Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Korean Dilemma

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

  • Ironduke
    replied
    Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44134910
    N Korea threatens to cancel Trump summit

    North Korea has said it may reconsider attending a summit with US President Donald Trump if the US unilaterally insists it gives up nuclear weapons.

    The highly anticipated meeting between Mr Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un is due to take place on 12 June.

    It came about after North Korea said it was committed to denuclearising the Korean peninsula.

    Delicate preparations are taking place for the Trump-Kim meeting, but this appears to throw it into doubt.

    State news agency KCNA quoted Vice-Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan as saying that if the US "corners us and unilaterally demands we give up nuclear weapons we will no longer have an interest in talks and will have to reconsider whether we will accept the upcoming DPRK-US summit".

    Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the official name for North Korea.

    Mr Kim said North Korea "had high hopes that the summit would lead to the easing of the situation on the Korean Peninsula and count as a big step to build a great future.

    "However, it is very unfortunate that the U.S. is provoking us ahead of the summit by spitting out ludicrous statements."
    Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44133308
    N Korea cancels talks with South Korea and warns US

    North Korea has cancelled Wednesday's high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over its joint military exercises with the US.

    The North's official KCNA news agency said the exercises were a "provocation" and a rehearsal for an invasion.

    It also warned the US over the fate of the historic summit between Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump that is scheduled for 12 June in Singapore.

    In March, Mr Trump stunned the world by accepting an invitation to meet Mr Kim.

    "We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!" the US leader later tweeted.

    The US state department said it was continuing to prepare for the Trump-Kim summit and that it was not aware of any changes in the North Korean position.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Looking back at the last 6 months, I would not bet against KJU being a pornstar if he could get money out of someone.
    The money will come for his backers if he's prepared to deal and he's signaling that. This part is not difficult. Enough say for a year.

    Making real progress otherwise ? now that will take effort

    Leave a comment:


  • hboGYT
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Nobody signed nothing yet.
    How would you rank foreign countries' in terms of their influence on NK right now?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Nobody signed nothing yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • hboGYT
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Looking back at the last 6 months, I would not bet against KJU being a pornstar if he could get money out of someone.
    So he's not afraid of rice shipment cuts anymore?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    How likely is that though ?
    Looking back at the last 6 months, I would not bet against KJU being a pornstar if he could get money out of someone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Right, my thought also was he'd flip somehow.

    How likely is that though ?

    Why choose one or the other is my point, keep all avenues open. This is juche

    Granted these are fears and even the absurd has to be considered

    This is the mirror opposite of chinese troops in NK in exchange for giving up nukes.

    KJU won't accept chinese protection but will put NK in a position to be squeezed by three others on the same team in exchange for giving up nukes

    Can Burma be an example here. Fell out with the Chinese but not entirely.

    Still retained its freedom to the point its biggest neighbours dare not say anything against
    Last edited by Double Edge; 09 May 18,, 20:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    KJU saying fuck you to China because he got American, Japanese, and South Korean money.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Losing control of a buffer zone between the PRC a 700,000+ American trained and commanded army.
    In what ways can this come about ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    What are the Chinese so afraid of ?
    Losing control of a buffer zone between the PRC a 700,000+ American trained and commanded army.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    China fears fat boy won't keep China in the loop

    Japan fears the US won't keep Japan in the loop.

    It would be a good idea for Japan to talk to Kim some time

    Meanwhile Kim's playing one off the other and hustling the best deal possible

    Xinhua quoted Mr. Kim as saying he came to China again to “strengthen strategic communication” with Mr. Xi.
    That quoted bit was also used with Modi at the Wuhan summit

    But Chinese analysts say the warmth between the two leaders should not be overstated, and that Mr. Kim retains his streak of independence.

    “North Korea was never a vassal state,” said Shi Yinhong, a professor at Renmin University of China in Beijing. It is even less so now that the United States has agreed to deal with Mr. Kim, he said.
    heh, all Trump said is he would meet and now Kim has wings and is flying

    What are the Chinese so afraid of ? they would be integral to any peace settlement. Where is the question of being left out of the loop

    Any deal that makes NK safer also makes China safer
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 May 18,, 16:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    I've read this wrong. Xi is pissed.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/w...rth-korea.html

    What is notable is now China is heading towards Japan and South Korea to discuss North Korean issues - without North Korea present. Can't rely on Fat Boy to keep China in the loop.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    But the bottom line is that the only combat troops/air strike capability in the Pacific are stationed in South Korea. Clark AB and Subic are gone. The Army combat forces in Japan are gone. All that's left is Japan and Guam. Guam has no aircraft permanently assigned.

