Clinton says U.S. mulls putting North Korea back on terror list | Politics | Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is looking into putting North Korea back on a list of state sponsors of terrorism in response to its nuclear test last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview on Sunday.
I bet North Korea is seriously considering giving up their nukes now...riiigggghhht
Is this part of Obama's toughest talk to date on North Korea where he stated North Korea needs to return to the negotiation table or face the "consequences?"
To pre-empt the future posts of 'What should he do, invade?' That is not what I'm advocating. Nor am I being critical of Obama's policies towards North Korea or attempting to be partisan in any way concerning this issue. Please leave the discussion of "Well this wouldn't of happened if Clinton or Bush had done this.." for another time. Feel free to mention prior agreements if they are contributive to the thread and the subject.
I'm more curious as to when the administration is going to be realistic with the American people and world and say "We have no deterrent to North Korea obtaining more nuclear weapons and all we can do is attempt to lure them away from that path with provocative deals and a place on the 'world stage'"
followed by..."All we can do from here on out is further contain North Korea and do our best to prevent nuclear proliferation."
An invasion is just out of the question, and would take a serious military incident for one to occur. Even then, depending on the severity of the incident of course, I would still bet against seeing U.S troops engaged in ground combat on the Korean Peninsula.
Sanctions aren't going to have any substantial effects except to further alienate the regime and punish the population. This has been proven, but yet is still being relied upon like it's having positive effects.
Subversive activities aren't very viable given the highly secular nature of the regime and the iron clad manner that dissidents are dealt with in NK.
China's control of NK may be over estimated, and therefore not as much of a leverage tool as hoped. An analogous representation could be the U.S' sway over Israel. We may have considerable influence over them, but in the end they will do what is best for their country and its security.
What does the future hold for North Korea?
There was some good discussion on the potential solutions to this problem a week or two ago. The discussion was unfortunately short lived as it turned into partisan bickering (big shocker.)
I am interested in hearing some opinions as to how you see this situation evolving in say 6 months, 1 year, 2 years etc.
The most likely situation I see occurring in the near future is more of the same predictable brinksmanship followed by more of the same rhetoric.
I don't see any notable concessions being made by either side in the near future, and the game of chasing the carrot on the string will continue for both sides.