|
fishmech posted: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. This is a pretty solid rundown on why the idea of "denuclearize the region" doesn't really make sense, unless what you really mean is "no nukes for DPRK."
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/thenation/status/971058880645091328 A reminder that there's basically no non-imperialist reason to keep them there
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Well what does polling in South Korea look like over the issue?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Coincidentally the denuclearization of North Korea following removal of all US nukes from the peninsula was one of the agreements made between the Korea's back in the late 80's. When the US nukes all got removed they just kinda didn't denuclearize. They probably didn't really think the US would ever do it, because they didn't figure on the Cold War ending. It'd be great if it happens, but NK's history of actually sticking to agreements with SK is pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Coincidentally the denuclearization of North Korea following removal of all US nukes from the peninsula was one of the agreements made between the Korea's back in the late 80's. When the US nukes all got removed they just kinda didn't denuclearize. Which is why I suspect force will be used to disarm them if they don't "come through" during these talks. They have a history of proliferating and therefore will not be allowed to keep nuclear weapons or continue developing delivery systems. Even if it means lots of dead civilians in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Coincidentally the denuclearization of North Korea following removal of all US nukes from the peninsula was one of the agreements made between the Korea's back in the late 80's. When the US nukes all got removed they just kinda didn't denuclearize. What agreement specifically are you referring to? The Arms Control Association for example, describes the withdrawal of nukes as a unilateral action by George Bush Sr. and not part of any formal negotiation. quote:September 27, 1991: President George Bush announces the unilateral withdrawal of all naval and land-based tactical nuclear weapons deployed abroad. Approximately 100 U.S. nuclear weapons had been based in South Korea. Eight days later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev reciprocates. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Granted, in reality, it would be a ridiculously bad deal for the North Koreans to get rid of their entire program because the US technically got nukes off the peninsula (and obviously kept hundreds of nukes elsewhere). It is just one of those things that never was going to happen.Chadderbox posted:Which is why I suspect force will be used to disarm them if they don't "come through" during these talks. They have a history of proliferating and therefore will not be allowed to keep nuclear weapons or continue developing delivery systems. Even if it means lots of dead civilians in the short term. I would say the risk of war (which I don't think was particularly high) is even less after to sit at the table with them, even if they cheat. If anything Trump is coming to the table because the administration is out of relative options beyond nuclear war. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:What agreement specifically are you referring to? Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula ^Of course. They never intended to do it, hence making demands they figured would never be met. That's been part for the course - the goal being extracting concessions without making any. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula uhh, you have your timeline all mixed up. The nukes were withdrawn before that agreement was signed quote:1991
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:uhh, you have your timeline all mixed up. The nukes were withdrawn before that agreement was signed You understand that the talks didn't start when the agreement was signed, right? It was a major point in SK/NK denuclearization talks for quite a while. And yeah, the agreement amounted to nothing. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:You understand that the talks didn't start when the agreement was signed, right? I understand that, however you presented the withdrawal of nukes from SK as a part of that agreement which it clearly could not have been
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I understand that, however you presented the withdrawal of nukes from SK as a part of that agreement which it clearly could not have been It could have been and was. No nuclear weapons in South Korea/the peninsula as a whole was written into the agreement despite the removals already taking place (and North Korea not having any at the time) because the removal of them was a central demand North Korea had been making in the talks leading up to the agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Coincidentally the denuclearization of North Korea following removal of all US nukes from the peninsula was one of the agreements made between the Korea's back in the late 80's. When the US nukes all got removed they just kinda didn't denuclearize. North Korea didn't have nukes of their own at all until this century, so the peninsula had no nukes on it for most of the 90s and into the 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Wait I'm confused. Here it says the WHO states that South Korean's drink only a bit more than Americans. But here it says they drink twice as much shots as the second country. What gives? I guess SK takes shouts a lot but doesn't drink beer much?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted: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?) I think China is the key, and I suspect they're looking at taking the lead in resolving this North Korean situation. And this is because the US has no firm diplomatic position other than Trump's barking-dog bluster (including what our bigger interests are on the peninsula, past the immediate nuclear crisis), which creates an "opportunity in chaos" moment for the Chinese leadership. So they can sidle up to Kim behind the scenes and offer up enticements like military protection, being pretty hands-off about how Kim runs things, economic perks (including some brokering with South Korea for trade deal, like you mention), negotiating a reduction or elimination of sanctions, and so forth. Kim remains in power for the foreseeable future, everyone breathes easier, and North Korea gets a new lease on life as a formal client state for China (which I don't think China would mind, if it gives them prestige and influence regionally and globally). The US has less reason to be in East Asia, too, which is a win for China. And on the other hand, they can say "But if you don't do the logical thing, we can still throw in with everyone else who is mad at you and make you pay for continuing to be idiotic, with impunity." And with how malleable Trump is, China could probably play him into all manner of