|
Maybe. Or sanctions stuff. Or to reach some understanding about their nukes. What China would be OK with if the talks with Trump go well. And what the reaction might be when they don’t.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
My money is on re-upping the Courvoisier supply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Kim Jong Un is so short compared xi. Short and fat! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:Yeah, this is my guess, too. Seeing what sort of deals and agreements China can offer them, and then taking that to any summit with the US for negotiating leverage. Or (real long shot) to basically flip the bird at the US and say "We're going with China's plans from here on, see ya!", finally scuttling whatever global diplomatic influence the US had in regards to North Korea. On the other hand, this kinda makes Beijing's constant whining about their lack of control over the North Kor-pfffft hahaha who am I kidding nobody with half a brain bought that one. Chadderbox posted:War. America. War with America. That sort of stuff, I'm guessing. And they say my posts give Cheney an erection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Whoever arranged the flags in the background did a good job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Methinks those tariffs were a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Gues chimna wasnt happy with a being sanctioned to hell. Im sure the snctions were directed at china and nks "special relationship"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Is it just me or does Xi seem less enthusiastic in that photo than Kim?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/978942313853603842?s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:On the other hand, this kinda makes Beijing's constant whining about their lack of control over the North Kor-pfffft hahaha who am I kidding nobody with half a brain bought that one. Eh, it might have been truer in the past, when the multi-party approach was stronger. North Korea might have been under political siege by multiple nations, but so long as it could rely on those nations having a shared interest in regards to North Korea without a desire for military action to pursue those interests, it gave them a reliable familiarity on how to deal with them. Because the expectation was that China, the US, and the like would not do anything that would ignite a flare-up on the peninsula, since they were accountable to everyone else in the multi-party arrangement. Basically, the North got pretty comfortable with its enemies, and once it understood the rules of the game everyone was claiming to play by, then it could go about figuring how best to break and bend them, and how manipulate everyone without having to make any firm commitments to anyone. Partly out of raw self-interest on the Kim regime, of course, but no doubt partly mixed with frustration at the world seeming to go out of its way to pick on North Korea for ever more inane, irrelevant, and hypocritical reasons. I've noted it before, and I'll note it again: why aren't we talking about the North Korean people as a whole? It's because Kim has become the avatar for them, the stand-in, and the interests of the US (at least, I won't speak for other nations) is to preserve our foolish pride, never admit we took a wrong approach for decades, and basically try to punish Kim personally. Vendetta is not a solid basis for a diplomatic relationship, and I think that goes without saying. But now that Trump's bellicosity, incompetence, and the seemingly rudderless direction of US foreign policy have upended the rules, it makes sense that North Korea might be opting to throw off the isolation a bit and throw in more overtly with China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Who cares. It's a civilian reactor and NK already has bombs, as everyone knows
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
True, I'm having deja vu of the Times in the run up to the Iraq War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Who cares. A whole bunch of people, especially the idiots in charge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
How exactly is denuclearization verifiable anyway, like what stops them from stuffing undeclared warheads and missiles in a mountain bunker somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:How exactly is denuclearization verifiable anyway, like what stops them from stuffing undeclared warheads and missiles in a mountain bunker somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
The fissile core actually lasts surprisingly long, and that's the hard to replace part(until you get into using boosted fisson designs)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:How exactly is denuclearization verifiable anyway, like what stops them from stuffing undeclared warheads and missiles in a mountain bunker somewhere? South Africa denuclearized, and the IAEA and UN sent inspectors to verify. The dismantling of all nuclear weapons in the country was ordered in 1989, by 1994 the relevant parties confirmed it had been completed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:I've noted it before, and I'll note it again: why aren't we talking about the North Korean people as a whole? It's because Kim has become the avatar for them, the stand-in, and the interests of the US (at least, I won't speak for other nations) is to preserve our foolish pride, never admit we took a wrong approach for decades, and basically try to punish Kim personally. Vendetta is not a solid basis for a diplomatic relationship, and I think that goes without saying. On the other hand, punishing the North Korean people (At least the 75%+ that aren't up on their Songbun levels) worse than ol' Kimmie's doing is going to take some real effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Is it just me or does Xi seem less enthusiastic in that photo than Kim? He does that on every photo. He is dead inside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
It's beginning to seem as if the two most probably outcomes of this are: a) Trump withdraws US troops from SK, NK stops nuclear testing, allows inspections and maybe in the long term gets rid of a few nukes b) War It's hard to feel enthusiastic about b), of course, but a) will be read as abandoning SK and Japan and ceding the entire region to China in perpetuity. Vietnam seems to have read the tea leaves and is acting like it already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
Mozi posted:It's hard to feel enthusiastic about b), of course, but a) will be read as abandoning SK and Japan and ceding the entire region to China in perpetuity. Vietnam seems to have read the tea leaves and is acting like it already. Granted, you make a strong argument that US foreign policy establishment as a whole has basically ignored the geopolitical advances China have made (in a way to the allies during the inter-war period), and the collapse of US influence in Asia is the long-term result. Also, at the same time, China has rapidly filled in a power vacuum in large parts of Eurasia and Africa. North Korean, Iran, and Russia are all very useful distractions for China since they have continually reinforced all 3 of them while they keep on gobbling up influence across the globe. If anything China would be ecstatic about a US-Iran war since it would again sap American resources with minimal costs to China (Russia/China may give the Iranians some anti-air missiles to keep the war going. The only region where US influence has stabilized is Latin America, but we will see about Mexican elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
