• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump deserves credit for North-South Korea summit, experts say

Lursa said:
Not without a nuke program. Not in the recent decade.
Click to expand...

He's had plenty of leverage even without a nuke program (though obviously not as much as with a nuke program). That's why Nixon didn't retaliate when they shot down one of our planes with full casualties. The damage they can do without nukes is rather catastrophic. The only thing that's changed is that they can bring mass casualties to us now.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
He's had plenty of leverage even without a nuke program (though obviously not as much as with a nuke program). That's why Nixon didn't retaliate when they shot down one of our planes with full casualties. The damage they can do without nukes is rather catastrophic. The only thing that's changes is that they can bring mass casualties to us now.
Click to expand...

What was that previous leverage?

Our relationship was much more tenuous with CHina during Nixon's administration.

China still does benefit from the buffer of NK, however that necessity has been quite reduced in recent years. There comes a point where Un is more of a liability. China seems to be re-evaluating that. I seriously doubt Un would be extending himself like this now without cues from China (whom he recently met with, immediately before the overtures to SK).
 
Lursa said:
What was that previous leverage?

Our relationship was much more tenuous with CHina during Nixon's administration.

China still does benefit from the buffer of NK, however that necessity has been quite reduced in recent years. There comes a point where Un is more of a liability. China seems to be re-evaluating that. I seriously doubt Un would be extending himself like this now without cues from China (whom he recently met with, immediately before the overtures to SK).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying China wasn't a factor, but NK had enough non-nukes to kill millions, either through its howitzers, which would be enough to level Seoul, or through its chemical and biological weapons, which would have likewise killed millions and caused mass panic. Detailed articles have been written on their capabilities, and it's why even Steve Bannon was driven to say, “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

Bannon (of all people) was right, and he wasn't even factoring in the devastation from their biological weapons.
 
Lursa said:
OK.

Why do you assume you know that poster's message if you didnt watch the video?

How do you know there was a double standard? Your assumption without the full story?
Click to expand...

Because his message wasn't contained in the video?
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not saying China wasn't a factor, but NK had enough non-nukes to kill millions, either through its howitzers, which would be enough to level Seoul, or through its chemical and biological weapons, which would have likewise killed millions and caused mass panic. Detailed articles have been written on their capabilities, and it's why even Steve Bannon was driven to say, “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

Bannon (of all people) was right, and he wasn't even factoring in the devastation from their biological weapons.
Click to expand...

I did read the Bannon thing and another really in-depth paper on it. Neither of which I particularly cared for but certainly didnt dismiss based on bad info.

But neither of those added in the Olympics and Un getting a positive reaction from the rest of the world, the collapse of his underground nuclear testing ground, or China's recent alarm at presumably that (they called him to China immediately after) and whatever else is encouraging them to manipulate Un.
 
Lursa said:
I did read the Bannon thing and another really in-depth paper on it. Neither of which I particularly cared for but certainly didnt dismiss based on bad info.

But neither of those added in the Olympics and Un getting a positive reaction from the rest of the world, the collapse of his underground nuclear testing ground, or China's recent alarm at presumably that (they called him to China immediately after) and whatever else is encouraging them to manipulate Un.
Click to expand...

What hasn't been erased is that he still has the same conventional and biological means to wage chaos as before, and he still has nukes even if his nuclear program may have suffered a setback.

There were actually two in-depth articles by Atlantic. One covered the five solutions for North Korea (all bad), the other covered the means NK had to kill millions before we inevitably defeated them. They dug themselves in so well so that if they were going to go down, they were going to take everybody down with them. The term Pyrrhic Victory would have been been made laughably quaint in under a week.
 
Cardinal said:
What hasn't been erased is that he still has the same conventional and biological means to wage chaos as before, and he still has nukes even if his nuclear program may have suffered a setback.

