North Korea: What Next?

[cherdano]

Sorry once again. (I keep forgetting that I need to write at a third grade level when hectoring you)

 

Lets try this again

 

Hilter was a bad man

He killed many many innocent people.

 

But Hitler sometimes did things that were not bad.

We can not not point to a single good act and say "Hitler Trump is a good person".

 

And that is what your post did.

Richard, you have explained your point extremely clearly and in simple language, and nobody could disagree with you. I am sure ldrews will now understand what you meant and concede your point.

 

Right?

(Or maybe, just maybe, he is just trolling and doesn't really have an idea what point he is trying to make?)

[hrothgar]

 

(Or maybe, just maybe, he is just trolling and doesn't really have an idea what point he is trying to make?)

 

Mißverständnisse und Trägheit vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt machen als List und Bosheit. Wenigstens sind die beiden letzteren gewiß seltener

[ldrews]

Sorry once again. (I keep forgetting that I need to write at a third grade level when hectoring you)

 

Lets try this again

 

Hilter was a bad man

He killed many many innocent people.

 

But Hitler sometimes did things that were not bad.

We can not not point to a single good act and say "Hitler Trump is a good person".

 

And that is what your post did.

 

As you point out, Trump did a good act with respect to Hurricane Harvey. Perhaps more await us.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, Trump's total disregard for other people's lives was evident in his handling of Hurricane Harvey.

 

A really good person would have donated the money behind the scenes and not done the whole "look at me aren't I wonderful" thing.

 

Given his history with asking supporters to make donations and then claiming them as his, I have to wonder whose money it actually is.

[hrothgar]

As you point out, Trump did a good act with respect to Hurricane Harvey. Perhaps more await us.

 

No. I never said anything of the sort.

I said that a narcissistic madman can still do an isolated good act.

 

FWIW, I do believe that Trump has done a mediocre job on the Harvey front.

Moreover, this is a hell of a lot better than his wont.

However, I sure as hell am not labelling this as "good"

 

Had Trump say... used the power of the bully pulpit to solicit donations for Harvey victims rather than selling his hats... that might have risen to the level of a good act.

Had Trump dispatch the EPA to start looking into all those superfund sites that are leaking toxic waste into the ground water system... that might deserve some credit.

 

But showing up, bragging about the size of the storm, and then attacking Claire McCaskill

Not so much...

[nige1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfpe28mv9n0

[The_Badger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfpe28mv9n0

 

LOL. Being a film buff I totally forgot about the final sequence from Dr Strangelove. Just feet from my computer is a glossy book about Stanley Kubrick and all his films, too.

 

A quick, horrible, funny - to me - thought came into my head that if Trump sits astride the bomb, and the bomb is destined for Kim Jong-un, then it would literally kill two birds with one stone. (Shame it would probably kill a lot of innocent people, too, though.)

[RedSpawn]

From the Korean "conflict" ( IIRC, a UN police action that was US led) onward, has not NK been a satellite of the PRC? Were China to "ensure order" (read invade) would there be any outrage or resistance by the countries of the world?

So, a reasonable question would be: "Why w(d)ont they?" A convenient buffer and effective deflector of attention, NK's antics are more Chinese puppetry than regional agression.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/09/05/putin-north-koreans-would-rather-eat-grass-than-give-up-nukes/632063001/

 

Hmmmm.

[kenberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfpe28mv9n0

 

My wife really does not like Dr. Strangelove, I really do. I saw it when it came out, I liked it then, I have not changed my mind. The strength is that it is logical. Crazy but logical. Logic leads from assumptions to conclusions and if you don't like the conclusions then you have to work on the assumptions.

 

Slim Pickens riding the bomb is unforgettable. But I had forgotten about the background of We'll Meet Again (Vera Lynn) set against the explosions. That juxtaposition was brilliant.

