraq war journalists are back to sell us another war.

 

Goldberg also mentions Iran in that article. I guess we will have to bomb Iran as well.

 

Can never have enough wars in my opinion.

[StrangeSox]

counterpoint: neoconservative foreign policy has failed spectacularly everywhere it has been tried, and there will always be loud and large constituencies insisting there is no more time to talk. There will always be strong forces encouraging leaders to bomb now. If you don't realize what you're actually doing and what you want the end result to be before you enter a country, all you are doing is causing mass death and suffering.

 

I mean that paragraph without additional context could very easily come from an NRO article in late 2002 or early 2003. Or one written about Iranian negotiations.

[StrangeSox]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnhudson/trump-h...o9k9#.jqZ8LNr5r

 

For months, national security experts have warned that the large number of unfilled positions at the State Department risked putting the United States in jeopardy in the event of a crisis. Now, with North Korea threatening war and a new US intelligence finding that Pyongyang has succeeded in miniaturizing a nuclear bomb, a crisis has arrived, and President Donald Trump has yet to name a US ambassador to South Korea.

 

“The South Koreans are wondering why Japan, China, Singapore and other Asian countries have an ambassador in place, but they do not,” said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There is no representative of the president in country to ensure smooth communications.”

 

[RockRaines]

Here's what I've been trying to convey, put better by someone else:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45030...le-negotiations

So your plan is just invade immediately?

[BigSqwert]

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account

@kylegriffin1

 

PYONGYANG (AP) — North Korea says it will complete plan to attack waters near Guam by mid-August then wait for commander in chief's order

3:17 PM - 9 Aug 2017

 

Link

 

And LOL at the first comment.

[bmags]

B.S. artists at the height of their game.

[Jake]

The best solution will require leadership that isn't afraid to look weak and is pragmatic enough to allow some of our past statements about redlines, etc. to be contradicted. You will need to give NK things. By now, you will likely need to allow them to have some nuclear capability. The only thing they care about is their continued existence and in the absence of any other arrangements, they have spent the last 30 years trying to get nukes to ensure their continued existence because one does not typically invade nuclear powers. We had a chance in the 1990s when we stalled their nuclear program in exchange for some material goods, but we eventually pulled out of that deal as Congressional Rs complained about "bailouts" and such.

 

A couple of good reads:

 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/north-...y-defense-21671 (by the guy whose children interrupted his live BBC interview)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-...th-north-korea/

[Balta1701]

According to this, they never really honored the deal, and the whole thing was based on Clinton and his admn believing that the NK regime would topple once Kim-Il Sung died. Proving once again we have, at best, an unreliable intelligence community or at worst, a poor one.

 

So keep blaming Bush, Republicans in Congress or whomever, but that wasn't a deal that was going to last anyway. They were dead set on getting a nuclear weapon and we let them. They are currently dead set on building a global delivery system and we're letting them.

Starting in 1994, the United States was to begin funding 2 light water nuclear reactors in North Korea, the sort that could not be used for weapons construction. Japan and South Korea were to assist. The President could agree to that, but Congress refused the funds. Therefore, an absolutely straightforward case is that the United States broke that deal first.

 

The North had what was still a rudimentary uranium enrichment program in 2002. They admitted it when challenged, and then got to work reprocessing their plutonium for bombs. The plutonium route was vastly easier - the Uranium route was not even as far along as Iran's at the time and Iran needed another 15 years to get close. In 1994 Bill Clinton stated he was willing to go to war if North Korea attempted to reprocess that plutonium. That was the red line. In 2003, we had other priorities when they started reprocessing it. Literally all of their bombs are plutonium bombs - it would have taken another decade+ of work for them to get anywhere near a uranium bomb. They did not make any worthwhile progress from 1994-2002, and then made rapid progress from 2003-2005, because the deal would have worked. We could have traded those fuel rods for the reactors and we broke that agreement. If we got those rods out of the country they would not have a bomb today, regardless of their uranium program attempts. That is what negotiation does - you don't have to agree about everything, but you say "here's a red line we'll do this if you don't cross this".

 

As long as we are ok with a nuclear armed North Korea, we should continue treating any negotiation as appeasement. The end result is what we see here.

[caulfield12]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...story-215473And

What Trump needs to know about North Korea's history