General North Korea thread

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13181
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: Tysons Corner Microwave Tower
Contact:

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by Lonestar » 2018-06-14 09:39pm

My int. History of the Cold War had a bit of a nasty take on the summit

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... mit-218672
The Hole at the Heart of the North Korea Summit

Everyone’s forgetting what Kim Jong Un really says he’s prepared to do.

By JAMES G. HERSHBERG

June 11, 2018

Discussion of the summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to discuss “denuclearization” appears confused—or, for the most part, nonexistent—on one potentially key issue that could pose a major roadblock to any real deal, and may constitute a sort of cognitive dissonance between the two sides.

When Trump and other senior U.S. officials, such as Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton, speak of their aims for the summit (and, presumably, ensuing negotiations to hammer out the details of any accord in principle), they talk about an accord to permanently, verifiably and irreversibly “denuclearize” North Korea, which has built a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons, both bombs and missiles to deliver them, since detonating its first atomic blast in October 2006.

Naturally, they say, since the North Koreans have repeatedly lied in the past and can hardly be trusted, any acceptable agreement must include Pyongyang’s acceptance of intrusive inspections to verify its full compliance—a requirement that would, presumably, be at least as stern as the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, brokered by the Obama administration with five other countries. Trump fulminated against that deal during his campaign and has now abandoned it, claiming it wasn’t tough enough. Given that, unlike Iran, North Korea has already built nuclear weapons and a significant scientific/industrial complex to develop and maintain them, any system of intrusive verification would have to be stringent enough to guard against the danger of secret hiding places for weapons, facilities, or other prohibited activities or items—including the right to conduct unlimited, surprise inspections of military bases and other state-run properties (and by competent nuclear technical experts, not just non-expert observers, like the foreign journalists North Korea allowed to witness from a distance the May 24 “destruction” of its mostly underground Punggye-ri nuclear test site).

As many specialists note, it’s extremely unlikely the historically reclusive North Korean regime, regardless of the economic incentives (i.e., bribes) it was offered, would ever permit a system of pervasive, permanent snooping, that would pry open its tightly closed society. It’s even a less plausible prospect than Saddam Hussein swallowing the sort of inspections that the George W. Bush administration demanded to forage for weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to its 2003 invasion. (As brutal dictatorships go, Saddam’s Iraq was a paragon of openness compared with North Korea.)

But there’s another problem. While Trump & Co. talk of denuclearizing North Korea, Kim has only agreed (in his April 27 joint statement with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, reaffirmed when they met again on Saturday May 26) to the “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula. That very different idea means that even in the remote scenario that Kim agreed to intrusive inspections inside North Korea, he would insist, inevitably and at a minimum, on reciprocal rights to inspect comparable locations in South Korea — for example, all U.S. military bases (where around 30,000 troops are currently stationed) and probably South Korean ones as well, plus any and all U.S. warships or aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons that enter South Korea’s waters or airspace. After all, they can argue, how else can the denuclearization of the entire peninsula be assured unless North Korean inspectors are allowed to snoop around all possible hiding places in South Korea, and the Americans withdraw and/or dismantle their bases or equipment capable of storing or using nuclear warheads—such as any dual-use (able to use conventional or nuclear) weapons that the U.S. has deployed in South Korea for decades?

These considerations, by the way, are familiar to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race. Moscow’s objections to on-site inspections long doomed efforts at nuclear arms control, from the Truman administration’s 1946 Baruch Plan for international control of atomic energy, to Dwight Eisenhower’s “Open Skies” proposal at the 1955 Geneva summit, to John F. Kennedy’s efforts to achieve a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests (he settled instead for the 1963 Limited Test Ban treaty, which forbid explosions above ground, in the atmosphere or at sea, reducing radioactive fallout, but let underground tests continue). Only when Mikhail Gorbachev reversed four decades of Soviet policy in 1986 to allow mutual inspections (and satisfy Ronald Reagan’s endlessly repeated “Doveryai, no proveryai” [“Trust But Verify”] slogan) did dramatic progress become possible to slash both sides’ nuclear arsenals, starting with the near-breakthrough at the October 1986 Reykjavik Reagan-Gorbachev summit and then the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, presaging further accords.

