North Korea's Leader Kim Jong-un Says He'll Give Up Weapons if US Promises Not to Invade (nytimes.com) 406
Several readers have shared a report: North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, told President Moon Jae-in of South Korea when they met that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States would agree to formally end the Korean War and promise that it would not invade his country, a South Korean government spokesman said Sunday. In a faith-building gesture ahead of a summit meeting with President Trump, Mr. Kim also said he would invite experts and journalists from South Korea and the United States to watch the shutdown next month of his country's only known underground nuclear test site.
The comments by Mr. Kim were made on Friday when the leaders of the two Koreas met at Panmunjom, a village on their shared border, the spokesman, Yoon Young-chan, said on Sunday, providing additional details of the meeting. "I know the Americans are inherently disposed against us, but when they talk with us, they will see that I am not the kind of person who would shoot nuclear weapons to the south, over the Pacific or at the United States," Mr. Kim told Mr. Moon, according to Mr. Yoon's account of the meeting. It was another dramatically conciliatory statement by Mr. Kim, whose country threatened to do exactly those things during the height of nuclear tensions last year.
The comments by Mr. Kim were made on Friday when the leaders of the two Koreas met at Panmunjom, a village on their shared border, the spokesman, Yoon Young-chan, said on Sunday, providing additional details of the meeting. "I know the Americans are inherently disposed against us, but when they talk with us, they will see that I am not the kind of person who would shoot nuclear weapons to the south, over the Pacific or at the United States," Mr. Kim told Mr. Moon, according to Mr. Yoon's account of the meeting. It was another dramatically conciliatory statement by Mr. Kim, whose country threatened to do exactly those things during the height of nuclear tensions last year.
pinky swear (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pinky swear (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not familiar with the details beyond the occasional headline, but it sure looks like one or both of these things has happened:
1) Kim Jong-un did not inherit his father's insanity; he was merely raised within it's influence. Now that he has been on his own for a while, he is actually sane enough to listen to some reasonable advisers and shake off the nonsense his father imposed. He is grasping the big picture; including the nature of the global economy and how his country desperately needs to get on board if it is going to have a future (which requires playing nice).
2) Something, possibly Trump, possibly waning support from China, has him scared shitless.
Re:pinky swear (Score:5, Interesting)
Or 3) It's a trap!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's what I was thinking too. Maybe Sun-Tzu's art of War. Feign weakness when you are strong, and feign strength when you are weak.
Re: pinky swear (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry. We've got the world best negotiator on our side! Really, really great. Many are saying he's the best the world has ever seen!
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is definitely smarter than 1000 tiny ice crystals. No arguing with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, maybe DJ Trump's The Art of the Deal [amazon.com]
Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of ignoring mostly-Chinese companies that do business with North Korea (as Presidents past have done), Trump is actually going after them:
US unveils largest sanctions yet on ships, companies trading with North Korea [go.com]
The illegal foreign trade that Kim Jong-un uses to keep his army loyal is being threatened if not actually cut off. And he's squirming. Finally.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly, and nothing was discussed in the meeting between North Korea and China before this turn of events.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Trumps isolationism and nationalistic tantrums to do and China doesn't at all see a great opportunity to get US thrown out from the region by having North Korea play nice.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF, "back in the 60's"?
Iran had their revolution in 1979. The US-backed shah was overthrown, and after the revolution the conservative religious wing of the revolutionary forces seized power.
Re: (Score:3)
Theirs allot have it a bout.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what legal is about.
Re: Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple: We have security obligations to Japan. When we took over and occupied their country following WW2; we took it upon ourselves to write their new constitution for them. Said constitution placed severe restrictions on the size and composition of any future military they'd rebuild. And the missions they're allowed to undertake are similarly restricted. In return, we took upon ourselves the obligation to assure their security. North Korea is just across the sea from Japan, of course. And they've launched missiles into Japanese airspace of late. So I think it's safe to say that NK is a belligerent toward Japan. China has maintained belligerency towards Japan for about as long as I can remember, as well. Just a couple of years ago, they started intercepting and threatening Japanese airliners in International airspace... until the Air Force sent a few B-52s through those same air lanes to show what's up. And China has been trying to muscle in on the Senkaku islands, like they are the Spratlys, for many years as well. Russia, for that matter, is actually still *occupying* some of Japan's northern islands. So yeah, there's a quite legitimate obligation and need for a US presence at least in and around Japan.
