Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Korean Dilemma

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reagan pissed Gorbachev off, not offerring anything to Gorbachev's "reasonable" suggestions. They then went for their famous walk to cool things down. The INF Treaty removed an entire class of missiles from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Urals.

    The analogy is that Reagan was not afraid to piss Gorbachev off.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
      IF they meet my betting is on that unfinished for ten yrs hotel becoming a Trump franchise. Trumpkin will come out saying how great he was treated and what "Gentleman" Kim is etc... because the murdering dictator has played up to his ego and bank balance. That is Trumpkin's 'bottom line' in Americanese. Nothing else matters. Kim has probably worked out the blindingly obvious already. There can be no defence of this moronic traitor President that holds water. He must not be allowed to meet Kim.
      I waded through most of the 17 pages on this thread (at the time of my joining this site) and found the discourse to be sharp and enlightening. Unfortunately, your remarks in this post disappoint me because they don't meet that same standard. Not that your content here should center on my (or anyone else's) approval, but these remarks are just garbage. I feel like you can do better.

      Haircut can behave "like a gentleman" or generally in a pleasant manner if Trump meets with him, and Trump acknowledging as much does not hand-wave away all the evil that the regime does. The two are not mutually exclusive. And if you're going to call POTUS a traitor, it would be useful for you to at least explain why.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
        The Soviets could also be considered a rational actor, an appellation I don't think can be applied to Kim.
        Why not? What about his behavior or decisions trends toward irrational? It seems to me each of his major decisions have a logical explanation, in one form or another, so I'm curious as to what you see.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
          Reagan pissed Gorbachev off, not offerring anything to Gorbachev's "reasonable" suggestions. They then went for their famous walk to cool things down. The INF Treaty removed an entire class of missiles from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Urals.

          The analogy is that Reagan was not afraid to piss Gorbachev off.
          Kim's not Gorbachev, and the goal is complete de-nuclearization. We're comparing apples and oranges here. INF concerned a partial mutual disarmament between powers with nuclear parity. The situation with Kim is not the same thing.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • Trump has nothing to lose while Kim will lose face if he gets nothing. Kim can lie all he wants but if the result is an increase of American military activity, then he lost. More than that, here is a chance that he could reduce tensions in the penisula and if he pissed it away, then the Chinese would be more incline to punish him further.

            Trump has nothing to lose by pissing Kim off while Kim needs a deal to please the Chinese.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              Why not? What about his behavior or decisions trends toward irrational? It seems to me each of his major decisions have a logical explanation, in one form or another, so I'm curious as to what you see.
              I guess it's a matter of perspective, to be honest. From Kim's purely personal perspective in which both him and the North Korean state are one and the same, perhaps it is rational behavior.
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                Reagan pissed Gorbachev off, not offerring anything to Gorbachev's "reasonable" suggestions. They then went for their famous walk to cool things down. The INF Treaty removed an entire class of missiles from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Urals.

                The analogy is that Reagan was not afraid to piss Gorbachev off.
                That depends on who's Reagan and who's Gorbachev in 2018.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  I waded through most of the 17 pages on this thread (at the time of my joining this site) and found the discourse to be sharp and enlightening. Unfortunately, your remarks in this post disappoint me because they don't meet that same standard. Not that your content here should center on my (or anyone else's) approval, but these remarks are just garbage. I feel like you can do better.

                  Haircut can behave "like a gentleman" or generally in a pleasant manner if Trump meets with him, and Trump acknowledging as much does not hand-wave away all the evil that the regime does. The two are not mutually exclusive. And if you're going to call POTUS a traitor, it would be useful for you to at least explain why.
                  I'd say she's been listening to your rambunctious media : D which then gets repeated by the world's media

                  If you don't like the man then you're spoilt for choice when it comes to commentary about him.

                  Just listen to what Jeffrey Lewis has to say. Of course Trump is a toddler and needs to be treated so...i tried to salvage what i could and put it into a reply to citanon

                  https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/arch...umpkim-summit/

                  There are many respected authorities on subjects we discuss here that do not hesitate to deride him at any opportunity. Partisan.

                  Half the time i suspect there is this big banner in your media war rooms that reads..

                  'Say something bad about Trump, today, every day'

                  He does give them a lot of ammo, unfortunately
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Mar 18,, 22:17.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    I used to follow Dr Lewis when he was in charge ARMSCONTROLWONK. With the Korean scenario, I since learned that he doesn't know anything more than the rest of us. Five years ago, he stated that Kim had a thermonuke that can fit on a rocket and that he had 5-6 of them. This last test was boosted fission. We can tell by the dual explosive sesmic readings. Since then, I went back over his past papers and they relied as heavily on open source intel as we do. I am now skepticle of any of his unsubstantituated claims.
                    ok, but you're not saying we can't quote him here, are you ? be selective is what you're saying

                    who else is there that follows these subjects as closely as he does

                    Five years ago he was speculating but in the last test he did say it was boosted fission. Also weren't the Norks supposed to be getting there in a few more years and not so soon. They were not supposed to be able to pull off a 200kt+ blast
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 10 Mar 18,, 21:32.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      What indications do you have they will have a reentry warhead by May ? Or do you assume that is what the next test, delayed so far will prove if successful.
                      .....
                      Not gonna quote inline since I'm on a cell phone.