    Take those combat troops/tactical air away and all our allies will feel a little abandoned
    Ok, now I'm following you, GS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I still cannot wrap my head around how 32,000 Americans in South Korea has any effect on Japanese defence. As I stated quite often, there is no alliance between South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. That essentially means the only integration of all 3 forces are American. South Korean troops, airmen, and sailors are not going to answer to Japanese Admirals and Generals which are essential if Japan is to rely on South Korea for its defence.
    The same way nukes were a stabilizing force.

    On top of that, Japan doesn't need South Korea to bomb North Korean launch sites and sink her navy.
    The only strike capability Japan has are anti-ship missiles, and JDAM capable F-2 fighters

    And 32,000 Americans is not enough to determine any campaign against North Korea. You need the South Korean Army and that means that Seoul and Tokyo must feel some kind of solidarity. They don't. They hate each other.
    So maybe those US troops in Korea are also there to keep South Korea from attacking Japan?


    But the bottom line is that the only combat troops/air strike capability in the Pacific are stationed in South Korea. Clark AB and Subic are gone. The Army combat forces in Japan are gone. All that's left is Japan and Guam. Guam has no aircraft permanently assigned.

    Take those combat troops/tactical air away and all our allies will feel a little abandoned

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Another review on Roehrig's book

    The Limited Roles of U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in Northeast Asia | Carnegie | Jan 30 2018

    One of the sticking points in debates about the U.S. nuclear umbrella, which is also the main question of this book, is the issue of credibility: “Would the United States truly be willing to use nuclear weapons in defense of an ally?” (p. 2). Roehrig concludes that the United States is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons to defend its allies because this is “not in the [U.S.] strategic interest and should be avoided at all costs” (p. 189).

    Rather, “the nuclear umbrella vis-à-vis North Korea is more important as a message of reassurance for U.S. allies than a tool that adds further to an already stable strategic situation” (p. 186) and has a significant “function for U.S. efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons” both regionally and globally (p. 196).

    As Roehrig states a number of times in the book, the U.S. nuclear umbrella offered to South Korea and Japan has been successful in persuading these two allies to remain non-nuclear thus far, which means that U.S. extended deterrence is still regarded as credible by Tokyo and Seoul.
    One of Roehrig’s major conclusions is that “the United States would respond to an attack on Japan or South Korea with conventional weapons in the context of a credible alliance” (p. 190), while “an uncertain umbrella retains value as a deterrent” (p. 193).

    The overwhelming conventional capability of the United States no doubt poses a grave threat to North Korea, but it is still questionable how much longer conventional military assets can effectively deter Pyongyang.

    The more advanced North Korea’s nuclear program becomes, the harder it will be to deter the country through the traditional means of deterrence policy unless other tools, such as diplomacy, are simultaneously applied.

    Furthermore, any small sparks, either intentionally or inadvertently lit, could escalate into a nuclear war in the worst-case scenario, no matter how effectively the United States’ conventional or nuclear capability is supposed to deter a nuclear North Korea. Indeed, in an age of uncertainty led by Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, it is increasingly hard to expect that the status quo in this region will be maintained only through traditional deterrence policy.
    Canada, not the United States, played the decisive role in pressing the ROK leadership to ratify the NPT.3 The influence of the United States over South Korea’s foreign or security policy often tends to be overemphasized.

    Although “the U.S. nuclear umbrella is essential in keeping South Korea from pursuing its own nuclear weapons” (p. 153), U.S. extended nuclear deterrence historically has been a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for South Korea to remain non-nuclear.

    Despite U.S. tactical nuclear weapons continuously being deployed on the Korean Peninsula, other aspects of the alliance relationship made South Korea less secure and more willing to go nuclear in the 1970s. Moreover, non-U.S. factors such as nuclear reactor deals with Canada would sometimes exert a stronger influence on South Korea’s decision to take a step forward to support nuclear nonproliferation.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X