 

Added: I was stunned to see that Vera Lynn is still alive and kicking at 100. It's a song I remember from childhood.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Lynn

or

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/20/well-meet-again-vera-lynn-promised-wartime-britain-at-100-shes-still-keeping-her-word/?utm_term=.261ecbc14292

and of course

[nige1]

As I have often noted, hardly originally, the history of the world is replete with violence, suffering brutality and death at the hands of others. A few observations. American school children are taught, at least I was in the 1940s, to admire Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death". Or consider Winston Churchill's

 

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

A very highly regarded speech, and I agree.

 

A common thread is that two possibilities, and only two, are offered. We will succeed, or we will die trying. If two opposing forces each take this view, a lot of people are going to die. If one side takes this view and the other doesn't, the side that does can get away with a lot.

There is a great deal of asymmetry. I am happily living my life, my main thought about North Korea is that I wish it would just go away. It won't. What does Kim want? Well, I don't know exactly, but surely it involves much greater power and influence for North Korea. To what extent is he prepared to go to the two options of either success or destruction? A good question, I doubt that anyone knows the answer. It is historical fact that leaders can go that route. We, here in the good old USA, want stability. Of course we do, things are pretty good for us as they are, so let's keep it that way. This seems like the right idea, for us. Kim wants change. He wants more. Usually, giving someone who wants more just a bit more in the hope that this satisfies him doesn't work. We could cite Munich on this, often that is done, or we could ask Native Americans. The fat is definitely in the fire and I do not think it is clear, or even all that likely, that there is a peaceful way out. The consequences will be awful for everyone, not only the direct participants. I hope that we can find a way. Recognizing that failure will be a horror is where we have to start, but it may not suffice. As you can see, I am a bit pessimistic.

 

[RedSpawn]

Having no oil and no strategic value (SK is already a US "friend"), all that they have left is provocation. Having seen the result of US intervention and subsequent prosperity (SK, Vietnam etc.) perhaps the Glorious Leader is simply looking for a handout? All of the other oppressive dictators have gotten rich and prosperous if they are part of the US sphere of influence and maybe he just wants his slice of the pie? . The Chinese have not been much of a help so far...

Trump and the U.S. War Department, I mean the Department of Defense, needs to be very careful about this whole North Korea situation.

 

With overtures of military intervention in:

 

1) Afghanistan; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/donald-trump-expand-us-military-intervention-afghanistan-pakistan

2) North Korea; http://time.com/4926815/north-korea-war-us/

3) Venezuela; http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/americas/colombia-venezuela-santos-interview/index.html

4) Iran; http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/14166 and

5) Syria https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/why-a-us-presence-in-syria-will-be-essential/2017/08/31/cad645d4-8e77-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html?utm_term=.4501f82206c9

 

the United States is spreading itself too thin here. We need to choose our battles wisely and carefully instead of catering to our egos and our imperialistic bravado. I can't imagine we would become involved in four separate military entanglements simultaneously, but then again, a lot of us never thought Trump would become President either.

 

Anything and everything is possible in this new political reality.

[akwoo]

Maybe this is too sophisticated for Trump, but surely it must have crossed the minds of some of his advisors.

 

Maybe Trump *wants* South Korea (and Japan if possible) ruined but just doesn't want to be seen as the one doing it? It'd take out some serious economic competition.

[Zelandakh]

It'd take out some serious economic competition.

And also offer US companies some serious opportunities in the reconstruction afterwards...America first!

[The_Badger]

Today, Wednesday, North Korea is sabre-rattling again this time at the UN. Let's forget the rhetoric for a while.

 

What concerns me now is that North Korea might continue to fire missiles and weapons for practice, not aiming at any particular target, just for provocation, in the same way they conducted their hydrogen bomb test.

 

Given that many of these weapons have disintegrated while being used, and North Korean technology is nowhere near as sophisticated as in the West, what happens when one of these 'tests' lands near or on Japanese, South Korean or USA (Guam, for example) soil? What then? North Korea says sorry, this wasn't meant to happen?

 

That for me is the frightening scenario, a mistake or accident. But how is the UN and the international community going stop him testing all weapons, not just the nuclear ones? Kim Jong-un is a complete law unto himself. This situation is going to continue for years and years if no resolutions can be enforced by the (gutless - in my view) UN.

