Heh. Trump appears to like them a lot more than I ever have. I mean, it's great, huh? He's trying to declare peace on a rogue state armed with nuclear weapons & start a war with a country who demonstrably forswore their production. Go figure.
Yeah North Korea is like the perfect country for someone like @Jhhnn it has none of the billionaires he hates and Income inequality is very low.
Who? Who is calling for war? *crickets*Look who are war hawks all of a sudden.
Look who are war hawks all of a sudden.
Things which look like safe assumptions at this point:
1. NK will work on nukes no matter what "agreement" we make on them.
2. With the exception of some isolated incidents (e.g. a few ad hoc kidnapping the citizens of other countries) NK is not externally aggressive and will continue not to be.
3. There is little advantage to the US or rest of world in maintaining the "armistice" status quo that wouldn't also apply to a formal peace deal officially ending the war.
4. NK has basically nothing of value to in trade to us or the rest of the world absent nuke technology or maybe some low-value commodity products.
Therefore throwing off the "well we've been hostile with them since the 1950s" paradigm, I'm not sure a reasonable deal that actually supports our long-term strategic interests wouldn't consist of something like what's in this story. Combined with a formal peace deal it recognizes reality as it is, not as we wish it would be. We acknowledge NK nukes will be produced no matter what, despite if there's a deal. We acknowledge the regime, while a humanitarian disaster to its own people, doesn't represent a huge global security threat as NK isn't attacking SK or anything else directly anytime soon. And we acknowledge the bigger threat is NK giving nukes to others less concerned about self-preservation than they are (insert terrorist group, or bitter ethnic/tribal rivalry group here) so that's what we should be working on stopping.
Of course, Trump is the worst possible POTUS to execute the stuff I just said above.
Picture Hannity if the black president did all the stuff you just said is NBD.
IMHO "what does Hannity think" is the least important metric of all time. And I didn't claim it was NBD, attempting a modal change to how we deal with NK is a big deal indeed and certainly not simple. It would likely prove challenging even to a POTUS well gifted in foreign policy transitions to pull off (IMHO George HW Bush would have been ideal considering how deftly he handled the end of the Cold War). But the benefits would be large, and it would be a more stable end-state that what we have now. I have basically zero confidence that Trump can pull it off for obvious reasons, but that's a different issue than whether maintaining the 1950s-2000s policy on NK is something we should do.
Simple reality is that diplomacy hasn't worked in the 66 years since the cessation of hostility's. Maybe they just haven't tried hard enough, or the folks doing it weren't all that good at it. Regardless, NK is now a nuclear power. It seems to me that we're at the point where we accept that reality, or launch a preemptive strike to decapitate command and control. There is the third option that seems to be the most popular based on history, that being kick the can down the road and let the next administration deal with it. But that one doesn't seem to produce the result we want.No one is calling for war. We are calling for diplomacy. You don't do diplomacy by giving them what they want for nothing in return. Trump's method of diplomacy is to talk big, and when they call his bluff just fold. It might, on occasion, work if it was not his only strategy. When you bluff every hand no one is fooled for long. Trump has so far bluffed at every single negotiation, been called at most of them and folded.
If Obama had done what you say should be done, Trump would have gotten rid of it just because Obama. Just look at the Iran deal. That was far more effective and handled much better overall and Trump trashed that.
Hey stupid, since Trump gets advice from him might be worth knowing.IMHO "what does Hannity think" is the least important metric of all time. And I didn't claim it was NBD, attempting a modal change to how we deal with NK is a big deal indeed and certainly not simple. It would likely prove challenging even to a POTUS well gifted in foreign policy transitions to pull off (IMHO George HW Bush would have been ideal considering how deftly he handled the end of the Cold War). But the benefits would be large, and it would be a more stable end-state that what we have now. I have basically zero confidence that Trump can pull it off for obvious reasons, but that's a different issue than whether maintaining the 1950s-2000s policy on NK is something we should do.
Remember the time when the Bush Admin announced that the DPRK confessed to having nukes way back when so they could kill the long delayed reactor deal, and were believed? As if any DPRK negotiator would ever be so stupid.
They double dog dared the DPRK to do it, and here we are... I gotta admit, the DPRK makes a much better boogieman with nukes than without, huh? It means we can't invade. First use on their part would be suicidal & the primary goal of all authoritarian regimes is survival.
Does he get the Nobel now?And in the latest update, thanks to Trump, there might not be a choice BUT to accept it at this point.
Pretty Sure Japan and other nearby countries just looooove the crap out of this idea.....
North Korea has nuclear weapons.
North Korea has China as their staunch supporter, to deny any and all efforts to oppose them. Militarily or otherwise.
The only reasonable path forward is to butter them up, and fixate on human rights in exchange for trade incentives. Truly test whether we are capable of reforming humanity to make even the worst despot !@#$hole no longer a blight on human existence. For if the world's Super Power, China, is backing such a nation, what hope does humanity have if we cannot find a non violent resolution?
I don't see them going to war to destroy North Korea's nuclear capability.
Do you want us to?
You forgot lovely ass kissing letters, by Dear Leader X. X=pick a despot.THIS IS AWESOME.
Now, all autocracies has to do to get gut....is to get the a bomb... and threaten to set it off.
NORTH KOREA Has shown the way.
Let there be CELEBRATIONS...