It is, frankly, hard to imagine the Pentagon or White House allowing North Korean inspectors to poke their noses inside every U.S. military facility or vehicle in South Korea—or any actions that might threaten to denude South Korea of on-site U.S. military protection or nuclear deterrence—as the price to be paid for obtaining comparable rights inside North Korea. Would it be a worthwhile bargain? Is it even conceivable to hash out a workable, credible program? Might Washington and Seoul disagree if Pyongyang genuinely seemed ready to cooperate? Many complicated aspects of the issue require careful, informed consideration. The question is whether Trump, in his headlong, half-baked, helter-skelter rush to secure a Nobel Peace Prize, has even started to think about them. If the U.S. wants a serious discussion of “denuclearization” with North Korea, it should. Observers have noticed that “reciprocity” is one of Trump’s favorite words. He often repeats it lovingly, syllable by syllable, like a middle-schooler proud of mastering a vocabulary word for the PSATs, especially when discussing trade. He may not like the sound so much when the North Koreans utter the same word.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 378
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by houser2112 » 2018-06-15 09:00am

Broomstick wrote:
2018-06-14 05:54pm
It's rather like people in the US who want to argue that to Korean War wasn't a war for the US, it was a "police action". No, it was a fucking war. Euphemism doesn't change that.
While I think it is silly (and disrespectful to those who fought in it) to reduce the Korean War to a "police action", it is not a war (legally speaking, from the US perspective, at least) because Congress didn't declare war, it was a UN-sanctioned military engagement.

I've always wondered why Congress has not declared war since WWII, given that the US has done a lot of things that look a whole lot like war to me (Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc). The apparent answer:
Yes, Congress Can Authorize War Without Formally 'Declaring' It wrote:In addition, international law (which is very much part of the Constitution) has changed during the last 115 years. The notion of a "declaration of war" is now both obsolete and meaningless. Under both the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and the United Nations Charter (1945), war is no longer a lawful tool of national policy. With few exceptions, states may use military force only in self-defense, or with the permission of the U.N. Security Council. Insisting that Congress "declare war" is not just simple-minded, but self-defeating: It is asking the nation to solemnly declare itself to be an international outlaw.

Ralin
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2416
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by Ralin » 2018-06-16 05:39pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-12 07:16pm
But wow, you made it one and half posts into this discussion before trying to imply that I'm just a Western Imperialist. I'm impressed. I mean, I specified that I supported denuclearization for all countries, not just those outside the USA/Russia-approved club that you referred to. But I should have known that it would make no difference.
Oh for fuck’s sake, who do you think has pushed denuclearization/non-proliferation? George W Bush with his weapons of mass destruction crap is the most prominent advocate of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and ‘eliminating them’ from countries that already have them in the past generation. Are you really surprised that you get lumped in with that when you spout off about the same thing?
"We" being humanity, or rather those of us who want human civilization to survive and thrive.
Humanity doesn’t want to get rid of nuclear weapons, and the parts of human civilization threatened by larger, stronger countries tend to be high on the list of people who want to acquire them.
And no, there is no need for weapons that can blow up cities.
Yeah, there absolutely is. Imagine how much better the world would be if Saddam had been able to hurl a couple nukes at Bush’s Willing Executioners when Iraq was invaded.
Waging war does not require genociding the entire civilian populace of a country.
Genocide generally requires way more than just blowing up one or two cities.
Nuclear weapons are kept as a deterrent, not meant to be used.
That is using nuclear weapons, dumbass. And it is very much a necessity for countries threatened by the War on Terror or whatever the fuck Trump decides to do tomorrow.
And frankly, if my country was going to be conquered, I would rather be conquered, and hope that we could overthrow our oppressors later, than for my country's last act to be burning the world in an act of genocidal spite. The only possible exception to this would be if we were being overrun by someone who we knew was going to commit genocide anyway, in which case crippling them might be worth our own mutual destruction.

I don't know, I just don't see much appeal in the "If I'm going down, I'm taking everyone else with me" attitude.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have to worry about being conquered.

Ralin
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2416
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by Ralin » 2018-06-16 05:53pm

Neglected to address this in my last post:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-14 12:37am
But surely he could have avoided catastrophe without giving Kim Jong Un fucking everything for nothing in return.
He gave Kim the time of day, a bunch of vacuous compliments and the solemn word of Donald Trump to stop doing America and South Korea’s annual joint muscle-flexing ritual.
There's a difference between diplomacy, and being best buds with someone. Trump not only gave Kim Jong Un a massive propaganda victory, and put him on a level with the United States as he has so long craved (albeit more by degrading America's standing than by elevating Kim's)-
If you don’t want to be compared to Dubya or lumped in with imperialists you should probably stop talking about how there are ‘levels’ for countries and how desperately the Kim dynasty has wanted to be granted the honor of being equal to the United States. As opposed to that being something all countries and governments have because there is no higher authority above individual states.
Hell, he basically used the North Korean line that they are a provocation.
They are. Not a military man and I don’t know how much practical benefit the joint exercises have in terms of keeping everyone’s skills trained and sharp, but given that they’re at least partially a dry run for a future invasion of North Korea I can’t say that I disagree with the North Korean government’s line on this.
These are tremendous wins for Kim Jong Un.
They’re a mild step forward to people who want to defuse the situation and normalize relations between North and South Korea.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15694
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-16 07:18pm

