Bill Clinton's appeasement strategy was definitely coherent.
1
We're somewhat focused on the wrong thing. Kim wants Trump and everyone else to focus on his growing nuclear prowess, but his vulnerability lies with resources like oil. Oil, the very same commodity that helped sink Hitler and compelled Japan to bomb us during WW2 is part of Kim's vulnerability. We need to compel China to cut him off. Without oil, his cars and trucks don't move, his ability to create the energy he needs is curtailed, and moreover, we begin to starve the beast. This is the only way to get him to think and act rationally. Coal can only take him do far. He'll think and act differently without oil.
Obviously, a broad trade embargo by China would be the real way to starve the beast, but we don't have the leverage to make that happen. So, let's focus on something more limited, but something on which Kim really depends. Cut off the oil.
Obviously, a broad trade embargo by China would be the real way to starve the beast, but we don't have the leverage to make that happen. So, let's focus on something more limited, but something on which Kim really depends. Cut off the oil.
2
My guiding premises here are: (a) N. Korea is China's creation, (b) China is laughably inept at wielding soft or hard power, and (c) we need to create the incentives and provide the nudges for China to take care of N. Korea.
China is currently flat out ignoring Trump; they don't take him seriously. Because even they know the difference between talk and action. What actions should we take, precisely?
First, we need a fleet in S. China sea, ready to quarantine the Chinese islands in S. China sea. Second, we need a fleet in Malacca Straits to begin a blockade if necessary. Third, we need to send really low flying planes just across the territorial waters of China, and over the disputed islands. Fourth, we have to give S. Korea and Japan the arms they want. Fifth, we should instruct our navy and air force to routinely shadow everything that sails and flies and push the envelope. And we should go about everything else as normal and routine.
No they will not shoot. But they will sweat if we mean business, and then figure out what to do. They will know all this goes away if they take care of their spoiled child, N. Korea.
I don't want us to own a problem that China created. Let them.
Please.
Kalidan
China is currently flat out ignoring Trump; they don't take him seriously. Because even they know the difference between talk and action. What actions should we take, precisely?
First, we need a fleet in S. China sea, ready to quarantine the Chinese islands in S. China sea. Second, we need a fleet in Malacca Straits to begin a blockade if necessary. Third, we need to send really low flying planes just across the territorial waters of China, and over the disputed islands. Fourth, we have to give S. Korea and Japan the arms they want. Fifth, we should instruct our navy and air force to routinely shadow everything that sails and flies and push the envelope. And we should go about everything else as normal and routine.
No they will not shoot. But they will sweat if we mean business, and then figure out what to do. They will know all this goes away if they take care of their spoiled child, N. Korea.
I don't want us to own a problem that China created. Let them.
Please.
Kalidan
2
8 year of singing kumbaya and appeasement by President Obama led to this moment
2
Would Mr. Kim think differently if the gentlemanly Colonel had been left alone, permitted to slaughter the citizens of the country he ruled, as Assad has been allowed to do? The Security Council authorized action in Libya. In her otherwise important book, Rosa Brooks says we should've toppled the Taliban and left and toppled Hussein and left. Well, the international community toppled Qaddafi and left. What transpired thereafter? (Recall that The Times backed Operation Iraqi Freedom. It might be useful to peruse Larry Diamond's "Squandered Victory.")
The civil war in Libya didn't begin until well after Qaddafi's (proper and widely supported) removal. In the absence of that removal, I have no doubt that Libya, while a terrible place today, would look rather like Syria. The absence of follow-up was the problem. To imply that we should've permitted a (very possible) genocide to transpire just to prevent sending the wrong signals about the necessity of nukes to the likes of Kim Jung-un, is entirely sickening.
This editorial is written as if regime change is the worst imaginable idea. This is a regime that has murdered an American boy, uses slave labor, employs torture, and is responsible for the deaths of ~ one million people in the 1990s. Like the president whose foreign policy it either supported or, amazingly, criticized from the left, this paper has over-learned the supposed "lessons" of Iraq. We can't ever weaken our alliance with South Korea to pacify a threatening maniac.
The civil war in Libya didn't begin until well after Qaddafi's (proper and widely supported) removal. In the absence of that removal, I have no doubt that Libya, while a terrible place today, would look rather like Syria. The absence of follow-up was the problem. To imply that we should've permitted a (very possible) genocide to transpire just to prevent sending the wrong signals about the necessity of nukes to the likes of Kim Jung-un, is entirely sickening.
