|
Ardennes posted:I guess, try to keep the status quo at all costs despite the fact both sides seem to actually want peace...just to deny Kim a victory. I would keep the status quo and keep the options for a reunification open. There are lots of ways to do that. I don’t care about Kim getting a victory, but his long term objectives diverge greatly from the long term objectives of SK/US. There is a defacto peace right now. NK won’t attack SK because they don’t want to die. SK/US won’t attack NK because it’s not worth it. All the drama is nuclear blackmail brought on by increasing tests and ballistic missile development. What are the odds that NK would actually use a ballistic missile against the US? I say slim to none. Again it’s just drama. There’s no need for SK to rush into a deal. NK is the one that wants/needs one.
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
So keeping the status quo means letting NK continue to develop nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
I'd say South Korea needs the deal too if they want to eliminate the odds of the US starting a war on South Korean soil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
mystes posted:So keeping the status quo means letting NK continue to develop nuclear weapons? I got news for you, you can't influence country that doesn't trade with your world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:There’s no need for SK to rush into a deal. NK is the one that wants/needs one. South Korea wants peace. It's overwhelmingly popular there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
tino posted:I got news for you, you can't influence country that doesn't trade with your world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
mystes posted:So keeping the status quo means letting NK continue to develop nuclear weapons? I don’t even believe that there is a possibility they will give it up. Not only does it safeguard their survival, which is their main concern, but it’s their meal ticket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
SK/Japan/The West can hold the status quo indefinitely, it's KJU who bears the most cost the longer the status quo continues, so if we're going to use a pure game theory rationale the question is what does the status quo cost the US + Allies that they can't afford to pay indefinitely. So far the only material change in that regard are advances in North Korea's ballistic missile program, with the endgame of being able to credibly threaten the continental United States with a nuclear weapon. This sucks, but North Korea wouldn't be the first country capable of doing so and will almost certainly not be the last. South Korea and Japan have been in range of North Korean nuclear strikes for years now and it costs Europe virtually nothing to continue with sanctions. To be honest, just accepting North Korea as a de facto nuclear weapons state (which already happened years ago) defangs a considerable amount of North Korean leverage. The only wildcards remaining would be Moon, who has staked a considerable amount of political capital on making nice with North Korea while also maintaining the US security guarantee, and Trump who is Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
That’s my read on it also. With the added observation that a NK ballistic missile isn’t really a threat to the US because the odds are super small that they would just launch it as a first strike. Doing so would mean that their own death is certain. So all the US/SK have to do is just continue what they’ve been doing for decades. US/SK control the situation and not the other way around despite the media coverage. I also agree with your analysis of Moon and Trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
The issue is that SK and US have different goals, and the goal of SK and its population isn't regime change or crushing north anymore but finally moving on. Moon isn't necessarily so threatened by nukes that he wants peace, but instead is looking at them as an opportunity. He knows as long as the regime feels threated them won't come to the table, but the North having deterrence opens the chance for talks and he is jumping at it. As for "controlling the situation" I think SK and the US has such different priorities, so it doesn't really matter anymore. Furthermore, China can keep the North going most likely indefinitely which means, in fact, it is a stalemate but unless both sides make the logical choice and just end the conflict, and open up trade in phases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
It does matter because NK needs a deal more than SK or US whatever anybody’s goal is. There’s no way they should give away anything to NK when SK or US (either) can walk away and maintain the status quo with no consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:It does matter because NK needs a deal more than SK or US whatever anybody’s goal is. There’s no way they should give away anything to NK when SK or US (either) can walk away and maintain the status quo with no consequences. The South Korean people are fatigued by the current situation and actually, want a change, and the US walking away just to spite NK is going to also have repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 11:15
|
|
|
Leaving aside for a moment the economic benefits to South Korea of warmer relations and North Korean labor, economic and societal benefits to getting rid of conscription and reduced military spending, the fact they'd no longer have war constantly looming over their heads, and could avert Trump and co from hurtling towards one as they had very much been doing, and that overly hopeful as it might be, peaceful cooperation's possibility of leading to reunification was always going to be more palatable to the South Koreans than hundreds of thousands or more dying, or that most South Koreans don't really give a poo poo about reunification anyway, as well as the fact that "status quo" has been what's been happening for the past decade and has failed spectacularly...it's kind of bizarre (and illuminating about your priorities!) how you were arguing in favor of Japan scuppering the whole loving thing over around a dozen of their missing citizens, but seem to view hundreds of South Korean dead because of clashes since the armistice as "no consequences."