A few decades later, President Carter signed into law the Taiwan Relations Act; which requires less comprehensive, but still binding, commitment to the defense of that nation as well. And I don't think rapacity and ambitions towards Taiwan need a reminder.
Re:pinky swear (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Is contra-indicated by his behavior up until this year. Reportedly in some ways he was even more ruthless than his father. His rhetoric was even more aggressive.
2) More likely this, specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point. Not only would this have likely set back their program, perhaps beyond recovery, it also demonstrated how much damage their messing around could do to the geology, right on China's border.After that point, everything toned downed rapidly. A few weeks ago he suddenly was willing to meet.
Then a couple of weeks ago, presumable at China's insistance, Kim Jong Un went to Beijing. We are note privy to what happened in that meeting, but afterward, NK was much more concrete about terms to wind things down, though the general overtures were promising prior to that.
Trump's rhetoric *probably* wasn't it, perhaps the elevated sanctions contributed, but I suspect if not for the test site incident, they'd still be betting on threat of force by nukes to keep things going until they'd control South Korea on their terms. Now it seems they've decided to appease the international community in exchange for guarantees their internal affairs would be left alone (which the rest of the world has already seemed content to leave alone, regardless of severity of atrocity).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Another way of looking at it is that Kim built up his political capital bother at home and abroad with the nuclear weapons and missile programmes. The war of words with Trump and the fact that his threats ultimately proved hollow, combined with the election of a liberal, progressive president in South Korea gave Kim the opportunity to sue to peace.
Now Kim is putting all the responsibility for this failing on America. He has made huge concessions, and all it needs is for the US to do the same. If Trump refus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
North Korea has been a master of this game for years. They are expert at ramping up rhetoric to get attention and concessions. Trump is a paper tiger. All bluster but he usually folds.
North Korea knows that it would lose badly in any real war so they calibrate their rhetoric to a fever pitch but they are wise enough to know when to pull back. Can't say the same about Trump. He usually folds but there is enough erratic behavior and stupidity to tip things the wrong way.
Re:Trump's rhetoric was proven empty (Score:4, Interesting)
You only need study H. Clinton's history during her time as Secretary of State. She's more of a globalist-enabler than a liberal. She and her clients were just itching for her to come to power so she could escalate the conflict in Syria. And it was NEVER about human rights or the plight of the Syrians. It has always been about the natural gas pipeline they want to string over Syrian territory to get said gas to market at a profit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like to deal in facts, not wishes....
There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.
There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.
There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.
There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.
From a warmongering perspective, Republicans are king.
Re: (Score:3)
I like to deal in facts, not wishes....
You like to deal with lies in statistics. Why did you choose "war years" instead of "number of warmongering Republicans" vs "number of warmongering Democrats?"
The truth is there are warmongering people in both parties, and you are treating politics like a sports game: you chose your side, and you will make up arguments to make your side look good. You only care about truth if it makes your team look good. Stop that.
Re: (Score:3)
Being old enough to actually remember has it's perks, one being I don't need to look up things I watched happening. Also, I find it pretty interesting that you accuse GP of lying by showing the wrong statistics, and yet you end up digging up that image, as opposed to this one [wikipedia.org] at the very tip top of the wikipedia article.
Re:pinky swear (Score:4, Informative)
"specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point"
Yes, although China had quietly and quite suddenly pulled the plug [reuters.com] on them a couple of months prior to the collapse by reducing amongs other things their gasoline exports by 97%.