agreements and concessions. I don't know, it's all guesses for grabs still, but I know that if I was Kim, I would probably be engaging with China for as good of a bargain as I could get, and let the (already nominal) sovereignty of North Korea get hosed. It might even be a "turn around" for Kim as a leader, since the US has devolved further into a geopolitical "heel" role with Trump (so we're not well liked), while everyone loves a feel-good redemption story of a tyrant who becomes enlightened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Which is why I suspect force will be used to disarm them if they don't "come through" during these talks. They have a history of proliferating and therefore will not be allowed to keep nuclear weapons or continue developing delivery systems. Even if it means lots of dead civilians in the short term. What's wrong with proliferation? The western countries all hoard nukes like it's going out of style. You can't tell begin to argue that they're responsible stewards of nuclear material either, not when the US knew Israel probably stole a bunch of enriched uranium from the US and did nothing about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Why would you think this? Extrapolating from his feelings on our troops being in Europe and his general 'who cares about the rest of the world' philosophy. To be fair, there are legitimate questions as to whether stationing so many troops in Germany/SK is still a good idea, but I don't want Trump answering those for us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:What's wrong with proliferation? The western countries all hoard nukes like it's going out of style. You can't tell begin to argue that they're responsible stewards of nuclear material either, not when the US knew Israel probably stole a bunch of enriched uranium from the US and did nothing about it Oh wow, you're right. The US is a poor steward of nuclear material. That totally means the US will leave NK in a position to proliferate. I'm sure if you call up Donald Trump and relay this info he'll have an epiphany and just leave NK alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Extrapolating from his feelings on our troops being in Europe and his general 'who cares about the rest of the world' philosophy. Trump also puts out even more clear sentiment that the US should look strong everywhere abroad and hired a full house of neocons. It's absurd that the Trump the Pacifist meme hasn't died long ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Wait I'm confused. ...I guess? These statistics date to 2010 though, so they're not really up to date. South Korea has a really big craft brewing scene now, and you've even got Gordon Ramsey running around telling people that domestic mainstream beer Cass is the best. Overall people are still convinced foreign beers are better. Personally I think most beers taste the same, save for a few personal favorites. Whether this has increased the overall liquor market, or whether it just represents a divide between old people preferring soju and young people preferring beer, I honestly can't tell you. punk rebel ecks posted:No more thoughts on this? I like you punk rebel ecks (I read the Suck Zone), and also I find North Korea chat exhausting, so I'll go ahead and answer this. Everything in the video is accurate, but it's also an obvious case of slanted propaganda. The angle is pretty intriguing just from an intellectual point of view, because I don't think I've ever seen such professionally well-made prohibitionist propaganda before, and certainly not in the faux-objectivist style that's typical in native English media. I mean really, that's to be expected from Al-Jazeera, I've just never seen it come up before. The short of it is that yeah, the drinking culture is that bad, but it's not terribly uniquely bad. The United States has binge drinking issues too, especially with party districts, homeless people, and students, much the same as with South Korea. The work culture drinking ethic is the main thing that's uniquely Korean (aside from just taking soju shots I guess), but American bankers absolutely get sloshed. We just don't like to talk about it, since our culture is invested in pretending like bankers are the bulwark of freedom. One thing I will definitely give the video credit for is acknowledging the existence of domestic social criticism. When I flip out at the New York Times or whatever it's because American publications tend to imply that Koreans are a hive mind by not doing so. By the way, #MeToo is still going strong. The Singers Association chief has just been accused, which is significant because so far the music industry has not been affected by the movement. Also prosecutors want a warrant for Lee Myung-bak now, faster than they did for Park Geun-hye since they think he's going to destroy evidence. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:I'm sure if you call up Donald Trump and relay this info he'll have an epiphany and just leave NK alone. Uhhhhhhhh that's possible, though
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:...I guess? These statistics date to 2010 though, so they're not really up to date. South Korea has a really big craft brewing scene now, and you've even got Gordon Ramsey running around telling people that domestic mainstream beer Cass is the best. Overall people are still convinced foreign beers are better. Personally I think most beers taste the same, save for a few personal favorites. Whether this has increased the overall liquor market, or whether it just represents a divide between old people preferring soju and young people preferring beer, I honestly can't tell you. Thank you so much! And I'm glad to hear that you enjoy my posts! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
How I have it told to me is that the drinking problem is very real for some very specific people. Like the junior salaried employee who must tag along with his direct management on social outings and follow the appropriate obeisances, night after night. Lots of pressure to drink related to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:Uhhhhhhhh that's possible, though Sure, but I really doubt it. My big fear (total speculation, probably irrational) is that he's already decided he wants to bomb NK because "Look daddy, I made even bigger booms than Truman" and that people around him are grasping for ways to talk him out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Sure, but I really doubt it. My big fear (total speculation, probably irrational) is that he's already decided he wants to bomb NK because "Look daddy, I made even bigger booms than Truman" and that people around him are grasping for ways to talk him out of it. I think that was true last summer. Now he's totally going to go be friends with Kim, because he's a great negotiator and everybody loves him. My worry is that he'll have a great time, love the place, take an incredibly conciliatory line, and then go back to wanting to bomb them again in three months when everyone on the news makes fun of him for being played.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:then go back to wanting to bomb them again in three months when everyone on the news makes fun of him for being played. My fear is that the timeline will be much tighter than that. If those talks proceed as has been discussed and Trump doesn't feel like he got every last thing he wanted, hostilities could start almost immediately. Hours or days rather than months. I realize John Bolton isn't the NSA (yet at least), but that's more or less what he's said and advocated for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
