Straight Dope Message Board

[tim314]

Originally Posted by LAZombie

The real question is when will Trump receive his Nobel Peace prize?

Obama got one for doing nothing. I had to Google it and it was very vague.

Obama got one for not being George W. Bush. Which, even as a liberal Obama voter, I found absurd.

I could almost get behind a Nobel Prize for a U.S. president being not Trump, though. 51

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

This has everything to do with China providing economic subsidies to North Korea in exchange for the Kim regime cooling their heels on their nuclear ICBM program

Can you point to some coverage of China's role in bringing about this change? (I'm not suggesting you're wrong, just that I haven't seen anything on it, and would be interested.) 52

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by tim314

I could almost get behind a Nobel Prize for a U.S. president being not Trump, though.

If he could start right away, I'd throw in a Pulitzer, a full EGOT, and a Superbowl ring. 53

[Tired and Cranky]

It might be good news if Kim actually stopped developing nuclear bombs and ICBMs but instead, we have only a promise that he will do so. Kim has made these types of promises before. They are meaningless. Kim is less trustworthy than a used car salesman, or, dare I say it, a Trump.

A real accomplishment might be if Kim actually denuclearized. Trump has announced that Kim has denuclearized but that's not true. I don't know if Trump is too stupid to understand the difference between Kim's promise and denuclearization or if Trump is just lying about the promise's value to a credulous Republican base grasping for any semblance of a justification for their continued support of Trump.

Originally Posted by tim314

Obama got one for not being George W. Bush. Which, even as a liberal Obama voter, I found absurd.

I agree completely. 54

[elucidator]

So did Obama, by all accounts, but what was he going to do? If Margot Robbie publicly declared her undying passion for me, I would be embarrassed, but refuse? Oh, hell, no! 55

[Johnny Ace]

Originally Posted by elucidator

If Margot Robbie publicly declared her undying passion for me, I would be embarrassed, but refuse? Oh, hell, no!

Woof. 56

[Bryan Ekers]

Sharp knees. Would not bang. 57

[Evil Economist]

According to my news feed, the WH has been unable to provide any evidence that NK has agreed to denuclearization:

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Monday walked back President Donald Trump’s claim the previous day that North Korea had “agreed to denuclearization” ahead of a planned meeting between Trump and North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un.

Not even Trump could be this fucking stupid, right? 58

[asahi]

Part of these negotiations will depend on the definition of "denuclearization", what this term means to North Korea and to the United States.

Why would North Korea go through all of the trouble to develop a credible nuclear missile threat just to destroy them all? It doesn't logically make sense. There's no conceivable avenue for the actual removal of nuclear weapons. However, having even a handful of nuclear missiles means that North Korea is officially a member of the nuclear club and has to be treated with a certain degree of respect.

But more than that, it also gives North Korea leverage. On one hand, they can agree not to take the threat further and behave in a more stable and cooperative manner in exchange for some concessions, or if the US and allies insist on removing nukes first and keeping sanctions in place, they can continue increasing the level of danger. The choice is Trump's. 59

[penultima thule]

Originally Posted by asahi

There's no conceivable avenue for the actual removal of nuclear weapons.

No peaceful avenue for their actual removal anyway. 60

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

Do you believe them? Even if NK is telling the truth, they can resume at a moment's notice. And by getting talks with POTUS - even if it is Trump - NK has scored a significant diplomatic victory.

Only time will tell. 61

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Do you believe them? ...

Yeah, nuke and missile tests are easy to detect, so I suspect they actually are telling the truth about suspending them, at least for now. Obviously that's only one modest step in a process that the USA hopes will eventually lead to complete denuclearization, but it does appear to be a step in the right direction. 62

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

Not even Trump could be this fucking stupid, right?

Josh Marshall came up with "Trump's Razor" back in the summer of 2016:

According to Trump’s Razor: “ascertain the stupidest possible scenario that can be reconciled with the available facts” and that answer is likely correct.

Trump's Razor says that the likeliest explanation is that he was in fact this stupid. 63

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Yeah, nuke and missile tests are easy to detect, so I suspect they actually are telling the truth about suspending them, at least for now. Obviously that's only one modest step in a process that the USA hopes will eventually lead to complete denuclearization, but it does appear to be a step in the right direction.