China's action is thought to have prompted Kim's trip to Beijing, where he was perhaps told how things would now play out by his only ally and provider of the vast majority of his foreign trade. So much for self reliance then. [wikipedia.org]
Whether Trump had anything much to do with this is... Doubtful.
Re: pinky swear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: pinky swear (Score:5, Informative)
With China building their own little islands and claiming territory that doesn't belong to them, plenty of SE Asian nations still want Uncle Sam keeping the sea lanes open.
As for Trump pulling troops out of ROK, there's really not that many to pull...~23k, and many of those aren't combat troops. We had a lot more when I lived there back in the 80s and early 90s (peaking at ~45k), but even then USFK forces were really just to show the NK govt. that attacking the ROK would also be an attack on us. For comparison, look at Germany. We're more than 25 years post Cold War, and we still have around 34k there.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Is contra-indicated by his behavior up until this year. Reportedly in some ways he was even more ruthless than his father. His rhetoric was even more aggressive.
2) More likely this, specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point. Not only would this have likely set back their program, perhaps beyond recovery, it also demonstrated how much damage their messing around could do to the geology, right on China's border.After that point, everything toned downed rapidly. A few weeks ago he suddenly was willing to meet.
Then a couple of weeks ago, presumable at China's insistance, Kim Jong Un went to Beijing. We are note privy to what happened in that meeting, but afterward, NK was much more concrete about terms to wind things down, though the general overtures were promising prior to that.
Trump's rhetoric *probably* wasn't it, perhaps the elevated sanctions contributed, but I suspect if not for the test site incident, they'd still be betting on threat of force by nukes to keep things going until they'd control South Korea on their terms. Now it seems they've decided to appease the international community in exchange for guarantees their internal affairs would be left alone (which the rest of the world has already seemed content to leave alone, regardless of severity of atrocity).
3) NK has what they always wanted, Nukes and long range missiles. They don't really need to perform more tests of any kind since they do have credible deterrence against an attack. So now they enter the part of the game where they start playing nice and see what they can get.
But don't expect the Nukes or Missiles to actually go anywhere, Kim Jong Un knows they might be the only reason he made it out of this last showdown without getting attacked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was just a tunnel that collapsed, it isn't something that sets the program back in a country with a government that has absolute power.
The tunnel is where they make the things go "boom," it isn't where they build any of the things, and it isn't where the people who design or build the things work.
We don't know what happened in the meeting between DPRK and PRC, but we do know that afterwards they made a joint public statement; North Korea had agreed to give up their weapons program, and China had agreed t
Re: (Score:3)
Even North Korea has other mountains it can dig under.
As I've said elsewhere [slashdot.org], I attribute Kim's behaviour change very largely to the little surprise (to him, it seems) he received in Beijing when the Chinese informed him that they do not consider themselves obliged in the slightest to follow merrily along into a WWIII started by NK.
To put it less kindly, he's had his leash jerked but hard, and found out it's not nearly as long as he'd imagined it to be.
Re:pinky swear (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a suspicion, based on not much beyond "what would *I* do in his place?" contemplations.
Had Kim attempted to negotiate peace at the start of his rule, it likely would have resulted in a coup attempt. Peace is almost certainly going to ruin a lot of NK's "aristocracy" - the generals and the others who aren't at the top, but are still higher than everyone else. They'd be willing to kill to keep the power and wealth they have.
So Kim had to make his rule unquestioned. He's purged plenty of people, presumably those who'd be positioned to fight over it. He had some family murdered to keep them from even potentially being puppet replacements. And he's done plenty of internal propaganda about their nukes and missiles so the peasants and soldiers will see this as a negotiation from a place of strength, not a surrender.
Not only that, but dictators don't often retire peacefully. You die in office, of old age (if you're lucky) or to assassins, rebels or a foreign army (if you're not). And living in fear of peasant revolt or American drone strikes doesn't seem like a good way to live, to me. But if he negotiates peace, he gets to keep basically all his money, and then goes down in the history books as a generous, benevolent peacemaker.