                      Negotiations will take place on neutral ground, e.g. the DMZ.

                      May because US intelligence already said months.

                      Trump has 2 important decisions to make.

                      1: do I absolutely not want war with NK.
                      2: if negotiations fail do I go to war anyways, at least with a limited attack.

                      He's already decided on 1. Trump genuinely doesn't want war. He opposed GW2. He did a huge amount of posturing and maneuvering to work up a negotiation with NK.

                      On 2 his administration has not decided, yet. Trump is 100% serious on preventing a nuclear NK. Further more, if NK goes, Iran is the next domino. On the other hand, the risks of attacking NK are very high, so they are weighing approaches and costs. However, Trump HAS decided that May is the decision point.

                      SK and Japan. Japan has popular support for US military action while the SK gov is obviously not onboard.

                      it doesn't matter though. Once the first PGM hits, they are onboard whether they like it or not. Both governments know it.

                      Here's something else to consider. We needed preparation time too. Our continuous military operations had likely depleted our PGM stockpiles. DOD may have been replenishing stores in the theater over the last years of the Obama administration but Mattis described readiness as bad when he got in. Thus these efforts likely greatly accelerated under Mattis. By May, the US would have had over a year to build up PGM stocks and other materials for a war on the peninsula.

                      Oh, and I don't link CNN often, but this was Trump on 1999:

                      Last edited by citanon; 10 Mar 18,, 22:16.

                      Comment


                      • but the bottom-line is that Kim will absolutely not give up his nukes. no dictator would after seeing what happened to Hussein and Gaddafi.

                        the only thing for negotiation is how low-key the NK nuclear presence will be. if NK stops threatening to nuke Seoul or Guam, then my guess is that the US can live with it...after all, that's what we've been doing anyway.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          ok, but you're not saying we can't quote him here, are you ? be selective is what you're saying
                          I'm saying take everything he says with a grain of salt. Quoting staffers who treats Trump like a toddler ignores the fact that Trump has fired people for far less. No other President in history has let go of so many people.

                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          who else is there that follows these subjects as closely as he does
                          Actually, the China-Watcher Forums do a better job than he does if only multiple views at examining the data instead of just one person. I don't mean the fanboys forums. China-Defense.com is one of the forums I recommend if you want a detail examination of the open source material.

                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          Five years ago he was speculating but in the last test he did say it was boosted fission. Also weren't the Norks supposed to be getting there in a few more years and not so soon. They were not supposed to be able to pull off a 200kt+ blast
                          I'm not of the view that the NKs pulled off a 100kt+ nuke; maybe 50-75kts which is still significant and enable them to reach the 200kt mark now. However, reading Jefferies, he sounds like the be-all, end-all expert in this area. He cherry picks the evidence he wants and ignores the rest that doesn't fit into his picture. I no longer follow him precisely because of this reason.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            but the bottom-line is that Kim will absolutely not give up his nukes. no dictator would after seeing what happened to Hussein and Gaddafi.

                            the only thing for negotiation is how low-key the NK nuclear presence will be. if NK stops threatening to nuke Seoul or Guam, then my guess is that the US can live with it...after all, that's what we've been doing anyway.
                            Or Kim keeps his nukes in component form, allowing the fiction that he doesn't have nukes anymore.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              I'm not of the view that the NKs pulled off a 100kt+ nuke; maybe 50-75kts which is still significant and enable them to reach the 200kt mark now.
                              Right, the results NK has achieved were not supposed to be possible, they surprised everybody and a few years earlier than expected. I don't know if its everybody but everybody i've heard that talks about them appears so.

                              However, reading Jefferies, he sounds like the be-all, end-all expert in this area. He cherry picks the evidence he wants and ignores the rest that doesn't fit into his picture. I no longer follow him precisely because of this reason.
                              Another big name

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

                                Another big name
                                I wouldnt even say that. You're not a big name from just having a string of titles. Academic titles like that are done to make people sound impressive and make donors feel all fuzzy inside for having something named after them. in reality it means he runs a likely small study group at a graduate school which is ranked 21st in its specialized sub field and has no PhD program.

                                that doesn't exactly make you a big swinging (st)ick of the academic world.

                                of course the above is a cheap shot, but so are his snide unsubstantiated and unrealistic implications about trump. thats some banal academic poser move calculated to score the cheap points.
                                Last edited by citanon; 11 Mar 18,, 01:42.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X