I'm afraid trump believes horseshit like that too. Denuclearization in a world where the US won't talk about Israel's nuclear program, but will about NKs? See the Vela incident, 9/22/79. 64

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Yeah, nuke and missile tests are easy to detect

Well yes, but what about the work-ups to the tests? Have, for instance, they stopped production of nuclear materials? What about rocket parts? 65

[Ashtura]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

source

I'm rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?

I'll wait to be impressed when they denuclearize without having to send them tons of money and/or remove our troops from S Korea.

In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country. 66

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Ashtura

I'll wait to be impressed when they denuclearize without having to send them tons of money and/or remove our troops from S Korea.

In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country.

When you build the nukes in order to ensure that your regime is not toppled by foreign interests, you don't give them up. Kim will not give them up, denuclearization will never happen. Anyone who thinks that this is in the cards will be disappointed. 67

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Ashtura

I'll wait to be impressed when they denuclearize without having to send them tons of money and/or remove our troops from S Korea.

In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country.

Do you really think the U.S. is the one in charge of who gets to be leader in N Korea? That's some breathtaking arrogance. The U.S. can lead sanctions and other diplomatic angles of attack but they aren't remotely in a position to decide on a regime change. 68

[Ashtura]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Do you really think the U.S. is the one in charge of who gets to be leader in N Korea? That's some breathtaking arrogance. The U.S. can lead sanctions and other diplomatic angles of attack but they aren't remotely in a position to decide on a regime change.

Nope, I don't think that. I also don't think anything of substance is going to come of this exchange, other than a photo op for Kim to legitimize himself as a world leader.

They've already got the bomb. They've already got an ICBM that is a reasonable threat to the US. There as big a threat as they've ever been.

So, saying they won't test or detonate if we (insert random capitulation here) is just more of the same. A joke. A joke that will last maybe a few years until they rinse and repeat and do it again, same as before. 69

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

When you build the nukes in order to ensure that your regime is not toppled by foreign interests, you don't give them up. Kim will not give them up, denuclearization will never happen. Anyone who thinks that this is in the cards will be disappointed.

This is exactly what will happen, meanwhile the administration will tell everyone who will listen that they have removed the nuclear threat from the Korean peninsula. 70

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Sharp knees. Would not bang.

No, they'd click.

Who'll take the woman with the skinny legs? I will. 71

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Ashtura

Nope, I don't think that. I also don't think anything of substance is going to come of this exchange, other than a photo op for Kim to legitimize himself as a world leader.

They've already got the bomb. They've already got an ICBM that is a reasonable threat to the US. There as big a threat as they've ever been.

So, saying they won't test or detonate if we (insert random capitulation here) is just more of the same. A joke. A joke that will last maybe a few years until they rinse and repeat and do it again, same as before.

None of this explains why you said "In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country." 72

[Ashtura]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

None of this explains why you said "In other words, the "deal" is, you denuclearize and we'll let you stay leader of your pissant country."

My point is, Trump goes in with brass balls or not at all.

We can, and have, made regime changes. Some overtly, some covertly. 73

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I'm afraid trump believes horseshit like that too. ...

So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality. 74

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Ashtura

My point is, Trump goes in with brass balls or not at all.

We can, and have, made regime changes. Some overtly, some covertly.

Too bad he can't go in with a brain. 75

[ElvisL1ves]

It won't be him who goes in, either. None of his family members, for that matter. 76

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

By your definition, a school shooter who stops to reload is making a "step in the right direction". Sorry, once you've passed a certain line, whatever small feints back toward the line no longer count. 77

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

Those missiles will be repainted with DPRK Space Exploration on their side, and then shot over Japan.

I don't hate trump, I just fear that he's incapable of doing anything unless it involves a tantrum, a cookie and a hooker peeing on him. And, as long as she's over 18, I'm perfectly happy if he spends the next 2 years "in the shower." 78

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Icarus

By your definition, a school shooter who stops to reload is making a "step in the right direction". Sorry, once you've passed a certain line, whatever small feints back toward the line no longer count.

I'm not claiming the "small feint" absolves them of past misdeeds, or means they deserve our unqualified trust in the matter, but it seems obvious to me that it's an improvement, like when a school shooter drops his weapon and throws up his hands, signaling his surrender to law enforcement. 79

[bobot]

Which is not at all, like not even close at all, to what Kim is now doing. 80

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by bobot

Which is not at all, like not even close at all, to what Kim is now doing.

