|
Willo567 posted:So if Bolton is placed in the White House, should we kiss our asses goodbye? If Bolton ends up as NSA along with Pompeo as SecState I think that pretty well confirms that we're moving towards more standard hawk-ish Republican foreign policy.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Are there any reasons that actually benefit us normal Americans, That is utterly and completely irrelevant, North Korea's not benefited normal Koreans in at least 25 years either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:If Bolton ends up as NSA along with Pompeo as SecState I think that pretty well confirms that we're moving towards more standard hawk-ish Republican foreign policy. They’re extreme, not standard. Even in W’s administration Bolton was too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Mozi posted:They’re extreme, not standard. Even in W’s administration Bolton was too much. So we're all hosed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Are there any reasons that actually benefit us normal Americans, or anyone else aside from defense contractors? Something something washington consensus, something something the plebes don't know what's good for them. Ironically, this is why trump won.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/973623540384718848 I am going to Korea in april and this is stressing me out
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So we're all hosed? As much as we shouldn't encourage you yeah it would be bad. I was starting to wonder whether North Korea's laggardness on responding to the Trump meeting offer was because they were wondering if the administration was just going to implode over petty bullshit in the next week and well...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Mozi posted:They’re extreme, not standard. Even in W’s administration Bolton was too much. Pompeo is a radical too. I'm not saying that they're normal, I'm saying that choosing both of them means that Trump (or other people in his administration more likely) is shifting towards the hawkish end of the foreign policy spectrum. I wasn't trying to underplay how bad it is that these people are being put into positions of power. It's bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:As much as we shouldn't encourage you yeah it would be bad. I was starting to wonder whether North Korea's laggardness on responding to the Trump meeting offer was because they were wondering if the administration was just going to implode over petty bullshit in the next week and well... Or worse, they (Trump admin) plan to tank the talks on purpose and say "Oops, looks like diplomacy is over"
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 04:05
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Or worse, they (Trump admin) plan to tank the talks on purpose and say "Oops, looks like diplomacy is over" That at least appears to be Bolton's plan. That's why a lot of the doves are iffy about the talks and the hawks are supporting it. Because it'll be looked at as the excuse needed to finally scrap diplomacy and go to war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:As much as we shouldn't encourage you yeah it would be bad. I was starting to wonder whether North Korea's laggardness on responding to the Trump meeting offer was because they were wondering if the administration was just going to implode over petty bullshit in the next week and well... Honestly not surprising. I'm far from a fan of the North Korean dictatorship, but imagine extending an offer for peace talks and seeing the president, White House, and random staffers publicly fighting over the official response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So we're all hosed? Well we’re all still here for now, so I guess it could be worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TimothyS/status/974406279342051335
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I am going to Korea in april and this is stressing me out For how long? It takes quite a while to mass a ton of combat power. Chin up!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
So I came across this short documentary after seeing that Koreans drink so much: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNfJExx4UfM EDIT - Soju is only $1 per bottle!? Jesus Christ that's cheap. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
If I lived in Seoul, one of the most expensive cities in the world in a country with a low minimum wage and a Silicon Valley style cult of pointless workaholism, I'd probably drink myself blind all the time too. Supporting military dictatorships as a bulwark against  Communism is a real bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Kim Jong-un has committed to denuclearisation, says South Korea of course serious liberals and the resident state dept. employees around here will show up and say its really Kim that is the bad faith actor and not the big imperialist country gearing up to invade NK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Hmm, I thought North Korea needed nuclear weapons to protect itself against foreign invasion by the Americans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Most of this is still being announced through the South Koreans, who have their own domestic political motivations to keep everything as rosy and cheerful as possible. There's also been some rumors making the rounds through the journalistic circuit that Kim was really, really drunk when he made these super big proposals (direct meetings, denuclearization) to the South's high level envoys, so there's some concern that he might not actually have meant it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
"... and you believed him?" asks everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
And the terms for denuclearization might be denuclearizing the entire peninsula and a drawdown of the US military in exchange which Trump wouldn't agree too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
The US hasn't had nuclear weapons on the peninsula for years, though. We have island territories like Guam to store politically inconvenient stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:"... and you believed him?" asks everyone else. I don't see how they have any worse of a track record than the US, who broke over 370 treaties with various american indian tribes in a rush to genocide them
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:There's also been some rumors making the rounds through the journalistic circuit that Kim was really, really drunk when he made these super big proposals (direct meetings, denuclearization) to the South's high level envoys, so there's some concern that he might not actually have meant it. If that's true it has the potential to be one of the biggest 'Whoopsies' moments in world history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I don't see how they have any worse of a track record than the US, who broke over 370 treaties with various american indian tribes in a rush to genocide them
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:And the terms for denuclearization might be denuclearizing the entire peninsula and a drawdown of the US military in exchange which Trump wouldn't agree too. So one thing that happened decades ago and one thing that's been slowly going on for 50 years. We had over 900 nukes stationed in South Korea in the late 60s at peak, there's been 0 since late 1991