Ralin wrote:
2018-06-16 05:39pm
Oh for fuck’s sake, who do you think has pushed denuclearization/non-proliferation? George W Bush with his weapons of mass destruction crap is the most prominent advocate of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and ‘eliminating them’ from countries that already have them in the past generation. Are you really surprised that you get lumped in with that when you spout off about the same thing?
This has got to be some kind of logical fallacy, though I can't recall the name. You're not arguing against the merits of nuclear proliferation: you're arguing that because a bad man used the position hypocritically to justify bad things, that automatically invalidates the argument and that anyone who uses it can now be lumped in with George W. Bush.

Problem is, you can do that with literally any position. Secularism? Some people use it to justify banning Muslim refugees, so clearly if you believe in the separation of Church and State, you're a xenophobic neo-Nazi. Universal Health Care? That's Socialized Medicine, so anyone who supports it is a Marxist. Criticizing American Imperialism? Osama Bin Laden did, so anyone who does so must be a jihadi terrorist.
Humanity doesn’t want to get rid of nuclear weapons, and the parts of human civilization threatened by larger, stronger countries tend to be high on the list of people who want to acquire them.
That's a hell of a broad generalization you're asserting. Have you got a statistical survey of the level of support for nuclear arms world-wide that you'd like to show me?
Yeah, there absolutely is. Imagine how much better the world would be if Saddam had been able to hurl a couple nukes at Bush’s Willing Executioners when Iraq was invaded.
Yes, because possibly stopping that one invasion justifies greatly increasing the risk that the entire world will burn. :roll:
Genocide generally requires way more than just blowing up one or two cities.
You think it would stop there, and not escalate further?

So you're not pro-genocide, just pro-war crimes with a side of incredibly naïve.
That is using nuclear weapons, dumbass. And it is very much a necessity for countries threatened by the War on Terror or whatever the fuck Trump decides to do tomorrow.
You know what I meant, its obvious what I meant, and you are nitpicking my wording to pretend I'm too stupid to understand the concept of deterrence so that you can substitute mockery for actually addressing my points in full.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have to worry about being conquered.
I'll acknowledge my experiences are obviously not the same as those of someone in, say, Iraq, but the mere fact of my nationality does not render my position automatically invalid. That is ad hominem- attacking the speaker rather than the argument.

And actually, yes, I do worry about being conquered. Not from without, so much (unless you count Russian election interference, though the possibility of a US invasion of Canada no longer seems as unthinkable as it once did), but definitely being conquered from within, by white nationalism and authoritarianism. Which is actually harder to defend against in some ways than an external aggressor, and something nukes won't really help with.

So in summary, your argument is that:

a) "Anyone who opposes nuclear weapons can be assumed to be like George W. Bush."

b) "Everyone wants nukes, because I say so."

c) "Wouldn't it be wonderful if Saddam could have nuked a bunch of Americans?"

d) "If nukes are used, it will only be to blow up a couple cities (because that's no big deal, right?), and it won't possibly escalate, despite the entire history of MAD doctrine saying otherwise. Because I say so."

e) "TRR is too stupid to understand the uses of nuclear weapons, because I say so. Even though I'm the one who apparently doesn't understand the concept of escalation."

f) "Anyone who doesn't prefer mutual extermination to conquest is just a privileged westerner."

Since none of these constitute actual logical or valid arguments, I'm not sure what the point of this is.
Ralin wrote:
2018-06-16 05:53pm
Neglected to address this in my last post:

He gave Kim the time of day, a bunch of vacuous compliments and the solemn word of Donald Trump to stop doing America and South Korea’s annual joint muscle-flexing ritual.
Words matter, especially in politics and diplomacy.

Do you really see nothing wrong with Trump effectively endorsing and repeating North Korean propaganda, and Kim's leadership as a mass murdering despot, while praising the "loyalty" of his "hard working" people slaves?
If you don’t want to be compared to Dubya or lumped in with imperialists you should probably stop talking about how there are ‘levels’ for countries and how desperately the Kim dynasty has wanted to be granted the honor of being equal to the United States. As opposed to that being something all countries and governments have because there is no higher authority above individual states.
Because unbridled nationalism worked so well for the world in the '30s and '40s.