Is this what happened? Maybe. We don't know, maybe never really will. But it's not impossible.
Re:pinky swear (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's plausible.
Kim was educated in Switzerland. That's a thriving, educated, wealthy country, and it has access to everything the world has to offer. Going from there back to North Korea must have really been eye-opening. Sure, Kim gets what he wants because his family sucks the wealth out of the country, but other than the rest of the aristocracy, nobody really has anything. It's a poor, poor country, where famine can kill hundreds of thousands in a given year. Anywhere he goes outside of his curated estate he sees abject poverty.
I wouldn't be surprised if one factor is that he realizes that making everyone in North Korea 2x as wealthy will make him 100x as wealthy. That making life better for the peasants will make him more of a god than he already is. It only makes sense - the cult of personality is well established. Make life better for people, and you cement a legitimate place in history as a great leader.
If China said "not supporting any of your crazy military plans", I think Plan B is enrich the country, so those at the top can benefit even more. Yes, probably needed to consolidate power before doing that. He's now got power, a bargaining chip in a robust nuclear and missile program, and it's time to both become richer and more beloved. It's a solid plan.
Re: pinky swear (Score:2)
But yeah, today Fox News suggests we give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize... in the same article they are gushing about what Kanye West is wearing and posting on Twitter... My, it really has changed from the days of O'Reilly.
Insane projection (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember how badly America lost its shit after 911? Now imagine what this place would be like if a hostile foreign power leveled every American city in an illegal war, and since the 90's had been conducting the world's largest war games each and every year to practice for another invasion.
That's what the U.S. did and is doing to North Korea. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and threats to use them - in a response to an attack on their country - is entirely
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now imagine what this place would be like if a hostile foreign power leveled every American city in an illegal war that America had started, and since the 90's had been conducting the world's largest war games each and every year to practice for another invasion by the US.
TFTFY.
(Please don't make excuses for North Korea; they're the ones who tried to unify the peninsula by conquest, remember?)
Re:pinky swear (Score:5, Insightful)
Kim was like the deranged homeless guy that everyone wanted to stay away from and so people would just let him rummage through their dumpsters because no one really wants to confront the guy for fear of what might happen, and to some degree that homeless guy probably drums up the act a bit because he knows that this works. However, Trump is like a new homeless dude that's caked in mud and smells like piss that's screaming about god or the government that even the other homeless people don't want to fuck with because even they're a little bit worried about what this crazy mother fucker is going to do.
Trump kind of terrifies everyone else because they aren't quite sure how he'll act or behave and most other political leaders really don't want someone to introduce enough chaos that it causes their own gravy train to come crashing down as well. Trump is the new crazy man that the rest of the world leaders will seek to appease because even thought it means giving in a little, it seems to be less painful than what might happen if he doesn't get his way.
Some people want to argue that all of this is somehow brilliant political maneuvering on Trump's part, but that's being far, far too gracious. He may not be the type of complete idiot that much of the media would like to portray him as, but that doesn't make him some kind of chess master playing a highly skilled game that leaves his opponents caught in any number of clever snares. I think it's more of an idiot hero trope comparison where's he's so far out of his league that he's outmaneuvering opponents who were expecting a second best duelist instead of someone who looks like him might stab himself at any given moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people want to argue that all of this is somehow brilliant political maneuvering on Trump's part, but that's being far, far too gracious. He may not be the type of complete idiot that much of the media would like to portray him as, but that doesn't make him some kind of chess master playing a highly skilled game that leaves his opponents caught in any number of clever snares.
Trump wrote (or ghost wrote) the art of making the deal. If nothing else he's had a lot of experience negotiating. It's not that he's a brilliant chess master, he's just experienced with standard negotiating tools and tricks. These are normal tricks but most people don't know them. You can learn them pretty easily in this book [amazon.com], although actually using them can take practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a combination of all 3. China is the picture of how to operate Tyranny. in the modern age. The old style bombastic Khrushchev type dictators don't do well in this day and age. You've got to have some ability to go along to get along. He can build his country or he can keep it a barbaric little backwater.