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:А у вас негров линчуют. Almost like those who constantly cry about whataboutism are guilty of pot kettle attacks themselves
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So one thing that happened decades ago and one thing that's been slowly going on for 50 years. This is an oddly fitting place to get mincey over stuff that happened decades/centuries ago, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:This is an oddly fitting place to get mincey over stuff that happened decades/centuries ago, though. My point being that giving up nukes in exchange for those two things would be giving them up for no gain at all. Kim Jong Il could have gotten the same results never continuing with the nuke program in the 90s and spending more cash on movies, and have Kim Jong Un sitting with more cash for whatever he's into.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:We had over 900 nukes stationed in South Korea in the late 60s at peak, there's been 0 since late 1991 I should have been more clear. Japan has the capability to build a nuclear weapon and the United States has sub-launched ballistic missile submarines that could be in the theater. North Korea could realistically call for Japan to eliminate its capability to produce weapons-grade plutonium and for the United States to not operate its missile subs in the area, station bombers in the area that could carry nuclear weapons, etc. In other words, a complete denuclearization would mean no one could have any nukes, nuclear weapons capabilities, or nuclear weapon delivery systems in the area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I came across this short documentary after seeing that Koreans drink so much: No more thoughts on this? What are the drawbacks of so much drinking? Is it as grim as the documentary makes it look?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So if Bolton is placed in the White House, should we kiss our asses goodbye? We're probably only going to have one big war and Pompeo wants one with Iran. So, it depends who wins the behind the scenes battle for Trump's ear. Maybe Mattis will try to play them off each other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
They made soju like $1.25 and old people were kinda mad
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
It seems very easy for the DPRK leadership to say they're committed to denuclearization without just being liars, per se. Just attach impossible demands to that condition that you know full well the US and ROK won't accept. Meanwhile, the US has upped the amount of missile defense forward stationed in Korea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
The DPRK has consistently stated that they pursue nuclear weapons to defend from American aggression (inherent in basing troops on the peninsula and possessing nuclear weapons ourselves), so I would expect that at the very least withdrawal of troops to be a precondition for moving forward on denuclearization. Thing is - some people are worrying about what happens if the meeting goes poorly, but I worry that Trump will be played by Kim and the end result will follow what Bannon said in his interview with The Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/steve-bannon-unrepentant posted:Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. ... I am certain that North Korea read that quote with interest back then. Trump doesn't care about having troops over there in the first place and would probably happily give that up for a win. And to be sure I'm glad we are not still talking about the immanence of war every day - but North Korea is a really terrible place for many reasons above and beyond their nuclear program, and this will lock in that progress at the same time as elevating them back to the status of a normal country, and who knows how that will play out going forward. I did read that North Korea offered to release the three held Americans as part of the talks offer, and if true that is both a) good news, certainly and b) makes this all seem more likely to happen, and that the radio silence on NK's part now is not a sign that they didn't intend for this to happen. Mozi fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Trump doesn't care about having troops over there in the first place and would probably happily give that up for a win. Why would you think this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
I think it is probable that the North Koreans would be willing to move "forward" with denuclearization by stopping tests and maybe even shutting down their reactor in exchange for some concessions, but I honestly doubt they would actually give all of their nukes or launch systems up. I mean why would they when they are already making some progress by just talking about it? The weapons themselves are their ace in the hole so to speak, and it makes far more sense to talk about then them to actually get rid of them (especially after they got to the point where they have now have some real leverage).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Also, the US is probably not the only reason NK wants to have nuclear weapons. The weapons make it harder for China to bully them around or destabilize them and they give diplomatic leverage against the SK government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I should have been more clear. Japan has the capability to build a nuclear weapon and the United States has sub-launched ballistic missile submarines that could be in the theater. North Korea could realistically call for Japan to eliminate its capability to produce weapons-grade plutonium and for the United States to not operate its missile subs in the area, station bombers in the area that could carry nuclear weapons, etc. I don't think North Korea is ever going to get China or Russia to remove nuclear weapons from the area, meanwhile nuclear submarines can already strike North Korea from pretty much anywhere on the planet, and in fact most of the US nuclear capability on subs is of the ICBM type. So it's honestly better for them to blow up Pyongyang if they're out a little ways. Also its a bit much to ask the US to have no bombers at all in the area. While simultaneously I'll remind you we had nuclear capable bombers doing conventional runs on Baghdad from the middle of Nevada direct in the opening stages of the Iraq War. Point being that you're not getting any actual lack of "nuclear capability" in the area unless you disarm the top 3 nuclear powers completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Also, the US is probably not the only reason NK wants to have nuclear weapons. The weapons make it harder for China to bully them around or destabilize them and they give them diplomatic leverage against the SK government. I don't think nukes affect China that much, China still plenty of economic pull over North Korea and NK is still reliant on them for the vast majority of imports. Also, China absolutely at least assisted them by providing launchers (why provide technical assistance to a program that threatens you?) But yeah leverage on SK/Japan is certainly useful though. I wonder if Kim is going to push primarily for economic concessions from SK and try to get the Kaesong factories up and running again and maybe even open some bilateral trade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 15:24
|
|