North Korea policy

[AlanS 1]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

What are you saying, you should only trade with countries you can control? You're not the world boss, y'know

 

We should trade with countries that share our values of freedom of speech, generally democratic values and don't have nuclear missiles pointed at us. 

 

The free trade agreement with China was a strategic mistake.  

[kallend 1,621]

3 hours ago, AlanS said:

Here is a list of countries that have nuclear weapons and have launched satellites. 

#1) Russia
#2) China
#3) North Korea

 

You missed a few.

[tkhayes 124]

On 3/1/2019 at 2:09 PM, billvon said:

And getting all the international prestige and support that comes from regular, groveling visits by a US president.

"Oh, please, great leader, won't you stop building bombs and murdering US citizens?"
"No."

"Oh, OK.  See you in six months!  I really look forward to seeing you again.  We have a tremendous future together and will see each other many times."

The right wing was all over Obama for the 'apology tours' as they are called.  Of course, Trump wanting to suck every dictator's dick seems to be good policy.....

[Phil1111 908]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

You missed a few.

Yes 12 countries all together.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Phil1111

[normiss 620]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

You missed a few.

Intentionally selective for the desired message.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

8 hours ago, AlanS said:

...And in a real attack, the first nuke likely will be an airburst designed to blind our radar and surveillance systems.   Google "EMP" to understand what that means. 

It would take some luck, but North Korea could with an EMP first strike follow up the launch with something that could hit Seattle or San Francisco or Los Angles.  (The rockets don't need to be that accurate to do an EMP attack or hit a city)

 

 

They are 2 for 5 in satellite launches. That's not a level of reliability that encourages attacks.

An EMP attack would be devastating to the US, but really wouldn't affect our response to the DPRK. The military has enough capability, 'hardening' and work arounds that if the DPRK launched a nuclear attack on the US, they would cease to exist in a day or two.
China and Russia would simply stand on the sidelines and watch. China might bitch about the fallout, but they really wouldn't be willing to get involved.

KJU knows this. He really has no interest in attacking the US. He does, however worry about the US attacking him. So he wants his nukes. They really are a hell of a deterrent. 

That's why he wants them. And, thanks to Trump's amazing negotiation skills, he has them and will now likely keep and improve them. That likely would have happened anyway, but over a much longer time frame. Trump has elevated his prestige and given him a huge opening to increase his capabilities.

[Phil1111 908]

7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

KJU .. So he wants his nukes.... And, thanks to Trump's amazing negotiation skills, he has them and will now likely keep and improve them. ...Trump has elevated his prestige and given him a huge opening to increase his capabilities.

South Korea says North Korea is restoring dismantled launch site

'South Korean intelligence officials have reportedly seen signs of new activity at North Korean nuclear sites that the country previously pledged to dismantle. ...North Korean officials promised last year to dismantle following an initial summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un, according to Reuters....

In November, however, North Korean officials indicated that progress on dismantling the Tongchang-ri facility and others could be reversed if U.S. sanctions on the country's economy were not lifted, which Trump refused to do at last week's summit....

"If the U.S. keeps behaving arrogantly without showing any change in its stand, while failing to properly understand our repeated demand, the DPRK may add one thing to the state policy for directing all efforts to the economic construction adopted in April and as a result, the word 'pyongjin' may appear again," the country's foreign ministry said last year."

So to paraphrase for trump's supporters. The arrogance of trump and Pompeo has forced NK to expand production. Thanks for the cessation of US-SK war games.

[billvon 2,384]

18 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

South Korea says North Korea is restoring dismantled launch site

'South Korean intelligence officials have reportedly seen signs of new activity at North Korean nuclear sites that the country previously pledged to dismantle. ...

Yep.  And in six months Trump will go back and Kim will promise to shut it down again as long as Trump gives the nod to a few ocean test launches of perfectly safe, unarmed ICBM's.  And gets South Korea off his back.  And Trump will say "sure" and declare victory, because he will desperately need a victory at that point.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 9:50 AM, billvon said:

A thread to discuss the US's North Korea policy

Hi Bill,

Re:  'North Korea Seen Reassembling Rocket Test Site'

It looks like Kim is revising 'The Art of the Deal.'

Who's winning now:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700551337/north-korea-seen-reassembling-rocket-test-site

Jerry Baumchen

[AlanS 1]

18 hours ago, kallend said:

You missed a few.

....I'm only counting the ones with missiles pointed at us. 

Is this really such a big deal for you?

[kallend 1,621]

4 hours ago, AlanS said:

....I'm only counting the ones with missiles pointed at us. 

Is this really such a big deal for you?

Ah, so you were practicing selection bias to make a point.  Got it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, AlanS said:

....I'm only counting the ones with missiles pointed at us. 

Is this really such a big deal for you?

Well, first off, the DPRK doesn't have any "missiles pointed at us."

They are still very early in the development phase.

 

Second off, yes. The shorter the list the more 'exclusive' it is. You are implying that the DPRK is one of 4 countries in the world with nukes & sat launch capability. 
And their capability is very, very sketchy.

 

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how they present an 'existential threat' to the US. An EMP airburst, or taking out Seattle, San Fran or even LA wouldn't eliminate the existence of the US. 

[AlanS 1]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, first off, the DPRK doesn't have any "missiles pointed at us."