This editorial is written as if regime change is the worst imaginable idea. This is a regime that has murdered an American boy, uses slave labor, employs torture, and is responsible for the deaths of ~ one million people in the 1990s. Like the president whose foreign policy it either supported or, amazingly, criticized from the left, this paper has over-learned the supposed "lessons" of Iraq. We can't ever weaken our alliance with South Korea to pacify a threatening maniac.
1
Kim went to school in Switzerland under an assumed identity.
Who's to say he won't direct his show from Bern posing as
a trade delegate?
Who's to say he won't direct his show from Bern posing as
a trade delegate?
Clinton and Bush are prominently mentioned in this editorial. but guess who is conveniently left out. That's right, Obama, who had eight years to do nothing. His policy of "strategic patience" was laughed at behind his back for what it was: dithering. In fact, it gave Kim the space to accelerate his missile program.
So now Trump is being accused of being "incoherent" because he won't talk to the DPRK. And by the way, the plan suggested by the board is none other than that called for by Russia and China. How's that for originality and coherent thinking? So long as Trump can be pilloried and vilified, right?
So now Trump is being accused of being "incoherent" because he won't talk to the DPRK. And by the way, the plan suggested by the board is none other than that called for by Russia and China. How's that for originality and coherent thinking? So long as Trump can be pilloried and vilified, right?
3
I like to think that the solution is quite simple. First, we must offer North Korea a face saving opportunity, admit that Bush and Bolton prematurely trashed the Agreed Framework, (even if NK is partially or fully culpable.) Then a peace treaty and halting of war games in South Korea in exchange for signing on to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Perhaps US, Russia and China could each drop 15% of their Nuclear arsenals in exchange for NK abandoning theirs. Follow-on with investments in Wind and Solar for the North, and for the rest of us, a great big Dark Sky preserve with kimchi all around.
2
I will not be the only one to point out that US policy towards NK has been a standoff since active hostilites were ended in 1953. Ike had enough of war and once in office, quite understandably, didn't want to pursue a a "defeat" of NK with China at their back. SK has become a successful industrialized powerhouse with our support, and the artillary directed at Seoul from North of the DMZ has been an effective enough deterrent to keep every US President since from stopping NK's march toward nuclear capability. Now it has a second, more potent deterrent in its new nuclear/missile capabilities, however nascent their development.
There simply is no use-of-force remedy to this situation that any sane human being would want to accept. The way forward is to accept the reality that we cannot bully NK into behaving as we would like. We and all our partners in the Pacific region should collaborate to find the right carrot to reduce tensions instead of the raising the threatening stick or mouthing vacuous belicose rhetoric.
Of course we have the wrong administration and leadership to accomplish such a delicate piece of international statecraft...
There simply is no use-of-force remedy to this situation that any sane human being would want to accept. The way forward is to accept the reality that we cannot bully NK into behaving as we would like. We and all our partners in the Pacific region should collaborate to find the right carrot to reduce tensions instead of the raising the threatening stick or mouthing vacuous belicose rhetoric.
Of course we have the wrong administration and leadership to accomplish such a delicate piece of international statecraft...
3
What might a "solution" look like to the NYT??? Letting North Korea have a nuclear arsenal and a way to deliver it to most of the US? Now it is very simple, the beloved leader has to go. Now perhaps China could get rid of him, but I bet it will take massive military action. Or we could do as most other presidents let the next guy do it. I don't expect this president to do that, but I might be surprised.
2
China, meet South Korea, you're new partner in peace and reluctant client state.
Please play well with each other and enjoy you're new Asian trade opportunities.
U.S. , please keep tweeting and not to worry.
North Korea now has no reason to attack you.
Thanks for your help.
To South Korea, Don't worry. If Kim doesn't attack you in the next few years your destiny will be safe and prosperous.
Please play well with each other and enjoy you're new Asian trade opportunities.
U.S. , please keep tweeting and not to worry.
North Korea now has no reason to attack you.
Thanks for your help.
To South Korea, Don't worry. If Kim doesn't attack you in the next few years your destiny will be safe and prosperous.
1
"President Bill Clinton worked out a deal that froze the North’s plutonium program or eight years, only to see the agreement collapse under George W. Bush"....clearly a falsehood, since it is well known that N. Korea cheated during this period.
S. Korea and the US needs to sign a peace treaty with N Korea to remove the last fig leaf of lies by Fearless Leader; and then remove all US troops from S Korea.
S. Korea and the US needs to sign a peace treaty with N Korea to remove the last fig leaf of lies by Fearless Leader; and then remove all US troops from S Korea.
2
Also have to point out that everything we accuse North Korea of we have done hundreds or thousands of times.