The military has also been training for the rapid deployment of troops. From getting the troops checked in and processed at mass mobilization centers to helicopter insertions and extractions in hostile combat environments not unlike North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
This thread is 90% chicken-littling and 10% Peven Stan posting 1960s Soviet propaganda and it's like some kind of weird art. It's really too bad there's such a dearth of decent SK news and commentary in English to help counter the sky-is-falling American war-wank media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This thread is 90% chicken-littling and 10% Peven Stan posting 1960s Soviet propaganda and it's like some kind of weird art. tim shorrock is doing really good work in this regard
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:My fear is that the timeline will be much tighter than that. If those talks proceed as has been discussed and Trump doesn't feel like he got every last thing he wanted, hostilities could start almost immediately. Hours or days rather than months. I realize John Bolton isn't the NSA (yet at least), but that's more or less what he's said and advocated for. If that does happen - and if North Korea seems to be making conciliatory moves - how do China, South Korea and Japan react?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:I think China is the key, and I suspect they're looking at taking the lead in resolving this North Korean situation. And this is because the US has no firm diplomatic position other than Trump's barking-dog bluster (including what our bigger interests are on the peninsula, past the immediate nuclear crisis), which creates an "opportunity in chaos" moment for the Chinese leadership. I more or less agree, China is playing a long-term game here and part of that is both preserving the North Korean regime from a position of strength, and also slowly reducing tensions on the peninsula (China also does a ton of trade with SK). Trump and the rest of the administration are playing their part perfectly by both being hamfisted and easily out-maneuvered while North Korea is at least able to represent itself as semi-reasonable. It doesn't help the US really has a weak to a non-existent bench as far as top-tier advisors who have a clue of what is going on. That said, I could still see Kim eager to reach out to the South Koreans in part to provide an income/import source that isn't China (this is part of the reason they have also been getting fuel imports from Russia). That said, a developing North Korea, relative peace on the peninsula, and a hapless United States are all almost certainly good things from the viewpoint of Beijing. It is why I am also not particularly fearful of war if only because the US would be isolated on the issue but China would absolutely put its foot down. Bolton is a source of risk, but as nutty as he is I don't know if he actually has the balls to go against Beijing's expressed wishes. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, I could still see Kim eager to reach out to the South Koreans in part to provide an income/import source that isn't China (this is part of the reason they have also been getting fuel imports from Russia). That said, a developing North Korea, relative peace on the peninsula, and a hapless United States are all almost certainly good things from the viewpoint of Beijing. I'd imagine improved relations between North and South Korea would be a key consideration, if only because China wouldn't want to shoulder all of the responsibility for North Korea alone, and the North getting some more active relationships with its neighbors helps in that respect. Ardennes posted:It is why I am also not particularly fearful of war if only because the US would be isolated on the issue but China would absolutely put its foot down. Bolton is a source of risk, but as nutty as he is I don't know if he actually has the balls to go against Beijing's expressed wishes. Bolton is a nut and would undoubtedly be willing to trade countless human lives for US military dominance in a conflict. But "dominance" is the key word, and I agree that even Bolton would be more inclined to shy away from a risky conflict that could involve China in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/976948048453668870
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
well, here comes war i guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TimothyS/status/976959140684861440
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
It's hilarious that the carefully built mask of smiling, benevolent foreign policy that liberals spent decades trying to build is getting ripped off to expose this nazi style warmongering for what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/976952738788634624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.somethingawful.com%2F I wonder how the North Koreans are reacting to the news and what steps they'll take in response to a man calling for first strikes on them being made National Security Advisor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/976952738788634624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.somethingawful.com%2F Eh. North Korea never has any real power or options. They’re going to keep doing what they’ve been doing because two facts aren’t going to change: 1) There’s nothing to be gained by the us starting a war with them, pretty much regardless of how belligerent they act short of actually attacking their neighbors. 2) It’s not like they can do more than they already are to prepare if we do decide to attack them. They can’t win a war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
A new B.R. Myers post here: http://sthelepress.com/index.php/2018/03/23/portrait-of-the-ally-as-an-intermediary-b-r-myers/quote:Perhaps the South has persuaded the North that regardless of whether Trump yields during the summit, or angers the Chinese and Russians by not yielding, sanctions will end up relaxed to some significant degree. This may indeed be true. But Trump could well be viewing the summit as the North’s last chance to avert an American attack. The South also needs to keep in mind how dangerous it would be for inter-Korean relations to improve dramatically while the nuclear crisis goes unresolved; the chummier Moon and Kim get, the less Trump is likely to worry that the North might respond to a strike by bombarding Seoul.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2018 04:24
|
|