Re: (Score:3)
Or 3) He has no intention of going through with denuclearization, and this is just a stunt to get sanctions temporarily lifted.
NK has a long history of making promises to end their missile and nuclear weapons programs in exchange for some type of compensation, then reneging on those promises when it suits them.
https://www.armscontrol.org/fa... [armscontrol.org]
Re: (Score:2)
With a less hostile North Korea there will be very little need for the south to have US around, and US soldiers aren't exactly popular among South Koreans.
No, the bases will stay, less people probably but they'll still be in South Korea just like they're in many other countries. And while they protest the bases they still love the money the soldiers spend.
Remember Gaddafi (Score:5, Insightful)
It will probably take the withdrawl of US forces from SK and aid to NK, and the formal acknowledgment of the continuation of the current NK regime in order to denuclearize NK. Even then, I wouldn't be certain they don't retain an actual nuke or two secretly now that they have them. This still probably won't address the effectively bigger threat of all of the NK artillery pointed at SK.
Re: (Score:2)
"withdrawl of US forces from SK"
I suspect that may be a bit too far a bridge to cross. Sudden feel-good let's get along rhetoric is certainly welcome, but I don't think the world is going to trust the sincerity of those words quite yet. Only way I could see that would be commitment for the UN to replace with equivalent non-US forces. If non-US coutnries were to pony up, that would mean SK would remain protected *and* NK regime would have a nice narrative consistent with their propaganda to evolve things
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The vendetta against Gaddafi [telegraph.co.uk] after he had capitulated to giving up his nuclear weapons program is the primary reason NK hasn't given up its weapons program.
...
Thanks, Obama.
(And Hillary!, too.)
Re:Remember Gaddafi (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. troops in South Korea number fewer than 24,000, vs North Korea's standing army of 1.2 million [wikipedia.org] (4th largest in the world), and would be inconsequential in any hypothetical invasion of North Korea. The U.S. troops are present for one simple reason - to be overrun and die if North Korea should invade again, thereby giving the U.S. an excuse to intervene on South Korea's behalf without having to go through the UN again. The troops there are fully aware of this - they call themselves "speed bumps".
Withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea would require some sort of ironclad guarantee that North Korea would not invade again, or a guarantee of immediate UN authorization for the U.S. to intervene again, or South Korea unilaterally deciding to give up the deterrence of having U.S. troops present.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lesson from Libya is that if you make a big agreement with the US, and then violate it by bringing home a convicted terrorist and treating them as a hero when you'd actually agreed to admit responsibility for their terrorist act, then you get blasted. Don't pull that shit. The involvement with terrorism was a bigger part of the problem than Libya's nuclear program, because they didn't have a very serious nuclear program but they did have a lot of active field agents with a history of terrorist activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, North Korea probably did not need a nuclear deterrent, because they have an effective deterrent already with South Korea within the reach of co
Re:pinky swear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Comparing an apple to an orange and a banana isn't exactly an improvement over the simple apple vs orange comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
it was obviously not an altruistic or strategic move by NK. His hand was forced, clearly. Happened all too fast.
Re: (Score:2)
"We come in peace!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It would probably involve the US withdrawing from the Korean peninsula, at least substantially. No more war games off the NK coast.
It could be hard to resist calls for this to happen if SK decides that it's going to trust Kim. I think there is a good chance they will - there is a general feeling that Kim knows dictatorships don't last forever and is looking for a way to survive into old age without being tried for crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
A similar promise made to Muammar Gaddafi didn't work out so well when Obama and Hillary decided to depose him anyway - collapsing the Libyan "government", such as it was, and turning Libya over to terrorists. I am frankly astonished that Kim Jong Un would trust the United States enough for him to disarm.
One of the factors in play has to be that his testing facility in Mount Mantap is totally unusable now, due to the fracturing in the mountain caused by the last thermonuclear test. And China has certainly
What it means (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think they said denuclearize the peninsula meaning the Us must take it's nucs home as well. Then it is down to the biggest conventional army.