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:SK/Japan/The West can hold the status quo indefinitely, it's KJU who bears the most cost the longer the status quo continues, so if we're going to use a pure game theory rationale the question is what does the status quo cost the US + Allies that they can't afford to pay indefinitely. What cost though? North Korea is a totalitarian 1984 esque regime for whom the human misery and sacrifices made are what keep them in power. The longer the status quo continues the longer they stay in power; there isn't a cost as we see it, their economy isn't going to implode ala the USSR as long as the political will continues to maintain the status quo. quote:So far the only material change in that regard are advances in North Korea's ballistic missile program, with the endgame of being able to credibly threaten the continental United States with a nuclear weapon. This sucks, but North Korea wouldn't be the first country capable of doing so and will almost certainly not be the last. South Korea and Japan have been in range of North Korean nuclear strikes for years now and it costs Europe virtually nothing to continue with sanctions. Accepting NK as a de facto nuclear armed state is unacceptable to the US military-security establishment. There are perhaps some legitimate national-security concerns there but regardless this is like asking a drug addict to give up their addiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Whether there is a deal or not the government and the 1984-like aspects of NK will remain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
I could see economic growth perhaps complicating some things for the regime a bit, especially if trade with the south is active. I kind of doubt would be mass unrest, but they would still have to deal with rising expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Leaving aside for a moment the economic benefits to South Korea of warmer relations and North Korean labor, economic and societal benefits to getting rid of conscription and reduced military spending, the fact they'd no longer have war constantly looming over their heads, and could avert Trump and co from hurtling towards one as they had very much been doing, and that overly hopeful as it might be, peaceful cooperation's possibility of leading to reunification was always going to be more palatable to the South Koreans than hundreds of thousands or more dying, or that most South Koreans don't really give a poo poo about reunification anyway, as well as the fact that "status quo" has been what's been happening for the past decade and has failed spectacularly...it's kind of bizarre (and illuminating about your priorities!) how you were arguing in favor of Japan scuppering the whole loving thing over around a dozen of their missing citizens, but seem to view hundreds of South Korean dead because of clashes since the armistice as "no consequences." I’m not Korean but I travelled a lot to SK when I was in academia as a visiting scholar. I would say that there is a real sense of ethnic identity as being ‘Korean’ (note not ‘SK’) in SK and that anecdotally from my part in interacting with people and from what I saw in the media and art I felt that there was a strong sense that NK/SK was really one people and should be one again one country (eventually). That’s part of why I argue so much for reunification as part of an option no matter what and that no deal should exclude that. Granted again, I’m not Korean (note again I don’t say SK) and what they wind up with on their deal is really up to their own will as a people. But based on what I’ve experienced there and what I’ve seen if there is a move to lock in the two states indefinitely it would be a real tragedy. And if Moon goes with that willingly then he deserves everything that will lead to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:.... What does "unacceptable" even mean? It's just a loving English words with 14 letter you poo poo out? Can you even get invasion support in the congress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
tino posted:What does "unacceptable" even mean? It's just a loving English words with 14 letter you poo poo out? Resurrect Zombie Douglas MacArthur and the support will be there
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I’m not Korean but I travelled a lot to SK when I was in academia as a visiting scholar. I would say that there is a real sense of ethnic identity as being ‘Korean’ (note not ‘SK’) in SK and that anecdotally from my part in interacting with people and from what I saw in the media and art I felt that there was a strong sense that NK/SK was really one people and should be one again one country (eventually). That’s part of why I argue so much for reunification as part of an option no matter what and that no deal should exclude that. this is every non-Korean trying to explain why actually the south thirsts for glorious conquest of the savage north as is their divine right despite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Resurrect Zombie Douglas MacArthur and the support will be there Zombie MacArthur is only good at chasing away starving veterans from protest. He would be right at home fighting the Occupied Wall Street movement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I’m not Korean but I travelled a lot to SK when I was in academia as a visiting scholar. I would say that there is a real sense of ethnic identity as being ‘Korean’ (note not ‘SK’) in SK and that anecdotally from my part in interacting with people and from what I saw in the media and art I felt that there was a strong sense that NK/SK was really one people and should be one again one country (eventually). That’s part of why I argue so much for reunification as part of an option no matter what and that no deal should exclude that. If your argument was about relaxing sanctions preventing the collapse of NK that would at least be logical regardless of whether it's correct, but your obession with this idea of "locking in" two states really makes no sense. Everyone knows they are two states right now; that's why the would have to "reunify."