Let's be clear: I do not hate or condemn the people of any country, nor consider them collectively my inferiors. But I can and will criticize a government which routinely engages in the mass incarceration and murder of entire families, and treats its populace as more akin to a slave labour camp on a national scale. Morally, all people may be equal, but not all governments are. You can and will try to brand me as an Imperialist for actually daring to suggest that there is such a thing as right and wrong in the world, but I hold NK to the same standard that I do my own country. If Trump were doing the things Kim Jong Un does (which seems increasingly likely), I would want him deposed.

Trump condoning Kim's atrocities is a bad thing. If you would consider it a bad thing for people to defend American atrocities, you should consider it a bad thing for people to defend North Korean atrocities.
They are. Not a military man and I don’t know how much practical benefit the joint exercises have in terms of keeping everyone’s skills trained and sharp, but given that they’re at least partially a dry run for a future invasion of North Korea I can’t say that I disagree with the North Korean government’s line on this.
Every military engages in exercises. North Korea has military exercises. Moreover, its not Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw from a bilateral agreement with SK.
They’re a mild step forward to people who want to defuse the situation and normalize relations between North and South Korea.
You really don't get the difference between "negotiating" and "endorsement/pandering"? Well, neither does the POTUS, apparently.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14568
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by Gandalf » 2018-12-14 07:01am

ABC News wrote:North and South Korean soldiers shake hands, exchange cigarettes during DMZ inspections

Dozens of North and South Korean soldiers exchanged cigarettes and chatted after crossing over the world's most heavily armed border on Wednesday.

The troops were inspecting the sites of their rival's frontline guard posts to verify they had been removed, as part of inter-Korean engagement efforts that come amid stalled US-North Korea nuclear disarmament talks.

Soldiers from the two Koreas inspected the dismantlement or disarmament of 22 guard posts — 11 from each country — inside the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) that forms their 248-kilometre-long, four-kilometre-wide border.

The inspections were mostly symbolic — the removals will leave South Korea with about 50 other DMZ posts and North Korea with 150, according to defence experts in South Korea. But they mark an extraordinary change in ties from last year, when North Korea tested a series of increasingly powerful weapons and threatened Seoul and Washington with war.

A small group of journalists was allowed to enter the zone to watch a South Korean team leave for a North Korean guard post in the morning and a North Korean team come to a South Korean guard post later in the day.

Seven helmeted South Korean soldiers wearing backpacks, one carrying a camera and another a camcorder, approached the line separating the northern and southern sides of the DMZ.

North Korean troops then walked in a row down a hill to meet them.

The soldiers from the rival Koreas exchanged handshakes before moving up the hill together to go to the dismantled North Korean guard post.

Other groups of South Korean soldiers simultaneously visited 10 other North Korean guard posts.

They check to see if the guard posts and any underground structures have been completely dismantled and whether all troops, weapons and other equipment have been withdrawn, according to Seoul's Defence Ministry.

Hours later, seven North Korean soldiers clad in olive-green uniforms crossed the same borderline and were then escorted by South Korean troops to the concrete and steel debris of a destroyed South Korean post.

North Korean teams also visited 10 other South Korean sites.

Engagement 'unimaginable in the past'

South Korea's liberal President, Moon Jae-in, the driving force behind the current engagement effort, watched parts of the verification broadcast live at an underground bunker in Seoul.

Mr Moon called the work "a new milestone" in inter-Korean history that was "unimaginable in the past", according to his office.

North Korean soldiers allowed South Korean soldiers to use stethoscope-like equipment to inspect whether there were any underground tunnels below the site, South Korean presidential spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom told reporters.

The Demilitarised Zone was originally created as a buffer between the countries at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.

But contrary to its name, the DMZ has become the world's most heavily fortified frontier after the rival Koreas planted an estimated two million mines, deployed combat troops and heavy weapons and set up layers of barbed wire fences.

When the leaders of the Koreas met in Pyongyang in September, they agreed to lower military tensions along their border, including the withdrawal of some DMZ guard posts, halting live-fire exercises near the border, demilitarising their shared border village of Panmunjom and removing mines at a DMZ area to launch joint searches for Korean War dead.

Conservatives in South Korea have criticised the deals, saying Seoul should not have agreed to such conventional arms reduction programs because North Korea's nuclear threat remains unchanged.

US-led nuclear diplomacy aimed at stripping North Korea of its nuclear program has reported little progress since North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump met for a summit in Singapore in June.

North Korea has made a vague disarmament pledge, and some experts say the North's turn to diplomacy after last year's string of weapons tests is aimed at weakening US-led sanctions.
So that's something.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15694
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: General North Korea thread

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-12-15 01:27am

Little steps in the right direction.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

Post Reply