Re:What it means (Score:4, Interesting)
All of the US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from South Korea in 1991 .
Nuclear deterrent is provided by submarines and forces stationed on US territories in the Pacific.
Re:What it means (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Iraq try that? Worked really well.
The real problem is that the USA is not trustworthy. Even if Trump and the current Congress make promises, the next election can change things.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not quite that simple. A treaty entered into by the US carries the force of US law. An incoming administration can't just decide not to honour it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being that if NK is the least bit insincere about their intentions, they may be able to roll over SK and Japan in such a case.
Of course, it does seem imbalanced and rightfully worrisome for the *US* to be doing most of the presence, and a more internationally balanced force might be able to do the same. Of course that means a lot of nations have to pony up some investment to make that happen, but if it did, that could save the US a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem being that if NK is the least bit insincere about their intentions, they may be able to roll over SK and Japan in such a case.
You are watching the wrong SF. How should a third world army, like NK, run over a first world army like SK, without using nukes?
A NK vs SK war would be over in two weeks. First week NK will lose its air capabilities and ground based radar. If they dare to sent tanks and infantry it will get utterly destroyed afterwards. And then NK has nothing left to throw into the battl
Quantity has a quality all of its own (Score:2)
Large armies of rabble have beaten technologically superior enemies before. They've done it in Korea, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even have the fuel to get to Japan, much less the ships, or ship defenses. It is complete absurdity.
Most of their weapons are Soviet models. The metallurgy in most of their equipment isn't very good, for economic reasons.
Meanwhile, South Korea has one of the most modern militaries in the world! The US only has 30k troops in S. Korea. The US is there on the border mostly for political reasons to guarantee that if war starts, the US is one of the combatants. It isn't because the US is physically pr
Re: (Score:2)
The North Koreans would begin any offensive action after 30 minutes after levelling Seoul.
Geez (Score:4, Interesting)
Just how badly *did* they screw up their nuclear test site? I mean - this about face is looking a bit too desperate. These guys need to bluff a little better (or did they also keep all their newly minted nuclear weapons at the same site and lost them too?)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They know that we know that they know that we dropped a rod from god on that mountain.
And we're all pretending we didn't.
But he knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you google for it?
Interesting that we have a discussion about it on /. but it obviously was not news worthy that the whole nuclear weapon test range is gone.
They thought they tested another 100kt bomb, but for some reasons it was a 100Mt bomb. Probably their first attempt on an H-bomb, no idea, I never closely watched what NK is doing.
They literally vaporized a 100m diameter of solid rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it so hard to understand what the blast tunnel is for, and if it would be a major setback if one of them collapsed? It isn't really complicated, and it is easy to look up.
Your concept even of what the site is seems pretty fuzzy. If all their weapons were stored at the same "site," they would have been in the buildings outside, or in a separate bunker, they wouldn't be inside the tunnel used to detonate nuclear devices! LOLOLOL
So nothing would have been damaged. The case where it would set them back i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They've likely been set back decades.
No, they haven't been. Really, they've not.
- South Korea is offering a hand of friendship. This isn't usual, contrary to popular belief.
Actually it's very usual.
- We've pretty much faxed a picture of Jim Mattis to Pyongyang.
Huh? Did he switch chairs with Pompeo while I wasn't looking?
- We have China's balls in a vise...
Now you're a comedian.
- Kim Jong-un was never the heir apparent for North Korea in the first place.
It might not have been apparent to you.
You're already 5 for 5, I'll leave the rest alone.
Talk is cheap. (Score:2)
But skeptics warned that North Korea previously made similar pledges of denuclearization on numerous occasions, with little or no intention of abiding by them. Mr. Kim’s friendly gestures, they said, could turn out to be nothing more than empty promises aimed at lifting sanctions on his isolated country.
The sanctions shouldn't lifted until it's been verified to be fully denuclearized. That would reduce that two year estimate.