They are still very early in the development phase.

 

Second off, yes. The shorter the list the more 'exclusive' it is. You are implying that the DPRK is one of 4 countries in the world with nukes & sat launch capability. 
And their capability is very, very sketchy.

 

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how they present an 'existential threat' to the US. An EMP airburst, or taking out Seattle, San Fran or even LA wouldn't eliminate the existence of the US. 

Your information is old. 

North Korea hasn't been doing public tests or launches recently but they've been working just as hard as before in building more nuclear bombs and improving their designs.  And they have been getting help which will increase their capabilities fast. They just haven't shown these capabilities publicly yet.

The chemicals to process plutonium, the milling machines needed to make compact nuclear bombs and solid rocket boosters are not things that North Korea can produce domestically. During this hiatus, they have been importing these things quietly with external help. 

This is such an important issue that we need to link trade talks with China to help from them bring down the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. 

 

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

5 minutes ago, AlanS said:

During this hiatus, they have been importing these things quietly with external help. 

Yes, I at least partly blame Trump for this. China and Russia both slacked off of sanctions and began quietly pursuing more profits after his "detente" with Kim.

[AlanS 1]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

Ah, so you were practicing selection bias to make a point.  Got it.

BS. What is the point to include France or Britain in that list? Do think they will ever point nuclear weapons at us? Really?  You're just making a childish rhetorical point, that doesn't add anything substantial. Get it?

  

 

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, AlanS said:

BS. What is the point to include France or Britain in that list? Do think they will ever point nuclear weapons at us? Really?  You're just making a childish rhetorical point, that doesn't add anything substantial. Get it?

  

 

 

mmmmmm.......If you are going to make claims like that to back a point you need to take care that they are accurate. Get it?

[AlanS 1]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, I at least partly blame Trump for this. China and Russia both slacked off of sanctions and began quietly pursuing more profits after his "detente" with Kim.

Just to be clear I blame Trump too.  They play to his psychological profile as a narcissist to buy more time to quietly improve their capabilities. We are in denial. 

[AlanS 1]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

mmmmmm.......If you are going to make claims like that to back a point you need to take care that they are accurate. Get it?

Please bookmark my post and look at it again in 4 years. I'm telling the truth. 

[DJL 232]

On 3/5/2019 at 10:22 AM, wolfriverjoe said:

China and Russia would simply stand on the sidelines and watch. China might bitch about the fallout, but they really wouldn't be willing to get involved.

We're talking Hollywood movie level hypothetical but the lesson from Pearl Harbor is that the first attack needs to be much more effective.  Why not let Korea make it and then China/Russia engage a vastly depleted US with conventional troops?

[billvon 2,384]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

We're talking Hollywood movie level hypothetical but the lesson from Pearl Harbor is that the first attack needs to be much more effective.  

You are assuming conventional warfare.

A much more effective way to attack nowadays would be to sail a small misflagged cargo ship into San Francisco harbor and detonate a nuclear bomb.  Then watch Trump attack China (or Germany, or whoever Putin tells him to attack.)

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

You are assuming conventional warfare.

A much more effective way to attack nowadays would be to sail a small misflagged cargo ship into San Francisco harbor and detonate a nuclear bomb.  Then watch Trump attack China (or Germany, or whoever Putin tells him to attack.)

I guess what I'm saying is that the US may honor keeping warfare with China and Russia conventional because they weren't the ones who sent the nukes.  We should probably stop providing ideas for actual and fictional warfare without proofing a copyright on the material.  With that said this discussion is hereby declared to be a dated research discussion for intellectual property about a band of skydivers who thwart WWIII.

[kallend 1,621]

3 hours ago, AlanS said:

BS. What is the point to include France or Britain in that list? Do think they will ever point nuclear weapons at us? Really?  You're just making a childish rhetorical point, that doesn't add anything substantial. Get it?

  

 

 

You got caught out making a misleading claim.  Stop weaseling.

[AlanS 1]

11 hours ago, kallend said:

You got caught out making a misleading claim.  Stop weaseling.

Or I thought most of the readers here were: 

1) Informed enough to know that France, England, Isreal, India, and Pakistan also have nuclear weapons and

2) Smart enough to know it doesn't make a difference to this topic if they are not aimed at us. (unlike the 3 mentioned) and

3) Mature enough to make some relevant points instead of just tilting towards personal attacks like "Stop weaseling". 

 

[kallend 1,621]

Yes, and we're also smart enough to know about China, Russia and NK, so what's your point?  And you're still weaseling,

[nigel99 143]

On 3/5/2019 at 3:17 PM, AlanS said:

 

We should trade with countries that share our values of freedom of speech, generally democratic values and don't have nuclear missiles pointed at us. 

 

The free trade agreement with China was a strategic mistake.  

Honestly it is ridiculous to suggest it is somehow China’s problem. The USA (and most of the West) choose to buy cheap products that are made overseas and large corporations exploit the cheap labour for shareholders gain. Apple - made in China, nearly all our computers etc are made in China. 

Forget tariffs and punishing others, buy local and only support local businesses. Be prepared to pay more for the same products, even if they are not higher quality. As a side note I do have an issue with companies taking manufacturing offshore to increase profits and finding ways to avoid paying taxes, but that is a whole other discussion