There were actually two in-depth articles by Atlantic. One covered the five solutions for North Korea (all bad), the other covered the means NK had to kill millions before we inevitably defeated them. They dug themselves in so well so that if they were going to go down, they were going to take everybody down with them. The term Pyrrhic Victory would have been been made laughably quaint in under a week.
Click to expand...

But again...he no longer has the actual, 'emotionally' effective threat that affects the entire world. Realistically, how much do Americans or the rest of the world care about SK? (Yes I read at least one of those articles and I know it's more complex than that.)

He needs the big threat. And I think China..and I'm just speculating...pointed out some other options to him in terms of him coming to the end of his road and needing to decide how he personally would look and be considered. (not how much he actually cares about the status of his people).
 
Lursa said:
But again...he no longer has the actual, 'emotionally' effective threat that affects the entire world. Realistically, how much do Americans or the rest of the world care about SK? (Yes I read at least one of those articles and I know it's more complex than that.)

He needs the big threat. And I think China..and I'm just speculating...pointed out some other options to him in terms of him coming to the end of his road and needing to decide how he personally would look and be considered. (not how much he actually cares about the status of his people).
Click to expand...

I don't understand your post. How does he no longer have the actual means to carry out his threats? What changed between a few months ago and today?
 
Cardinal said:
I don't understand your post. How does he no longer have the actual means to carry out his threats? What changed between a few months ago and today?
Click to expand...

His nuclear threat.

I guess he does have missiles...but not the means for more development and testing.
 
What does renegotiating NAFTA, denuclearizing North Korea and threatened tariffs against China have in common?
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, USTR Robert Lighthizer, Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow, and the U.S. trade team are heading to China.

The outcome of their discussions connects the initiatives behind North Korea, China and NAFTA. The steel and aluminum tariffs are part of the toolbox. Only one media personality, our favorite suspicious cat, appears to understand the larger economic play and how it is being deployed.

From the U.S. perspective, NAFTA has a fatal flaw. Mexico and Canada admitted the flaw for the first time a few weeks ago. The flaw is Mexico and Canada’s exploitation of NAFTA as a backdoor into the U.S. market for Asian, mostly Chinese, manufactured products. Multinational corporations who have invested in Canada and Mexico are determined to retain the flaw.

President Trump understands that as long as Canada and Mexico can unilaterally make trade agreements with the EU and ASEAN nations, any NAFTA agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico is moot. The NAFTA talks are paused.

The U.S. Team now heads to China. There’s no doubt part of the objective is to begin a structural discussion that must happen for the U.S. trade team to approach closing the fatal NAFTA flaw from the source of origin. [*note* on the EU side of this issue, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is leading a similar discussion. Mnuchin and Lighthizer are focused on Asia, Ross has responsibility for Europe]

The North Korean nuclear denuclearization agreement, and substantive peace treaty between North and South Korea, is part of the geopolitical trade negotiation with the U.S. (President Trump) and Beijing (Chairman Xi).

All three issues: •NAFTA, •China Trade Deal, and •North Korea all become part of the larger dynamic. These economic initiatives and Korean strategic peace initiatives are connected by President Trump’s unique use of economic leverage.

I have no idea how Team U.S.A. plans to frame a deal with China that simultaneously solves NAFTA (fatal flaw) and North Korea; however, there’s no doubt -due to the sequencing and timing- that this objective is well underway. https://theconservativetreehouse.co...a-and-china-trade-deal-all-merge/#more-148665
Click to expand...
The answer is Trump!
 