Really?

NYT: North Korea Signals Willingness to 'Denuclearize,' South Says

North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has told South Korean envoys he is willing to negotiate with the United States on abandoning his country’s nuclear weapons, officials from the South said Tuesday. Mr. Kim also said he would suspend all nuclear and missile tests while such talks were underway, they said.

Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was. 81

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Really?

"Doing" != "saying." I'm glad you're getting to experience some optimism, though. 82

[asahi]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Really?

NYT: North Korea Signals Willingness to 'Denuclearize,' South Says



Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I'd like to point out that South Korea's newly-elected president has a horse in this race, too. He's a democratically-elected leader of a moderate left party that has tended to argue for more soft-line diplomacy than hard-line diplomacy with North Korea. He's positioning himself politically as being the guy who got these two seemingly unhinged leaders to get in the same room to talk with each other about possible peace. Regardless of what happens afterward, one could see how that might make him look politically attractive to South Korean voters. 83

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

In terms of security against an invasion by a hostile power, there's a world of difference between having nukes and not having nukes, as Saddam Hussein found out fifteen years ago.

I'm not being facetious here when I ask: just what can we offer Kim that would be worth enough to him to give up that kind of security? 84

[elucidator]

Food. 85

[penultima thule]

He doesn't look like he, or any of his inner circle are short of a calorie, or smoked salmon, smashed avocados or black caviar for that matter.

He is as considerate of "his people" as Trump is of "his tenants", indeed it's quite a similar attitude on several levels. 86

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

Is this negotiation going to take place before Trump meets with Kim next month, or will he alone make the deal happen in real time?

I'll make you a bet; Kim will test another missile within six months of the summit meeting. By the end of the year, tops. 87

[asahi]

Originally Posted by penultima thule

He doesn't look like he, or any of his inner circle are short of a calorie, or smoked salmon, smashed avocados or black caviar for that matter.

He is as considerate of "his people" as Trump is of "his tenants", indeed it's quite a similar attitude on several levels.

He and his inner circle may not be short, but if enough of his military are, that could be a problem. If enough of the military care enough at severe food and supply shortages for everyone else not in the military, that could also be a problem. Intense brainwashing is obviously having the desired effect, but it's not fail-safe. There are people who defect from North Korea, after all. And there have been more and more of them lately. 88

[asahi]

It's just too bad that in the last election, we had a choice between foreign policy that's really not at all that good (Clinton) versus no foreign policy at all (Trump, Sanders, and Johnson). America's got global power, but its rapidly getting dumber and dumber at using it. Our choice has become, do we do something stupid or do we do nothing at all. Other countries don't respect us; they fear us - fear that we'll either do something magnificently stupid or just irresponsibly walk away leaving a power vacuum and everyone else fighting over it. We take this baggage into every set of negotiations and this summit will be absolutely no different. 89

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I'm not claiming the "small feint" absolves them of past misdeeds, or means they deserve our unqualified trust in the matter, but it seems obvious to me that it's an improvement, like when a school shooter drops his weapon and throws up his hands, signaling his surrender to law enforcement.

That comparison is utter nonsense. Kim isn't throwing up his hands and surrendering. He's just announced that he's done testing nuclear weapons.

To use your analogy, the school shooter has left the gun store and is driving towards the school. And you're telling us it's a positive sign because he's no longer in the store buying boxes of ammunition. 90

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Of course there's still a lot of negotiating between here and any actual denuclearization, but it seems a lot closer to my characterization of events than "stops to reload" was.

You do understand that Kim is saying his condition for abandoning nuclear weapons is a complete American withdrawal from South Korea? In other words, he wants Trump to throw up his hands and surrender. 91

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You do understand that Kim is saying his condition for abandoning nuclear weapons is a complete American withdrawal from South Korea? In other words, he wants Trump to throw up his hands and surrender.

I actually understood that they'd dropped that particular demand. CNN: North Korea drops withdrawal of US forces as condition of denuclearization, Moon says

Where are you getting your information from? 92

[penultima thule]

Originally Posted by asahi

He and his inner circle may not be short, but if enough of his military are, that could be a problem. If enough of the military care enough at severe food and supply shortages for everyone else not in the military, that could also be a problem. Intense brainwashing is obviously having the desired effect, but it's not fail-safe. There are people who defect from North Korea, after all. And there have been more and more of them lately.