 

I tend to agree with Vladimir Putin - surprisingly - that further sanctions will hurt not just North Korea but the North Korean people generally. That, in itself, isn't an option. I fail to see any possible solution to the North Korean problem generally.

[Al_U_Card]

And also offer US companies some serious opportunities in the reconstruction afterwards...America first!

Un would be better off using his "tech" exploring for oil and gas. Once they find that, THEN they would get some real "attention". :blink:

[sakuragi]

Why did NK start the nuclear test?

What did NK want?

Do NK want to stop all the sanctions?

If NK agree to stop the nuclear test in exchange of cancelling all the sanctions, would you make that deal?

What did NK do in the past which trigger all the sanctions?

Other than nuclear test what NK offend the rest of the world today?

 

I did not care too much about politics and probably asked some naive questions....

[Bermy]

I'm sure that your drug addled ramblings are of enormous comfort to the Chinese government

 

Think about it. If nuclear war started in that area, how could China not get caught in the fallout? Please all you Chinese people out there, don't get caught napping on this one.

[Bermy]

A wasp just flew over my head and I wondered.

 

Imagine if I were God with a can of insect repellent in front of the full nest. Imagine if a little wasp came out and said please leave us alone we won't harm you, promise.

 

Would I

 

1) Risk Taking them to another place?

 

2) Kill them all?

 

3) Leave them alone?

[diana_eva]

A wasp just flew over my head and I wondered.

 

Imagine if I were God with a can of insect repellent in front of the full nest. Imagine if a little wasp came out and said please leave us alone we won't harm you, promise.

 

Would I

 

1) Risk Taking them to another place?

 

2) Kill them all?

 

3) Leave them alone?

 

You must be one very undecided God. Why did you create the wasps, or any insects as a matter of fact if you were gonna even consider killing them with insect repellent?

[Winstonm]

A wasp just flew over my head and I wondered.

 

Imagine if I were God with a can of insect repellent in front of the full nest. Imagine if a little wasp came out and said please leave us alone we won't harm you, promise.

 

Would I

 

1) Risk Taking them to another place?

 

2) Kill them all?

 

3) Leave them alone?

 

If I were god, I would be an imaginary creation of someone's mind so my choice would be irrelevant. The truly scary idea, though, is that this person in whose mind I exist believes that I know something that he doesn't and he should follow my lead.

[RedSpawn]

Today, Wednesday, North Korea is sabre-rattling again this time at the UN. Let's forget the rhetoric for a while.

 

What concerns me now is that North Korea might continue to fire missiles and weapons for practice, not aiming at any particular target, just for provocation, in the same way they conducted their hydrogen bomb test.

 

Given that many of these weapons have disintegrated while being used, and North Korean technology is nowhere near as sophisticated as in the West, what happens when one of these 'tests' lands near or on Japanese, South Korean or USA (Guam, for example) soil? What then? North Korea says sorry, this wasn't meant to happen?

 

That for me is the frightening scenario, a mistake or accident. But how is the UN and the international community going stop him testing all weapons, not just the nuclear ones? Kim Jong-un is a complete law unto himself. This situation is going to continue for years and years if no resolutions can be enforced by the (gutless - in my view) UN.

 

I tend to agree with Vladimir Putin - surprisingly - that further sanctions will hurt not just North Korea but the North Korean people generally. That, in itself, isn't an option. I fail to see any possible solution to the North Korean problem generally.

Yup. Good prediction.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korea-may-launch-icbm-on-saturday-south-korean-president-warns/ar-AArt92y

[fromageGB]

Am I unusual in thinking that the USA is the problem not North Korea? Why can't countries just let other countries do what they themselves have already done - build and test nuclear weapons? Let NK have them. No problem. If they launch against anyone, then other nuclear countries will obliterate them, and therefore they won't. That's what a nuclear deterrent means. Peace of mind.