North Korea shot a missile over a foreign country? We shoot missiles into foreign countries all the time.
NK tested a hydrogen bomb? We've all seen the pictures of our hydrogen bombs going off.
Sure, when your military is bigger than the next ten competitors combined you can bully the world, but that doesn't mean your arguments convince anyone that you are right.
If you stick a gun in my face I may give you my wallet (or I might shove it up your....) but that doesn't mean I think I owe you a wallet, or that anyone watching thinks so either.
Bullies are hypocrites not protectors of peace and justice.
North Korea shot a missile over a foreign country? We shoot missiles into foreign countries all the time.
NK tested a hydrogen bomb? We've all seen the pictures of our hydrogen bombs going off.
Sure, when your military is bigger than the next ten competitors combined you can bully the world, but that doesn't mean your arguments convince anyone that you are right.
If you stick a gun in my face I may give you my wallet (or I might shove it up your....) but that doesn't mean I think I owe you a wallet, or that anyone watching thinks so either.
Bullies are hypocrites not protectors of peace and justice.
3
"President Bill Clinton worked out a deal that froze the North’s plutonium program for eight years, only to see the agreement collapse under George W. Bush."
Let me get this straight: Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing to rid North Korea of any and all nuclear material, research and weapons-related programs, yet it's Bush's fault? Was the left collectively on mood ameliorating drugs thinking North Korea would abandon their nuclear ambitions? If so, would you mind sharing with the rest of us?
"It is not at all clear that Mr. Kim is interested in talking. But Mr. Trump needs to test the possibility before design or miscalculation leads to war."
The best policy is to just ignore them from here on. North Korea and President Trump are like 5 year-olds who realize no one notices them: they suddenly notice and scream, "Hey, pay attention to me!!!" North Korea already has the bomb and eventually they will have the capability to deliver them to these shores. There is nothing that can or will convince North Korea to abandon it's nuclear program - not money, not trade, not threats of military force. Kim Jong-Un is not so stupid as to risk the gravy train he and his posse enjoy in one last blaze of glory. He is smart enough to know that we will not ever conduct a pre-emptive strke now that he has retaliatory capability. That is all he really wants - regime security. He will talk smack until the day he dies. He knows what will if he ever launches something with a warhead.
Let me get this straight: Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing to rid North Korea of any and all nuclear material, research and weapons-related programs, yet it's Bush's fault? Was the left collectively on mood ameliorating drugs thinking North Korea would abandon their nuclear ambitions? If so, would you mind sharing with the rest of us?
"It is not at all clear that Mr. Kim is interested in talking. But Mr. Trump needs to test the possibility before design or miscalculation leads to war."
The best policy is to just ignore them from here on. North Korea and President Trump are like 5 year-olds who realize no one notices them: they suddenly notice and scream, "Hey, pay attention to me!!!" North Korea already has the bomb and eventually they will have the capability to deliver them to these shores. There is nothing that can or will convince North Korea to abandon it's nuclear program - not money, not trade, not threats of military force. Kim Jong-Un is not so stupid as to risk the gravy train he and his posse enjoy in one last blaze of glory. He is smart enough to know that we will not ever conduct a pre-emptive strke now that he has retaliatory capability. That is all he really wants - regime security. He will talk smack until the day he dies. He knows what will if he ever launches something with a warhead.
1
Isn't "incoherent strategy" an oxymoron?
2
One major current misconception is that the Milit Tension between the US and NK is about just the US,SK,Japan and some of their allies.But NK's regime is the most irresponsible regime in the world.The reason for that objective claim is that the Countries NK provoking are 3 or 4 of the 10 most major economies and spoiling the Economic, Trade or business mood of these Nations leads to such undesirable global environment adversely affecting, to various degree, all economies, which in turn will have a cooling effect on efforts that try to manage consequences of natural disaster or poverty.So, there has to be a realization by the world community that NK has a suicide nuker regime that is willing to make NK perish in order to hurt as many nations as possible.Hence, unheard of type pressure has to be applied on NK by almost all Nations cooperatively.TMD.
Just North Korea?
NK, Mexico, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, all of Central America, Pakistan, all the NATO nations, all I see for coherence is that the policy for each is disassociated from US values and interests and puppeted by special interests, banks, military industrial complex, and right wing ideologues. In each case the US public is poorly informed and hypnotized by shallow pop culture "hate the bogeyman" propaganda schemes (Putin is bad!, Kim is bad! Assad is bad!) developed by businesses and a few moribund organizations like the DNC or Neocons.
