|
Sinteres posted:Nobody was calling for war in the first place but Trump, but you idiots think he's good now because he agreed to stop making threats until the next time he changes his mind. Does every post have to be prefaced with "Trump bad" just to have any discussion? Yeah, Trump sucks, but this summit was a good step. I know it is hard to comprehend.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
At a certain point, the US has to be involved, and I don't think they can wait until 2021/2025. As far as Trump dominating negotiations, eh not great, but the heads of state need to eventually meet. As far as the arguments about "legitimizing North Korea" and the "exercises"...eh I think it is just pretty much just partisan sniping or Cold War hardlinery. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Waiting until they had an agenda hammered out seems like it would have been a good idea. I'm not opposed to any meeting involving heads of state at all, I just think this was the dumbest way of doing it possible. I mean even Trump's people were complaining about how the timeline was going to be too tight to make happen, but they did it anyway because on the US side this was 100% about Trump's ego and not about the actual issues. I think the real problem is the entire situation. An agenda would mean there is already some type of common agreement in place, and there isn't one. There isn't one because we haven't found a way to guarantee North Korean deterrence. On the other hand, South Korea clearly doesn't want to wait to see when that changes. So we are at an impasse, and the summit was merely buying time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I just don't see where you go from here. Like if they couldn't come to any kind of agreement with the urgency of a looming head of state meeting, which is the biggest gun in the diplomatic arsenal, what's going to get them to yes now? They never even agreed on what the definition of denuclearization is, much less any kind of process for getting there. It needed to "start big" because the impasse is just that large, and honestly, the US has to make a show to South Korea that it is still willing to consider their needs. Otherwise, it would have been dragged down into nothing and while I guess the Democrats might be cool with that...it maybe isn't the best course of action.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
The parallel falls apart due to the fact that European politics weren't unified during 1939 into 2 opposing camps, and Finland was largely left lending for itself with some donated or bought equipment. It is clear that Japan/US and China would be in direct opposition with each other, and thus would seek to curry favor with a neutral Korea (which in all honesty would probably start to rival Japan in a few decades).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1015577862643109888?s=19 Yeah, it isn't, but honestly pretty defensible on the part of the DPRK. Diplomacy is actually about negotiation, not unilateral surrender.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah not talking poo poo about the DPRK here, it’s just the very predictable outcome thus far It is basically the preliminaries before the actual negotiation begins (it is still uncertain the US/Trump won't walk out when they realize this). As for what an actual path for peace looks like, at best it is going to be a very slow phased approach that is going to require plenty of incentives.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Russians aren't occidental either. Ah really huh? I like to hear this argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Where'd you get that info from? Significant defectors claim that his legend is manufactured. I don't know about hero, but I mean what else was he doing until 1940?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Martial law, here's a twitter thread that goes into it some: Yeah, talk about scratching a bit under the surface. How well does the South Korean military get along with intelligence services? Even though this wouldn't necessarily be a return to the 1980s, it does demonstrate how fragile the contours of liberal democracy actually are even in a highly developed western-aligned country. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Also, a lot of those forces aren't combat capable and/or still need to be tied to those locations. It would take months to set up an invasion force, and of course, South Korea has to go along with it. Moreover, Chinese-US relations are pretty poo poo at the moment, so that is an additional factor to consider. (Also, you know...all of those nukes.) (I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's advisors told him before the talks began that North Korea was ready to surrender and the summit was them holding up a white flag.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Is this one of those discussions where we pretend the north doesn't have 30-60 nuclear warheads again?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:We're talking a scenario where Trump gets bored and orders an ineffective air strike (like he was considering back in Jan) and there's a slow drift into increasing hostilities. If they don't suicidally unleash hellfire maybe they fight conventionally to give the international community time to favor them and somehow get the US to back down. It sounded like invasion talk (again) rather than a one-off airstrike. The North isn't going to launch over an air-strike or two, but conventional invasion just really can't work. Also, South Korea clearly doesn't want to be involved. To be honest, I am less worried about Trump himself (who will listen to anyone) but his advisers. I don't think Trump came up with the recent idea to sanction half the developing world and cause a currency crash, it is the nuts that he has surrounded himself with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Careful now or you gonna destroy that prescious narrative that everyone who wasn't clapping at Trump's stupid clownshow in Singapore is secretly a bloodthirsty Lieberal lusting for a war in Korea. Yeah man, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know how harmful the show actually was, but rather that the Trump administration (not just himself) simply doesn't have the flexibility for actual negotiation. In that context, the Democrats pushing Trump was actually unneeded more than harmful. At very least, it helped open the chance for possible more open bilateral SK-NK negotiations but that is more accidental than anything. (If anything the entire event showed that pretty much the entire political spectrum is dominated by hawks.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Aug 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:Linku plz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Wikipedia numbers, but I think 13 is too low. That said, we really don't know how many they have but they are continually producing them. Bishounen Bonanza posted:But that is the problem isn't it? Once an attack happens North Korea has no way of knowing whether or not its a bloody nose strike or the beginning of an invasion. Trump has specifically sold himself as being unpredictable, and the North doesn't have the intel resources to see what we are really doing. The most logical thing for Un to do would be to nuke a small millitary target to show he means business and then tell everyone to back the gently caress off before he escalates further. It really depends if it is a situation where the US army has mobilized tens of thousands (over 100k+) troops in the south versus a one off incident. If the US was already on the verge on invading, it is a better argument. Btw hitting North Korea with airstrikes is still stupid and counter-productive even if it doesn't lead them to immediately launching.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 09:33
|
|
|
Shadow0 posted:Happy belated Pepero Day, everyone! It is for all of Korea.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What does Kim want to do with building more missile sites and more high-tech nukes? He already has enough leverage to protect his country from foreign aggression. It only gives him more leverage in negotiations, especially since the US really hasn't really provided any sort of deal. Also, North Korea capabilities obviously still have head-room to go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:And even though the US DOD has repeatedly and in unclassified docs/hearings said there’s no guaranteed nuclear capability decapitation strike the US could pull off on the DPRK, why risk such a thing being possible in the future? Why not press your advantage then? North Korea is still vulnerable economically and more advanced capabilities only give them more leverage to try to try to get the sanctions ended/further cooperation with the South.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You mean the sanctions that only exist because they rebuilt the weapons program in the first place? It's been a stupid move the entire time. If they got rid of their weapons program, they would almost certainly be under at least some sort of sanctions for years if not decades in the future. The US has never had a normalized relationship with the DPRK. It is arguable that the US may even up the pressure if they got rid of their program. mlmp08 posted:I mean, clearly that is the path they are taking. And it’s not dumb. Without a crystal ball, hard to say how it turns out long term. I guess, but at the same time, they have realized a strategy that has paid at least some dividends. Right now they can't be invaded, nor they can be ignored, and sanctions are enough to hurt them but not disable them. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Nov 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah. One doesn’t have to be pro-DPRK to understand their reasoning and how this general track has worked for them so far. Granted, I also think that brinkmanship (which this still is essential) is extremely dangerous and certainly not the preferred way of doing things. Also, I really doubt any real progress is going to be made during this presidency although it is still possible on the peninsula itself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They're also guaranteed to be under some sort of sanctions program indefinitely as long as they have the weapons program. Also yes, North Korea has refused to surrender to the US or a number of other countries yet, which is going to keep them from having normalized relations. It's on them to give up. Yeah and it is also why there will be no movement on their program and their goal is piece-meal progress with what they can get away with, which is what they are doing. A country isn't just going to surrender if their enemies don't have the devastating leverage on it. With the collapse of US-Chinese relations, it isn't going to happen. quote:They had this before they restarted their nuclear weapons program in the 2000s as well. Except they also had way less sanctions on them then. They still had plenty of sanctions on them, and it is very unlikely they wouldn't just continue if they had never started a program in the first place. Also, from a North Korea perspective, from 1992 to 2005 they were already at their weakest and could see the US using the state f the country as leverage. As things have improved and the US has progressively become more unhinged, they know if anything they are in more danger since the US has started to figure out they won't collapse on their own. Btw, North Korea was still in very rough shape during the early 2000s. Also with the US you never know who is going to be elected president and what crazy poo poo they decide it is a great idea at the time. If anything the North Korean program is a fairly logical counter-response.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Kind of the whole thing is that while NK would be easy for the US to topple, the resulting humanitarian crisis would cripple pretty much every neighbouring country and leave the US a pariah in the region forever. The Kims know this. You mean they would be ( which I am doubtful) if they weren’t backed but backed by China and had a bunch of increasingly high yield nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The China backing is doubtful when push comes to shove (but again that's probably more because of the abovementioned thread of a refugee crisis that China does not want to deal with) but the latter is fair, and entirely sensible on NK's part given that it's clear even under a supposedly peaceful President the USA has no qualms about sending a nation into chaos based on petty grudges or political whims. There is really no reason for China not to get involved especially if the US tries to encroach on their borders, and honestly China would probably win a conventional war (considering the proximity to China and the advances they have made). Also, there is the whole Seoul issue and that SK population wants to go completely in the opposite direction. Generally, it seems to be a assessment based on around the situation of the mid-late 1990s.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:and now the dead guy is undead. we must invade the dprk to obtain their reanimation technology I guess their fall back position is to blame the South Korean source, not themselves (or other Western outlets) for blasting it without pretending to check its validity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm sorry sir but are you suggesting journalists should fact check or vet sources? That's ridiculous. Why, they wouldn't have enough time left over to fabricate stories or press the "Generate Clickbait" button! Yeah, that or especially fact check stories about a country like North Korea which obviously the US really doesn't along with. It is also why it is so difficult to really tell what is happening since it is so easy to be gaslight from every direction (including from non-Western outlets). Hell, you can watch different youtube videos about NK and get radically different perceptions of what it is going on. North Korea can look like a middle-income industrial state or completely impoverished depending on your choice of source. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jun 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think gaslighting implies more thought and intentionality than US journalists are really capable of. They're just lazy as gently caress and parroting whatever they read in a press release is what they're gonna do. Eh, in the case of North Korea (and now Russia and China) I think it is intentional by at least the editors, the usually journalists themselves just cut and paste from whatever wire-service sends this stuff out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Mainstrem audiences have always believed almpst anything that is posted or discussed about the DPRK. Granted, they usually don't have any alternative. Like I said, maybe you might be a random youtube video.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is that that nerdy white dude with a falun gong wife who always needs to wedge a little something about how good but oppressed falun gong is? It is a Falun Gong outlet but maybe you mean someone else, one of the ADvChina guys?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Again, also, none of this actually matters considering North Korea now has higher yield nuclear weapons possibly with intermediate sea launched second strike capability.. It is never going to get to the point where North Korea has to garrison Seoul, likewise the world would already be ash before Soviet tanks made it past the Fulda gap. Anyway, the North clearly is more interested in getting economic concessions than anything else nowadays.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
It makes sense that full reunification would be off the table, but that gradual engagement with the North especially in terms of economic cooperation has support. It is true that reunification right now would be both a messy and costly affair, but it does seem that peace and gradually opening trade with the north is also popular. I guess the real question is the US, and how long it directly veto further cooperation. South Korea is still reliant on the US, including US markets, but that is gradually unwinding especially as South Korean - Chinese trade is increasing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2019 10:33
|
|