1. You don't need to be particularly well nourished to push a launch button
2. It's not the defectors who will make a difference, it's the returnees. The guys who've been outside the peninsula or just to South Korea and come back with the inkling of a notion that what is considered normal stress and suffering of life in the hermit kingdom doesn't approximate normal on the other side of the 38th parallel. 93

[asahi]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

I actually understood that they'd dropped that particular demand. CNN: North Korea drops withdrawal of US forces as condition of denuclearization, Moon says

Where are you getting your information from?

In terms of symbolism, that would be a significant concession and it's an encouraging sign at least; however, the reality is that troops in South Korea are largely not much more than a symbolic tripwire. The test is, what happens to sanctions and the policy of political isolation against his regime? The US position to date has been, North Korea must end its weapons program (and some would argue destroy the arsenal it has) and also stop engaging in other hostile acts first, before the policies of isolation and sanctions end. It seems likely that KJL would ask Trump to show some flexibility in that regard, and even if Trump is willing to negotiate, it's not clear how the rest of Congress would view any compromise. Republicans in Congress essentially derailed Clinton's attempts to achieve a similar outcome in the 1990s. He would probably face bipartisan skepticism. 94

[Isilder]

The thing with the cold war arms race making nuclear weapons moot .. the west has long had a police of trading with the commies, in order to get them addicted to trade.

So whats happenned is a classic case of good cop, bad cop.

This is a good cop only in that it can't take criticsim, and certainly won't admit any mistake. No matter, it still gets to pass the bad cops message on.


Good cop.. China... "Nothings wrong, its all peaceful ,we didnt do anything wrong, USA is sabre rattling for nothing."

Bad cop. USA's trump.. "we will blow you commies to hell .. or at least threaten you and your allies and cut off trade".

Good cop China ... "well , there isnt anything wrong, but the west has its knickers in a knot, and we can't afford a blockage of trade with China.. and we are feeling sorry for the citizens of Korea.. How about North Korea become a responsible government as defined by 2018 standards, not 1718."


I am thinking that China would have told North Korea that it has to be a pseudo-communist country, you know one country two systems ? One system is the ghost of communism .. the shell of it exists as the oligarchy running a dictatorship.. the other system is the cash cow... the industries... the capitalist system.

So I think that changes happen in NK due to China...

But NK leadership has to pretend that its due to USA. So as to make everyone think that they were forced to change, not that they are admitting the old ways were wrong. 95

[Isilder]

The chinese oligarchy would have explained to Kim that the way Kim was talking, he was risking losing face and having a revolution occuring against them.

China would have explained that the President of the USA is directly elected, and in no way to be taken as if a powerful ruler... he can stretch some emergency powers as long as his party tolerates it. If they didnt tolerate it, they'd vote and stop him.. or even get rid of him. So its really that the whole Republic party supports efforts to cause change in North Korea.. how can Kim outcompete a disposable POTUSA ? Kim has to be the indisposable statesmen... not the disposable one. 96

[Isilder]

Now think how cleaning up NK's act helps china ? The chinese gov is scared of the effect of the China industrial revolution change on their citizens ..there is the threat of revolution ... they have democratic systems now... sure, its only community groups, which control street names and lunar new year celebratons.. but they may get together in the suburbs and form a party and demand democracy at the higher levels. They are the child of communist minions, and know the communist system...if they get together, they'd know enough to prove the oligarchy is a corrupt group of croneys. So anyway ,the North Korea gov was making the Chinese gov look bad.. but having NK clean up would be a boon to china's oligarchy.. they'd be able to say communism wasn't dead.. 97

[Kiber]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

So you think it's ... what, exactly? A step in the wrong direction? The world was a better place when North Korea was regularly launching missiles over Japan? I think your hatred for Trump has blinded you to reality.

Turns out that, whether this is a positive step or a terrible idea, depends only on when you ask the question. 98

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Kiber

Turns out that, whether this is a positive step or a terrible idea, depends only on when you ask the question.

That is friggin' fantastic. 99

[Johnny Ace]

Hahaha classic. 100