View Single Post
  #253  
Old 05-14-2018, 01:35 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think the Tweet from whoever was commenting on Pompeo's statement is a minor misrepresentation, but then you added more confusion on top of that tweet. I think that pretty clearly amounts to twisting someone's words.

Especially because it's pretty hard to believe that John Bolton, Pompeo and others would be okay with North Korea disarming it's "attack Los Angeles" nuclear weapons but keeping its "this nuke is only for use on Tokyo, we pinky-swear" weapons.
It's not the nuclear weapons themselves, it's the missiles that deliver them - and presumably we could come up with an agreement that allowed us to verify that they didn't have anything that could hit a target 3000 miles away.

As long as NK has any nukes, they'd be able to drop them on nearby targets. Tokyo is less than 800 miles away.

1) We're NOT going to get NK to give up its nukes.

2) From what Pompeo said, we ARE going to try to make sure he can't drop one on the U.S.

3) Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it's hard for me to see how we keep NK from having short-range missiles.

The only new datum is #2. And sure, if we're satisfied with ensuring that NK can't lob a nuke to our side of the Pacific, Kim would probably be willing to give that up in return for being able to meet with the U.S. President, one-on-one, and whatever he can wangle out of Trump in that meeting.