I'm still puzzling over the relationship between the NAFTA, China and North Korea deals. I can see how that "backdoor" to the US market via Chinese investment in Canada and Mexico would work, I realize how threats of sanctions against Chinese 'dumping' could be used to coerce them into cooperating with North Korea and I appreciate how steps towards peaceful reunification of the Koreans could put China in a predicament -but it seems incredible Trump (who some describe as an "idiot") could figure all this out. The threats of higher tariffs against Chinese imports is easy, Trump telegraphed as much when he met with Xi at his resort and apparently this worked as China strengthened their sanctions. What Trump will negotiate regarding the Chinese predicament over a peacefully unified Korea is pure speculation. What intrigues me is how only Trump was able to find this "flaw" in NAFTA (which both Canada and Mexico acknowledge). I can't believe that after decades of this NAFTA deal nobody ever noticed before that by incorporating in Mexico or Canada and renting a warehouse a Chinese manufacturer could ship goods to the US without tariffs.

"Idiot" seems an exaggeration and the "full court press" with which Trump's team is tackling this in the context of the North Korean deal suggests there are some mightily perspicatious players on that team.
 
Last edited:
More winning:
Ahead of the planned meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and an unprecedented thaw in the relationship between North and South Koreas, Pyongyang decided to release the three Korean-Americans detained in the country's labor camps Tuesday.

Choi Sung-ryong, a representative of the families of the prisoners, told South Korean news outlet Naver: "We talked with a source in North Korea today. North Korean authorities released Kim Dong-cheol, Kim Sang-deok and Kim Hak-seong, who were in jail at the labor correction center in early April, and they are currently in a ‘course’ where they are treated and educated at a hotel outside Pyongyang.” North Korea Releases 3 US Detainees From Labor Camps, Negotiating Return
Click to expand...
 
Some think this all will depend on whether Kim can manage the transition from a tyrannical regime without provoking a coup or revolution:
Kim’s offer to end nuclear testing and eventually, maybe, give up his nukes is a rhetorical opening move in a long diplomatic game that the autocrat hopes will yield economic and security benefits for his regime without necessarily resulting in full nuclear disarmament. “Suspending testing is a good-faith gesture and bargaining ploy that yields what Kim wants out of his testing program, politically,” Bruce Blair, a Princeton nuclear expert, told The Daily Beast.

Halting the test program doesn’t necessarily cost North Korea much, Budjeryn noted. And it’s definitely not the same thing as scrapping all existing nukes. “North Korea had six nuclear tests, the same as Pakistan, and probably sufficient to gather the technical information they need.”

Actually dismantling the small number of atomic warheads it has produced—not to mention the associated long-range ballistic missiles—would deprive North Korea of the very thing that has allowed the isolated, impoverished country to negotiate as an equal with the wealthier South and the even richer and more powerful United States.

“What in the world could induce them to renounce it?” Budjeryn asked of Pyongyang’s atomic arsenal. “I would expect that a genuine decision to dismantle these programs would come on the back of a regime change or at least a radical redefinition of what kind of state North Korea is and how it relates to the outside world and the international community.”

“Is Kim Jong Un capable of such a radical redefinition?” Budjeryn continued. “Has he drunk the Kool-Aid and realized that he can’t keep his country isolated and poor and now that he’s proven he can build the bomb he wants to open it up on his own terms?... To ascertain it, we’ll have to see what he is prepared to do internally, not just internationally.”

“Inner conviction weighs heavier on the scale than international pressure,” de Klerk said of his own decision to dismantle South Africa’s nukes. Does Kim feel the same conviction in a country with no free elections, where his word is final? Where the government controls information and communications? Where authorities imprison or even kill anyone who questions Kim’s whims?

The key to divining Pyongyang’s willingness to truly end its nuclear program is looking for evidence of domestic political reform, Budjeryn said. “If domestically North Korea is more of the same, then Kim’s rhetoric is just more of the same old ploy we’ve seen before: ratcheting up the program to get concessions from the West, only to restart it again a few years down the road with new rigor.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-north-korea-really-about-to-give-up-its-nuclear-weapons?ref=home
Click to expand...
So far North Korean media has downplayed the significance of Kim's recent moves, I would expect agreeing to give up the nukes would not be well-received by his military, but I don't think he can sensibly just shoot all dissenters if he's trying to transition from tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom