President Trump

[Future]

Pretty sure you're wrong on that, he executes those old generals if they even look at him wrong. US and South Korean intelligence both think that the guy has consolidated power and is in complete control.

Honestly can't believe ...nothing more then sanctions have been put in place ...too this point

 

[Jones]

Honestly can't believe ...nothing more then sanctions have been put in place ...too this point

China provides about 90% of NK's foreign aid so without their cooperation sanctions won't work anyway.

 

[Future]

China provides about 90% of NK's foreign aid so without their cooperation sanctions won't work anyway.

They have a different view of NK .....I think recently

 

[tonyexpress]

A surgical strike would be nice but close to impossible with out major casualties. He's a coward and will embed himself in the population or underground.

China must step up.

 

[It will be fine]

A surgical strike would be nice but close to impossible with out major casualties. He's a coward and will embed himself in the population or underground.

China must step up.

China likes the status quo. They don't want hundreds of thousands of refugees flowing into their country. They also don't want a unified Korea, that would be a US ally, directly on their border.

 

[tonyexpress]

China likes the status quo. They don't want hundreds of thousands of refugees flowing into their country. They also don't want a unified Korea, that would be a US ally, directly on their border.

Well now.. They had better step up and get crazy pajama boy to stop with the rockets and the nukes.

All it would take is a misdirected nuke landing in China... Maybe they'd do something then?

 

[Jones]

China doesn't see Kim as a threat because they know that he is almost completely dependent on them. They could shut that whole country down inside 24 hours if they chose to. He also serves a useful purpose as a proxy threat against the US as we continue to use military force to deny their claims in the South China Sea, and while the US wants to treat that as a separate issue China doesn't see it that way. From their perspective the two issues are linked and if we want their help with NK then we need to back off on the South China Sea. Thus far the US has refused to do that (correctly imo) but that being the case the only way to force China to act on NK is with a credible threat that the US is prepared to act unilaterally which the Chinese absolutely don't want. So now they have to decide if Trump is bluffing or not. I hope he isn't but who knows.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Seems like a lose lose situation. You can't just let him do crazy , but you don't want to back him into a corner so much that he feels like he's losing his grip on power and lashes out and does even crazier .

Overall I'd say our current policy isn't so bad when you consider the alternatives.

 

[Jones]

Seems like a lose lose situation. You can't just let him do crazy , but you don't want to back him into a corner so much that he feels like he's losing his grip on power and lashes out and does even crazier .

Overall I'd say our current policy isn't so bad when you consider the alternatives.

If the goal of our current policy is to prevent NK from being able to threaten the US with a nuclear attack then it's clearly failing. Kim has already developed and stockpiled nuclear warheads and now he is working on a ballistic missile system that will be capable of delivering those warheads to the US mainland. Left unchecked he will be able to do that fairly soon. For the US the question is simple: can we live with a situation where NK is able to directly threaten us with a nuclear attack? If that the answer to that question is yes then our current policy is acceptable, if the answer is no then our current policy is a failure.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If the goal of our current policy is to prevent NK from being able to threaten the US with a nuclear attack then it's clearly failing. Kim has already developed and stockpiled nuclear warheads and now he is working on a ballistic missile system that will be capable of delivering those warheads to the US mainland. Left unchecked he will be able to do that fairly soon. For the US the question is simple: can we live with a situation where NK is able to directly threaten us with a nuclear attack? If that the answer to that question is yes then our current policy is acceptable, if the answer is no then our current policy is a failure.

I can live with it.

 

[It will be fine]

If the goal of our current policy is to prevent NK from being able to threaten the US with a nuclear attack then it's clearly failing. Kim has already developed and stockpiled nuclear warheads and now he is working on a ballistic missile system that will be capable of delivering those warheads to the US mainland. Left unchecked he will be able to do that fairly soon. For the US the question is simple: can we live with a situation where NK is able to directly threaten us with a nuclear attack? If that the answer to that question is yes then our current policy is acceptable, if the answer is no then our current policy is a failure.

For Kim a nuclear weapon deliverable to the mainland US is an insurance policy. We won't attack him if he's capable of that. We won't attack him if he's capable of delivering a nuke to Seoul. Kim wants to remain in power, sanctions don't work because of China's propping up the regime.

What we haven't tried is free trade. Free trade stops wars. Involve them in the global marketplace and they won't be interested in war with their trade partners.

 

[Jones]

I can live with it.

Well, if I had to guess I'd say that's probably how it's gonna turn out.

 

[Jones]

For Kim a nuclear weapon deliverable to the mainland US is an insurance policy. We won't attack him if he's capable of that. We won't attack him if he's capable of delivering a nuke to Seoul. Kim wants to remain in power, sanctions don't work because of China's propping up the regime.

What we haven't tried is free trade. Free trade stops wars. Involve them in the global marketplace and they won't be interested in war with their trade partners.

Kinda sorta. Kim isn't particularly interested in free trade, the current situation where China props up his regime is working out pretty good for him personally. But he does view his nuclear capability as an insurance policy.

 

[It will be fine]

Kinda sorta. Kim isn't particularly interested in free trade, the current situation where China props up his regime is working out pretty good for him personally. But he does view his nuclear capability as an insurance policy.

I think a skilled negotiator could convince him of the benefits to his security in engaging in trade with other nations. Think of the manufacturing advantage they'd have with their slave labor force.

 

[Jones]

I think a skilled negotiator could convince him of the benefits to his security in engaging in trade with other nations. Think of the manufacturing advantage they'd have with their slave labor force.

You really think we should lift all sanctions and engage in free trade with a regime that relies on slave labor? I don't.

 

[Jones]

Fyi I'm not arguing against your idea that engagement can be a good policy, I just think that it's a situational solution not a blanket one. For instance in the case of Cuba I think that engagement is absolutely the best way forward, but the regimes in Cuba and NK are vastly different.

 

[It will be fine]

You really think we should lift all sanctions and engage in free trade with a regime that relies on slave labor? I don't.

It's a matter of degree, is our interest mostly in our own security? Then maybe as a first step we overlook their human rights abuses. We can try to bring them along on that front after the imminent threat of attack is gone. Similar to what we've done with China. There's obviously no easy solution, and China neutralizes any gains created by sanctions, so why not use our negotiator in chief to try a new track.

 

[Jones]

It's a matter of degree, is our interest mostly in our own security?

Yeah, it is a matter of degree.

Then maybe as a first step we overlook their human rights abuses.

No thank you.
The United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (COI), set up by the Human Rights Council (HRC), issued a report in 2014 documenting extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortion, and other sexual violence in North Korea. It concluded that the “gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
source

We can try to bring them along on that front after the imminent threat of attack is gone. Similar to what we've done with China. There's obviously no easy solution, and China neutralizes any gains created by sanctions, so why not use our negotiator in chief to try a new track.

What exactly have we "done with China" and how do you see that working with NK?

 

[wkmac]

Kim to say the least is a detestable human being, that is without question. Thus a greater danger for those wanting to play on our emotional bias for other purposes.

In regards to NK's military capabilities, we are relying on information coming from a govt and media known to lie in order to advance military provocations as well as regime change for the purpose of economic and other geo-political reasons as opposed to actual necessity of actual defense of the nation.

 

[Catatonic]

Kim to say the least is a detestable human being, that is without question. Thus a greater danger for those wanting to play on our emotional bias for other purposes.

In regards to NK's military capabilities, we are relying on information coming from a govt and media known to lie in order to advance military provocations as well as regime change for the purpose of economic and other geo-political reasons as opposed to actual necessity of actual defense of the nation.

That govt being the good ole US of A?

I am enjoying this discussion!