Out of the goodness of his heart (Score:3)
Re:Out of the goodness of his heart (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, it probably has more to do with the fact that they have Nukes and long range missiles.
I wonder how they plan to credibly enforce the Denuclearization. It's relatively easy to monitor the development of Nukes, you need nuclear plants to get the plutonium and testing ranges to debug the tech. But once a country has working Nukes I don't know how you verify that they've been surrendered.
Re: (Score:3)
The critical components in a nuclear missile do not stay in an appropriate state for creating a nuclear explosion indefinitely. Without maintenance of the type that is noticeable, any current nukes will be worthless in 20 years or less.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm sure it did piss China off, if that was China's real concern it seems they would just have pressured them to move it to a site farther from the border. They'd have to dig a new blast tunnel anyways, so it isn't that much more work to build it somewhere else. They surely did geological work on numerous sites before selecting one, so they'd have the needed data.
More likely, they don't actually need to do any more tests, and so that nothing to do with it. They've completed the same number of tests th
Trust, but verify (Score:2)
That the North Koreans will keep their word. I don't have much expectation of Kim Jong Un but it appears that he may be afraid of Trump or at least cannot predict what Trump will do if he rattles his saber much longer. Strength through superior firepower.
Don't get all worked up (Score:4, Insightful)
Crazy Cop (Score:2)
Sure Trump gets credit... for a being the Crazy Cop in a Crazy/Sane Cop approach to foreign policy. His approach to a much more capable adversary could lead to all-out Nuclear war.
But let's wait for a few years down the road to see how this all turns out.
Re: (Score:2)
But first we unite NK and SK
Dreamer.... What do you expect Kim is gonna do? Put himself up for election. How could you ever ever think that NK and SK are going to unite? Rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should he? The peace negotiations are between North Korea and South Korea, and last I checked, Trump wasn't leader of either of them.
I'm sure there's a lot that's gone on behind closed doors to prepare for this, stuff we don't yet know, but I'd sooner believe it was masterminded by Xi Jinping than by Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when does Trump have a foreign policy?
Worked so well for Ukraine.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of[..]"
The Russian Federation,[...] reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, [...], to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine
The Russian Federation, [...] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine[...]
The Russian Federation [...] reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine [...], to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
etc, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Would have made no difference. Back then the Ukraine has essentially begged that Russia takes their nukes. They were very expensive to maintain and the country has been and still is piss poor.
Read what happened to their only submarine, this will tell you a lot about how well their nukes would have worked, had they kept them.
An unprecedented breakthrough (Score:5, Informative)
Just look at all the goodwill! [nytimes.com]
With surprising speed and warmth, the presidents of North and South Korea reached a broad agreement on Wednesday to work for peace and unity on their bitterly divided peninsula, the biggest step by either side to ease tensions in 50 years.
The agreement, which came after more than three hours of talks in the North Korea capital, Pyongyang, on the second day of their first summit meeting, was signed and toasted by President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea and President Kim Jong Il of the North, who were shown on South Korean television clinking champagne glasses, shaking hands vigorously and smiling broadly.
[...]
The general points agreed on included the need for reconciliation and unification; the establishment of peace; the commencement in August of exchange visits by members of divided families; and more cultural exchanges.
Wait a minute... Kim Jong... Il?
Oooooh, that article is talking about the peace breakthrough from 2000. My bad, just got the wrong link!
Nothing new here (Score:2)
North Korea has for years offered to draw back their weapons program if the United States would do such things as stop practice invasions [wikipedia.org] or threatening first strikes [thehill.com] against them.
There's an unhinged warmongering country that desperately needs to be reigned in and stripped of its weapons here - and over there is North Korea. American Exceptionalists who find fault with that statement, feel free to compare the number of countries that North Korea has attacked since the 1950's with the number America has bom
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we already do this? (Score:4, Informative)
This whole thing seems silly and confusing. All parties signed an agreement to this fact in 1953. The only reason the US would invade North Korea is if NK they started firing on someone, which they constantly keep threatening to do. They are the aggressors here. Why are they asking us for what we have alrwady given? Why is the aggressor asking us for peace? How about take away the artillery you have pointed at your neighbor?