Mozi posted:It's beginning to seem as if the two most probably outcomes of this are: watch japan build a loving nuke
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 15:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Mozi posted:It's beginning to seem as if the two most probably outcomes of this are: Why are you leaving out the possibility that the status quo is maintained and both sides uneasily keep looking across the dmz like we have for the last 60 years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
The status quo is already no longer in effect now that NK can deter the US with their nukes; even if we had a really great and super stable genius as President now, we would already have to grapple with that fact. That doesn't mean we couldn't find a way to live with that, but it is a fundamental shift.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The status quo is already no longer in effect now that NK can deter the US with their nukes; even if we had a really great and super stable genius as President now, we would already have to grapple with that fact. That doesn't mean we couldn't find a way to live with that, but it is a fundamental shift. There's still no reason both sides can't camp the border indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:There's still no reason both sides can't camp the border indefinitely. To quote Cicero: "Endless money are the sinews of war." I will agree with you, however, that nothing will change or really has changed. North Korea's put the desire for a quick end (Annihilation of the North) from extremely undesirable to near impossible, but both sides were playing the long game (Wait for the North to collapse under its inefficient fascist administration because lol if you think internal political reform's coming/Wait for the States to run out of cash) to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The status quo is already no longer in effect now that NK can deter the US with their nukes This is bullshit. Nukes ain't doing anything for them conventional wasn't, besides incur ever spiraling sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Its all going to be alright. https://twitter.com/tictoc/status/980291791420305409
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
K-pop? Eesh, Napalm would've been more humane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Is it just me or does Xi seem less enthusiastic in that photo than Kim? That is his happy face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is bullshit. Nukes ain't doing anything for them conventional wasn't, besides incur ever spiraling sanctions. Not true at ALL. NK strengthens its evil doer coffers with drugs and nuclear research contracts. They sell scientists time to other countries. NK enriches a lot of material that gets moved to other countries. NK needed nukes as a gurator that a "popular" overthrow would still result in an omega level response. North korea has low and mid range missiles in hardened launch sites in highly difficult to navigate mountainous terrain. Aerial bombardment isnt always the end all be all sadly in this type of terrain. They could get all of their nukes off before we could mount a proper response. They could hit japan before we were penetrating the country. Sorry. Not attainable by their conventional force in any manner. Sanctions dont mean much. Countries will still reflag to run the blockades. Sancrions just mean NK has to put morebupfront money to get the things they already hve a plethora of. They buy oil from Isis( dead)and Syria, among other players (venezuela trades drugs for oil to them) they buy remakes of many techs from china. The higher ups have loving Humvee ripoffs with american engines in them in NK. Sancrions dont work against an already criminal country with deep ties to many aspects of life outside the hermit kingdom. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 06:13
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Not true at ALL. NK strengthens its evil doer coffers with drugs and nuclear research contracts. They sell scientists time to other countries. NK enriches a lot of material that gets moved to other countries. NK needed nukes as a gurator that a "popular" overthrow would still result in an omega level response. So what does this change?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:So what does this change?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think the biggest difference nukes make is forcing the whole world to have a stake in upholding the Kim regime. Rent-A-Cop posted:Previously a regime collapse meant a huge migrant problem - yes. How does this change anything? The sheer level of economic damage this would cause to the developed world still overshadows some China-propped dictator playing bomb badminton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:As opposed to the previous, present and constant stake, which is-
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think the biggest difference nukes make is forcing the whole world to have a stake in upholding the Kim regime. Previously a regime collapse meant a huge migrant problem, and a sell-off of all the same junk already hemorrhaging out of the former Warsaw Pact. Now it means a game of atomic hot potato, and nobody wants to play that game. The threat to Seoul through conventional weapons and what that would do to the world economy is less but not way less than the threat posed with nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:The threat to Seoul through conventional weapons and what that would do to the world economy is less but not way less than the threat posed with nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion. I don't have a ton of confidence in anyone to manage the preservation of the DPRK's arsenal as well as the USSR's was, and Russia is still missing more than a little plutonium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:China could absorb a migrant crisis, and nobody but them was interested in bailing out Kim to prevent that. A dozen or more turnkey ICBMs disappearing is a much bigger problem for countries not within rafting distance of North Korea. 40 million north koreans with some disease straina the world hasnt experienced yet, 40 million people with no real skills. Would be the largest migration ine the history of human existence and you think that somehow china could absorb this, or would take the risk to begin with....? You think china would allow small pox to potentially run rampant through the country. You're loving nuts officer
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:40 million north koreans with some disease straina the world hasnt experienced yet Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I was thinking more implosion than invasion. Nobody is going to bother shelling Seoul if the government in Pyonyang goes poof. It's almost guaranteed whoever has a nuke is going to get real capitalist real fast though. In that case it sounds like nukes not only add extra deterrence to invasions they add deterrence to taking measures that destabilize the regime either by China or the US and probably increase the overall stability of the region.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 07:39
|
|