We should have no military in N.K. or Syria, and be dialing down NATO. We should be working to create highly developed beneficial relations with Russia and supportive relations with Central America. We should be militarizing the US-Mexico border to stop the drugs. We should be sanctioning Ukraine because it's Parliament is full of fascists, Pakistan because it's a nuclear proliferator, and Israel for human rights violations and general principle.
So the whole of US foreign relations is a pile of steaming junk leftover from our worst ideas and administrations like Reagan and Bush and most vile think tanks and political hacks & orgs like the DNC & John McCain.
NK, Mexico, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, all of Central America, Pakistan, all the NATO nations, all I see for coherence is that the policy for each is disassociated from US values and interests and puppeted by special interests, banks, military industrial complex, and right wing ideologues. In each case the US public is poorly informed and hypnotized by shallow pop culture "hate the bogeyman" propaganda schemes (Putin is bad!, Kim is bad! Assad is bad!) developed by businesses and a few moribund organizations like the DNC or Neocons.
We should have no military in N.K. or Syria, and be dialing down NATO. We should be working to create highly developed beneficial relations with Russia and supportive relations with Central America. We should be militarizing the US-Mexico border to stop the drugs. We should be sanctioning Ukraine because it's Parliament is full of fascists, Pakistan because it's a nuclear proliferator, and Israel for human rights violations and general principle.
So the whole of US foreign relations is a pile of steaming junk leftover from our worst ideas and administrations like Reagan and Bush and most vile think tanks and political hacks & orgs like the DNC & John McCain.
2
If "only Nixon could go to China" and ping pong diplomacy worked with China, then maybe we should name Dennis Rodman as U.S envoy to North Korea and have some basketball games. Sure worth a try and beats turning millions of people in the Korean peninsula, Guam and Japan into ash. Let's face reality. No nuclear power in the world wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and North Korea is now a member of that insane club - which includes our wonderful friends Pakistan and Israel - and America, which opened Pandora's box in the first place. Karma.
3
Neither Trump nor Haley have any idea how to handle this situation. They're in way over their heads.
Trump thinks he can bluster his way through this, which actually *helps* Kim, making him look like can easily get the better of Trump by calling his bluff.
The futility of Trump's bluster only exasperates our allies, who surely wish Trump would shut up and let more experienced, mature and wise heads handle this.
Can't someone keep Trump on the golf course for the rest of his term, where he would do the least damage?
Trump thinks he can bluster his way through this, which actually *helps* Kim, making him look like can easily get the better of Trump by calling his bluff.
The futility of Trump's bluster only exasperates our allies, who surely wish Trump would shut up and let more experienced, mature and wise heads handle this.
Can't someone keep Trump on the golf course for the rest of his term, where he would do the least damage?
5
How can you ask the president to test something that has already been tested over many years.
Do you never give up?
Do you never give up?
1
September 6, 2017
North Korea ties to China offers the world a situation that’s for their union to confront the capitalist enemy – all about economic gamesmanship – tolerable a the point of nukes aimed for persuasions.
North Korea ties to China offers the world a situation that’s for their union to confront the capitalist enemy – all about economic gamesmanship – tolerable a the point of nukes aimed for persuasions.
1
There is one simple answer to North Korea. We just need to shoot down the next missile they fire. We have spent hundreds of billions on missile defence. Now's the time to find out if any of it works. If it does, the air will go out of Kim's balloon.
2
When you think about Kim Jung Un and his family, think in terms of the 15th & 16th century Borgias, where everything is up for grabs.
With that viewpoint it's clear that Trump and his henchmen, as mean spirited as they may be, are in over their heads.
Frighteningly Bannon with his inaccurate and inflated sense of his intelligence is still whispering idiotic suggestions in Trump's ear via unsecured cell phone. Trump is a cheap chiseling grifter and bully with no one around him capable of guiding him in this kind of game.
Hailey is barely holding her own in the U.N., so be ready for some international power shifts as the U.S. flounders in the cesspool that Trump has created.
With that viewpoint it's clear that Trump and his henchmen, as mean spirited as they may be, are in over their heads.
Frighteningly Bannon with his inaccurate and inflated sense of his intelligence is still whispering idiotic suggestions in Trump's ear via unsecured cell phone. Trump is a cheap chiseling grifter and bully with no one around him capable of guiding him in this kind of game.
Hailey is barely holding her own in the U.N., so be ready for some international power shifts as the U.S. flounders in the cesspool that Trump has created.
3
one could infer the opinion board is implying it's trumps fault the can is on the edge, not one of the previous administration's many apparently coherent can kicks.
2
Qaddafi was not executed. "Execution" assumes at least the pretense of a judicial verdict and a disciplined killing. Neither was present
He was brutally murdered.
He was brutally murdered.
1
I do not understand all the hand ringing.
Mr. Kim likely believes - correctly- that if he disarms he will be killed. He also likely believes -correctly- that if he attacks anyone he will be killed then as well.
It is his stalemate, not ours.
Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented nuclear war so far, why will it not do so now? Particularly when one actor has five or ten of the things, and everyone else has thousands.
Mr. Kim likely believes - correctly- that if he disarms he will be killed. He also likely believes -correctly- that if he attacks anyone he will be killed then as well.
It is his stalemate, not ours.
Mutually Assured Destruction has prevented nuclear war so far, why will it not do so now? Particularly when one actor has five or ten of the things, and everyone else has thousands.
2
This seems to be all about kim jung un and trump. we are not served well by trump--that should be obvious. If his removal is to come, for the sake of a solution to the crisis with n. korea, it had better be soon. and if it's about russia, Pence is also implicated. Neither have any diplomatic experience, either to appoint knowledgeable people, or to know to accept good advice.
NK has an interest in muddling the waters, and so does a school of thought in China.As soon as Kim has his own ICBM umbrella, he will start proliferating worldwide to both national and non national actors: and forget about interdiction: a three hundred pound device can destroy all of San Diego metro and be sold for, say, a hundred million: two orders of magnitude more profitable than cocaine.
Only regime change can prevent this. I thought Bush Jr handled Iraq badly; Obama did likewise with Libya but scored a big win for international security with Iran. NK has always been potentially far more dangerous, more intractable, less sexy, and they all left the problem unsolved out of sheer cowardice: same with Clinton, whom I feel was a great President and a great guy, except for not forcing a regime change in NK when it was still an easy proposition.
Now it is not an easy proposition, but it is an unavoidable proposition. Make sure China understands a reunified Korea will be Finlandized, non-nuclear, with no US troops.Surround NK with military assets and spend whatever is necessary to turn the North Koreans against their regime, Ceausescu-style; naval quarantine, sabotage of rail links to China, bribery to NK generals...whatever it takes.
Risk some now, perhaps lose some, perhaps not...or lose everything tomorrow.
Only regime change can prevent this. I thought Bush Jr handled Iraq badly; Obama did likewise with Libya but scored a big win for international security with Iran. NK has always been potentially far more dangerous, more intractable, less sexy, and they all left the problem unsolved out of sheer cowardice: same with Clinton, whom I feel was a great President and a great guy, except for not forcing a regime change in NK when it was still an easy proposition.
Now it is not an easy proposition, but it is an unavoidable proposition. Make sure China understands a reunified Korea will be Finlandized, non-nuclear, with no US troops.Surround NK with military assets and spend whatever is necessary to turn the North Koreans against their regime, Ceausescu-style; naval quarantine, sabotage of rail links to China, bribery to NK generals...whatever it takes.
Risk some now, perhaps lose some, perhaps not...or lose everything tomorrow.
2
Is anyone publicly asking why he is picking a fight with South Korea, our ally in this mess? I would appreciate hearing his reasons.
1
Cross talking one another, empty threats, possibly making enemies of our pacific allies, appointing China as the country to lead N.Korea in the right and peaceful direction while threatening to end trade relations. All of this comes across as very clear that we have a bunch of clowns, completely out of their depth, trying to solve a problem and only making it worse.
1
You quote President Trump as advising Mr. Rex Tillerson and Mr. Jim Mattis that " talking is not the answer." If it is not talking until the threat of war is removed, what is the answer? There's clearly a path to productive talks
involving North Korea, South Korea, the U. S. , and China. Give Mr. Kim Jong-un what he and his military generals are clamoring for: membership in the nuclear club. It will immediately give Pyongyang the illusion of a national achievement of success and safety. Add to the nuclear club membership an assurance of no regime change. ( Let's leave that to the North Korean people.) Once the threat of war is removed, peace talks involving all countries involved--North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., and china initiate
peace talks without pre-conditions and no time-table. There's no dearth of peace negotiators in the U. S. President Trump can enlist their contributions to a worthy cause.
It is high time Mr. Trump realized that the most destructive wars of history have arisen from thoughtless actions. The North Korean dictator acts and talks the way he does mainly because of his fear that his country is surrounded by enemies ready to attack his poor nation.
Pakistan, India, and Israel have acquired plenty of nuclear warheads but
hey are not threatening their neighbors with them. In fact, peace talks in Pyongyang may be the used as a harbinger of total nuclear disarmament. People all over the world want an end to all wars. Wars result from failure of thought
involving North Korea, South Korea, the U. S. , and China. Give Mr. Kim Jong-un what he and his military generals are clamoring for: membership in the nuclear club. It will immediately give Pyongyang the illusion of a national achievement of success and safety. Add to the nuclear club membership an assurance of no regime change. ( Let's leave that to the North Korean people.) Once the threat of war is removed, peace talks involving all countries involved--North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., and china initiate
peace talks without pre-conditions and no time-table. There's no dearth of peace negotiators in the U. S. President Trump can enlist their contributions to a worthy cause.
It is high time Mr. Trump realized that the most destructive wars of history have arisen from thoughtless actions. The North Korean dictator acts and talks the way he does mainly because of his fear that his country is surrounded by enemies ready to attack his poor nation.
Pakistan, India, and Israel have acquired plenty of nuclear warheads but
hey are not threatening their neighbors with them. In fact, peace talks in Pyongyang may be the used as a harbinger of total nuclear disarmament. People all over the world want an end to all wars. Wars result from failure of thought
1
Mr. Kim is scary and irrational. Unfortunately, so is the current President of the United States. It is time for the Senate and Congress... Democrats and many Republicans to step up to the plate and take solid control of this situation. Trump knows nothing about building consensus. The American people need government leaders who do...both Democrats and Republicans to diligently work to build consensus with China as adults. We need to lock our adolescent President in the closet and only let him out to attend golf events. I urge journalists all over the world to seek out American government leaders in the Senate and Congress who can think critically. Give them the floor. If the United States partners with China... and we do need to partner with China...this volatile situation does not have result in WWW3.
1
"President Bill Clinton worked out a deal that froze the North’s plutonium program for eight years, only to see the agreement collapse under George W. Bush."
Of course! It's George Bush's fault. And the current state of affairs is Donald Trump's fault, since everything was going perfectly under Obama.
Of course! It's George Bush's fault. And the current state of affairs is Donald Trump's fault, since everything was going perfectly under Obama.
1
NK will have ICBM deliverable nukes with yields in the hundred-kiloton range in a few short months.The top US warhead in use can be dialed up to a maximum of 475 kt. North Korea has seen all its cities and assets leveled to the ground already, albeit by conventional munition, during the First Korean war- a war that they did not lose: they can be nuked and still win the day for as long as they keep the countryside and the Chinese back them up .MAD calculations with NK are of no use, this is the dirty little secret of the NK conundrum.It is not credible to deter NK by saying that "if you nuke SF and LA we nuke Pyongyang and the fifteen other towns in NK with pop over 200k, because all those towns put together are worth peanuts in economic,military and psychological terms compared to the destruction of only the LA metro area, for example, and both sides know this, and in fact I dare say both sides feel this to be true.
Therefore Seoul and Tokyo will go nuclear, and after then Taiwan, Indonesia, perhaps Thailand...by the end of the Trump presidency current world security architecture will be utterly destroyed, the world will be as different as that of 1948 from 1938 or 1793 from 1773.
Therefore Seoul and Tokyo will go nuclear, and after then Taiwan, Indonesia, perhaps Thailand...by the end of the Trump presidency current world security architecture will be utterly destroyed, the world will be as different as that of 1948 from 1938 or 1793 from 1773.
1
The issue at play on the Korean peninsula is one of regional balance of power, which because of our shrinking planet stretches to Russia and the US.
This has been going on for over 1000 years, and the regional protagonists are well aware of this history. This history informs reactions and it derives from the position Korea holds in the region geographically and societally etc.
When Korea is unified, regional power balances shift, generally between two main sides, China and Japan, often leading to wide scale war.
When Korea is split, as now, the parts tend to orient in different ways, leading to an (unstable) equilibrium, leaving low level localized conflict.
China will not accept a unified Korea, concerned that the peninsula will orient towards the west, an unacceptable power (im)balance. China has gone to war over this before (see ref. the Korean War) and will do so again.
This is why China (and Russia) react to any destabilization of the North.
The North must convince China they are strong.
This is why the North reacts to sanctions with warlike gestures. If China feels those in charge in the North are weak, they will replace that regime on the concern that the North will collapse and the peninsula will be unified by the south with predictable power shifts.
No matter what, the US must be aware that China has one interest, and that is preserving the North as a viable regime. If there is war, it will be because we do not understand this basic fact.
This has been going on for over 1000 years, and the regional protagonists are well aware of this history. This history informs reactions and it derives from the position Korea holds in the region geographically and societally etc.
When Korea is unified, regional power balances shift, generally between two main sides, China and Japan, often leading to wide scale war.