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:this is every non-Korean trying to explain why actually the south thirsts for glorious conquest of the savage north as is their divine right despite all evidence to the contrary. I never said anything about savage conquest of the north, nor did I ever say that war was the solution. Obviously it’s a very complex scenario and my only point of view is that generally the strategy should be steered towards reunification instead of away from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
mystes posted:If SK doesn't think it will "lock in" two states why should anyone care whether forums poster Vladimir Putin has the pet theory that it will? Go back to why we are in this situation in the first place and why there are two countries. NK and SK are one country artificially separated by the peculiarities of the Cold War, like east/west Germany. And the Cold War has been over for decades. The only thing really stopping the reunification of NK/SK is the desire for the Kim family to remain in power using brutal methods. There’s many ways to a ‘one Korea’ and all of the outcomes DO NOT involve Kim. The government of a reunited Korea cannot involve Kim, nor his family, nor anything related to the current system of government in NK in any meaningful way. By formalizing the end of the Korean War without a clear pathway to reunification you’re formalizing what is really an artificial separation of one country. Kim gets to remains in power indefinitely (he’s only 34) and so you’ve basically thrown away any hope of resolving the situation for a generation with the risk of it being a permanent situation. That’s not something that is positive in a Korean history book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
The cost of building north korea to match the south economically would be massive. Moon doesnt want to be the leader who hobbles his own country to build another state basically. Hed lose out, probablu go to jail lime every other sk leader and a hardliner would take center stage and defang any reunification efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
It's an issue primarily because they're a smaller state, and relatively unstable, therefore being more likely to use nuclear weapons. There's also the issue that NK loves to sell illegal poo poo to other regimes like chemical weapons and missiles so there's a distinct possibility that they could try to sell a nuclear missile or nuclear materials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Go back to why we are in this situation in the first place and why there are two countries. NK and SK are one country artificially separated by the peculiarities of the Cold War, like east/west Germany. And the Cold War has been over for decades. The only thing really stopping the reunification of NK/SK is the desire for the Kim family to remain in power using brutal methods. There’s many ways to a ‘one Korea’ and all of the outcomes DO NOT involve Kim. The government of a reunited Korea cannot involve Kim, nor his family, nor anything related to the current system of government in NK in any meaningful way. Please do tell what those many ways are (and also why if the status quo is such a good thing that after 65 years of it there are still two Koreas).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Go back to why we are in this situation in the first place and why there are two countries. NK and SK are one country artificially separated by the peculiarities of the Cold War, like east/west Germany. And the Cold War has been over for decades. The only thing really stopping the reunification of NK/SK is the desire for the Kim family to remain in power using brutal methods. There’s many ways to a ‘one Korea’ and all of the outcomes DO NOT involve Kim. The government of a reunited Korea cannot involve Kim, nor his family, nor anything related to the current system of government in NK in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
mystes posted:Which countries have a say in whether reunification happens? The 3 mafia bosses in the UN security Council.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
tino posted:The 3 mafia bosses in the UN security Council. Nah, it's just China / US, Russia doesn't give a poo poo about NK beyond using them to annoy the Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Nah, it's just China / US, Russia doesn't give a poo poo about NK beyond using them to annoy the Americans. You would be surprised, the Kim family (all three of them) like to dance between Soviet and China to get the maximum profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
when you say some diplomatic action or inaction will 'cost' kim jong un what you really mean is that it will cost the people of north korea, and you're hoping that cost will somehow trickle up to the leadership. well guess what it's not going to happen. they got through a dang famine, they can get through whatever diplomatic pressure you put on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
What are we even arguing about. The upcoming meeting is going to be a clusterfuck. Trump can’t be relied on to do anything except lose his pants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
Somebody send an unmarked F15 to shoot down that Kim airplane, doit.gif.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
Kim is only staying for 5 hours. Enjoy the useless photo op. https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1005757909077127169
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Biggest ripoff is to Singapore who’s got to pay for Kim’s lodging
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Kim is only staying for 5 hours. Enjoy the useless photo op. Judging from how well G7 went, I'm sure 5 hours will be enough time for Trump to suddenly reverse every position he was holding and fire a series of angry tweets about how he's preparing to bomb immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Judging from how well G7 went, I'm sure 5 hours will be enough time for Trump to suddenly reverse every position he was holding and fire a series of angry tweets about how he's preparing to bomb immediately. Maybe Kim’s thought of that and it’s in the timetable? He plans on getting back before the bombs start flying
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Maybe Kim’s thought of that and it’s in the timetable? He plans on getting back before the bombs start flying Why would he want to rush back to where the flying bombs will land?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2018 02:34
|
|