[RedSpawn]

Am I unusual in thinking that the USA is the problem not North Korea? Why can't countries just let other countries do what they themselves have already done - build and test nuclear weapons? Let NK have them. No problem. If they launch against anyone, then other nuclear countries will obliterate them, and therefore they won't. That's what a nuclear deterrent means. Peace of mind.

The Korean Armistice Agreement is the armistice which serves to ensure a complete cessation of hostilities of the Korean War. It was signed by U.S. Army Lieutenant General William Harrison, Jr. representing the United Nations Command (UNC), North Korean General Nam Il representing the Korean People's Army (KPA), and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (PVA).[1] The armistice was signed on July 27, 1953, and was designed to "insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved."[2] No "final peaceful settlement" has been achieved. The signed armistice established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (de facto a new border between the two nations), put into force a cease-fire, and finalized repatriation of prisoners of war. The Demilitarized Zone runs not far from the 38th parallel, which separated North and South Korea before the Korean War.

 

The signed armistice established a “complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea by all armed force”[2] that was to be enforced by the commanders of both sides. Essentially a complete cease-fire was put into force. The armistice is however only a cease-fire between military forces, rather than an agreement between governments.[28] No peace treaty was signed which means that the Korean War has not officially ended

.

The Korean War never officially ended so acts of provocation between North and South Korea matter. And since the United States has labeled North Korea an axis of evil, it is on our radar since we must protect South Korea who provides a lot of our imported goods. ALWAYS FOLLOW THE $$$$.

 

South Korea is the 5th largest export economy in the world and the 3rd most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index (ECI). In 2015, South Korea exported $537B and imported $422B, resulting in a positive trade balance of $115B. In 2015 the GDP of South Korea was $1.38T and its GDP per capita was $34.6k.

 

Trade. South Korea imported about $25 billion in agricultural goods in 2013, 4.8 percent of all its imports. Agricultural exports were $4 billion. The United States is the chief exporter to Korea, supplying a range of products, with corn, meat, hides, soybeans, milling wheat, and cotton among the major items. (bold and ital mine)

 

The top exports of South Korea are Integrated Circuits ($63.8B), Cars ($41.9B), Refined Petroleum ($29.5B), Passenger and Cargo Ships ($21B) and Vehicle Parts ($20.4B), using the 1992 revision of the HS (Harmonized System) classification. Its top imports are Crude Petroleum ($50.6B), Integrated Circuits ($31B), Petroleum Gas ($20.5B), Refined Petroleum ($14.6B) and Cars ($9.8B).

(bold mine) See http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/kor/

[hrothgar]

Am I unusual in thinking that the USA is the problem not North Korea? Why can't countries just let other countries do what they themselves have already done - build and test nuclear weapons? Let NK have them. No problem. If they launch against anyone, then other nuclear countries will obliterate them, and therefore they won't. That's what a nuclear deterrent means. Peace of mind.

 

I think that most people would agree that I am more than happy to criticize the US government.

 

With this said and done, this is one of those cases where I believe that the US is unequivocally in the right and the North Koreas are in the wrong.

Moreover, I think that the overwhelming majority of the world would agree that North Korea is a particularly bad country to join the nuclear club.

 

1. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that something is going to go wrong. I'd be much happier if the number of countries that had nukes was decreasing rather than increasing.

2. The North Korean leadership is desperate for hard currency and has a history of selling weapon's systems to third parties

3. The North Korean leadership lashes out militarily in an attempt to get attention

 

The US has a long standing history of military interventionism.

At the same time, we've had nukes for a long time and (thankfully) we've exercised restraint with respect to using them.

 

(Please note: I am scared shitless that Trump will do something stupid, but that is hardly an argument in favor of giving the North Korean nukes)

[cherdano]

Am I unusual in thinking that the USA is the problem not North Korea?

Unusual? No.

A bit dumb, yes. Or would you feel safer in a world where North Korea had nuclear weapons? And Lybia? And Ukraine? And South Korea? And India? And Iran?

Oh, you would? That would be even dumber...