When Korea is split, as now, the parts tend to orient in different ways, leading to an (unstable) equilibrium, leaving low level localized conflict.
China will not accept a unified Korea, concerned that the peninsula will orient towards the west, an unacceptable power (im)balance. China has gone to war over this before (see ref. the Korean War) and will do so again.
This is why China (and Russia) react to any destabilization of the North.
The North must convince China they are strong.
This is why the North reacts to sanctions with warlike gestures. If China feels those in charge in the North are weak, they will replace that regime on the concern that the North will collapse and the peninsula will be unified by the south with predictable power shifts.
No matter what, the US must be aware that China has one interest, and that is preserving the North as a viable regime. If there is war, it will be because we do not understand this basic fact.
2
Who is more crazy, their " leader" OR ours??? That is what this is really about. It's really sad when the best hope is a military coup. On either side.
7
Donald Trump is consistently incoherent about most things, but I fail to see how he can make our position vis a vis North Korea any worse than President Obama did. Or for that matter how he could do worse than Obama regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya, Russia.... I'm sorry, did I suggest that the beloved Barack Obama should be held accountable for the results of his policies? What was I thinking?
5
Aren't most, or all, of Mr.. Trump's strategies for dealing with other countries and international problems incoherent? What are the likely consequences? After one or two spectacular disasters will Congress remove him from office or will the Republicans wrap themselves in the (Confederate?) flag and rally around their Dear Leader?
3
The only peaceful solution left is to pump the Kim regime with full of so much foreign cash that they are thoroughly seduced by the creature comforts they afford. The usual contrary refrain - "but they will use that money to build nuclear bombs and fund their military!" - is no longer relevant; North Korea is already a nuclear power, and we'll have to pry the bombs from their cold, dead hands, unless those hands are given something else to grab on to.
2
One can't help but get the feeling that Trump and his blustering generals are playing into Kim's hands every time they open their mouths because they're afraid that their manhood is being challenged. It's just plain stupid, and threats of annihilation are useless. The first thing to do beside resisting the temptation to engage in one-upmanship is to move this standoff away from a one-on-one, US plus its allies vs. North Korea thing. Get other powers more deeply involved -- that's where the true work, the task of diplomacy lies. Working with others, dig up ways to genuinely pressure Kim. And do it quietly, not on Twitter (I can't believe that even needs to be said!), and not just at the UN. Make this a genuinely international issue. Do the really hard work -- that's the job these people wanted. So do it and stop playing GI Joe and Combat!.
2
Nobody seriously believes you can negotiate with North Korea, do they? Come on. If it weren't for the South Korea trade deal stupidity and the way Trump apparently loves making it on NK state news, he has done nothing to warrant this article. His policy is not especially incoherent. Certainly skepticism of negotiating with Kim Jong-un does not warrant that charge.
So the coherent strategy of the last 3 administration were so good that they have not only led to a maniacal dictator holding the world hostage, to who knows what has been given or implied with another maniacal dictatorship of Iran? But President Trump has a incoherent strategy on North Korea that what would be any worse?
8
Get a grip Trump Administration, it is not our backyard. We need to quietly go about listening to China, Japan, and South Korea, and support them in managing the North Korean Government.
2
Probably best to let it play out. Also less coverage of each missile or bomb event. Arm Japan to the teeth, arm s korea to the teeth. Then ignore, ignore ignore. If china wanted to they could take out mr baby face n Korea. But they won't at this time and don't need to. Let North Korea bluster and provoke all they want. Ignore mr baby face. That will hurt more than sanctions
This can has been kicked down many roads for many years. It is now jagged metal, with rust many deadly pathogens clinging to its dangerous, threatening edges.
This foot motion began when the Korean physical conflict ended, without a real armistice, 65-years ago. Glaring differences and issues remained, but became intolerable for the North as SK's economic prowess and wealth eclipsed most others.
This smoldering tragedy remains a glaring failed example of what should be one unified country, like former east and west Germany, which demonstrated a model for peaceful and mutually beneficial blending.
This foot motion began when the Korean physical conflict ended, without a real armistice, 65-years ago. Glaring differences and issues remained, but became intolerable for the North as SK's economic prowess and wealth eclipsed most others.
This smoldering tragedy remains a glaring failed example of what should be one unified country, like former east and west Germany, which demonstrated a model for peaceful and mutually beneficial blending.
2
Leave them alone.
You say, "If you debate a nuke outside of your borders, we will flatten your country," and then forget about them.