Something is afoot here...
Re: (Score:3)
Americans need a geography lesson. (Score:2)
Reality check time.
1. The DPR borders both China and Russia. Both nations have massive and very capable military forces and don't want a US presence on their back porch.
2. Pyongyang is only 160 km from the Chinese border city of Dandong.
3. Seoul is only about 50 km south of the DMZ. South Koreans aren't keen on the North Korean military flattening residential neighbourhoods just outside the capital. It wouldn't be good for business, either.
4. China is actively seeking a diplomatic solution to North Korea by
One possible reason no one has mentioned (Score:2)
However; there is another factor going on that most Slashdotters don't seem to be aware of: According to multiple sources, the nuclear test site at Punggye-ri has collapsed and has been experiencing landslides. Apparently the whole mountain is caving in on itself. What I think happened is that the test explosi
NK had no own missiles or nuclear heads, ever! (Score:2)
What if the scenario was the following.
1. Kim Jon Il, and now his pimple faced son, Kim Jon Un tried for a long time to build up a scare towards the West, that they would have nuclear missiles to be able to attack South Korea, Japan and USA.
2. They were however for a long time not successful, with neither missiles of a decent range, nor nuclear tests.
3. Recently they were able to make some subterranean tests that they claimed were even thermonuclear (hydrogen bombs), but that I can't find any evidence of e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's: My guy can do no wrong. And the other side's guy is Hitler/Stalin/$Satan_Figure.
If something good happens while my guy is in office it's totally his doing. If something good happens while the other side's guy is in office it's totally due to luck/the previous guy.
Etc, Etc, lather rinse repeat.
And my side is virtuous unlike the immoral other side that has mostly the same human in_group/out_group motivations.
Re: (Score:3)
Theres nothing wrong with luck/good fortune as long as your leadership is smart enough to take advantage of it. Reagan was smart enough to take advantage of Gorbachev reaching out to the west following the chernobyl disaster. I will say honestly Reagan was smart man, I say that as a liberal Democrat. In 2003 Iran shocked at the US ease destroying the iraqi army. offered George W Bush a grand peace deal that included putting issues such denuclearization and recognition of israel on the table. George W. Bush
Re: (Score:3)
We've become so tribalistic that it's amazing we can even still talk to each other. I don't know what the cure will be, but if you can't talk politely/logically to people with opposing points of view, then you're part of the problem. If you're wishing ill will to those you've voted against, you're part of the problem.
We all want the economy to do well, but we don't agree on how to go about it. We all want good foreign relations, but we don't agree on the actions we should take with rogue nations. Etc.,
Re: (Score:2)
We've been going back and forth on that one for years, Ratzo. You want to impose your black and white on the world (perhaps because it makes for more entertaining arguments) and my science background leads me to be pretty non-judgemental.
In the end we're just both old fools sniping back and forth at each other on a website whose best days are long past it (perhaps much like us :) ).
Re: (Score:2)
Moral equivalence is the ultimate judgement.
These are the good old days, my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Clinton would have done any better then there's only one chump here.
Re: (Score:2)
aren't they already in the stone age? Or have they moved to the bronze age already?
Re:How about if the US gives up weapons too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know anything about WWII?
With Japan the choice was not "Use Nukes" vs. "Everyone lives in Peace". The alternative was a landed invasion of Japan, with an expected body count far in excess of anything the nukes did. The nukes gave the Japanese leadership a face-saving reason for surrender, saving many lives. Claiming that the U.S. leadership using nukes was "insane" in the context of the Pacific war is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
The United States removed all our nuclear weapons from Korea in 1991 you idiot.
Buy yourself a time machine if you want to change which nations are allowed to have them at home.
Re: (Score:2)
If oil put them in danger of being invaded, it would be China invading in that scenario.
And no, nobody would try to stop them.