China has all the leverage there. We have none. Attacking North Korea will automatically trigger a massive artillery attack on South Korea, and almost definitely was with China.
The Kims are not suicidal. They do not want war with the US. They just want leverage. The more you let them get under or skin, the more leverage they get.
Anyone encouraging Trump to talk tough on North Korea is flirting with global thermal nuclear war.
You say, "If you debate a nuke outside of your borders, we will flatten your country," and then forget about them.
China has all the leverage there. We have none. Attacking North Korea will automatically trigger a massive artillery attack on South Korea, and almost definitely was with China.
The Kims are not suicidal. They do not want war with the US. They just want leverage. The more you let them get under or skin, the more leverage they get.
Anyone encouraging Trump to talk tough on North Korea is flirting with global thermal nuclear war.
1
An incoherent strategy is better than none.
And none is what we had under Obama,
who nurtured Iran to the brink of nuclear weaponhood.
Because of eight years of Obama,
North Korea is now acting without restraint.
And none is what we had under Obama,
who nurtured Iran to the brink of nuclear weaponhood.
Because of eight years of Obama,
North Korea is now acting without restraint.
4
Trump for whatever reasons seems incapable of getting beyond his simple-minded zero sum view of things. It will be up to those adults around him to work toward a real solution. Let's hope his ignorance doesn't subvert their efforts.
With this mess now on their hands, the Iran deal may be starting to look good to Mr. Trump and friends.
An efficacious and peaceful strategy on North Korea may not exist. Kim Jong-un is a sensory deprived individual in need of stimulus and excitement as can only be derived from perpetual and extreme risk taking. His use of anti-aircraft munitions to execute his enemies, and his need for being surrounded by loving coterie of accomplices speaks to his perception of risk and threat of destruction as thrilling.
You've offered a reasonable diagnosis but no treatment. What North Korea needs is regime change. Why can't the alleged dealmaker in Washington make a deal with China - isn't N Korea is a headache to both? China has the military power to remove the current clown and replace him with a better regime that remains friendly and aligned with China. The US can guarantee China recognition and peace with N Korea and no attempts to unify the two Koreas. Maybe the US might need to sweeten the deal with recognition of China's claims in the South China Sea or some big trade deal. So what? Isn't some win-win deal like that worth avoiding nuclear war and making the problem go away?
"It is not at all clear that Mr. Kim is interested in talking. But Mr. Trump needs to test the possibility before design or miscalculation leads to war." This is something the U.S. has yet to do. To update the late Robin Williams, "Calling Trump the great deal maker is like calling Gandhi the great caterer!"
Instead of diplomacy and negotiation, this administration only resorts to bullying. There is little to no mention in the NYT of all the "military exercises," i.e., war games, which we have initiated in that part of Asia such as Northern Viper 17 staged in early August with the Japanese. While reported in the European press, searching in the NYT archives yields nothing. Part of the intent of the war game was to "decapitate" the NK regime. So we're stuck in a recursive chicken-and-egg problem; are we responding to NK's provocations, or is Kim responding to ours? Do we really think that we can effect regime change in yet another country without similarly disastrous consequences?
Is any leader going to seriously start multi-lateral negotiations in this region as we have had in the past? Or are they going to dither and bluster into a conflagration with destruction that will make the hurricanes Harvey and Irma look insignificant by comparison? Right now I don't have high expectations of rationality from "the Great Negotiator" or from Trump's Generals with their dismal track records in the Middle East.
Instead of diplomacy and negotiation, this administration only resorts to bullying. There is little to no mention in the NYT of all the "military exercises," i.e., war games, which we have initiated in that part of Asia such as Northern Viper 17 staged in early August with the Japanese. While reported in the European press, searching in the NYT archives yields nothing. Part of the intent of the war game was to "decapitate" the NK regime. So we're stuck in a recursive chicken-and-egg problem; are we responding to NK's provocations, or is Kim responding to ours? Do we really think that we can effect regime change in yet another country without similarly disastrous consequences?
Is any leader going to seriously start multi-lateral negotiations in this region as we have had in the past? Or are they going to dither and bluster into a conflagration with destruction that will make the hurricanes Harvey and Irma look insignificant by comparison? Right now I don't have high expectations of rationality from "the Great Negotiator" or from Trump's Generals with their dismal track records in the Middle East.
1
Prof. Lee has been arguing for tight monetary restrictions for some time in a variety of policy journals. Perhaps this presentation in the NYT will attract broader attention and discussion.
What is new here, at least to me, is the very clear insistence that the goal of the DPRK is simply to be able to take over the south. It is always valuable to have a clear understanding of an opponent's real objectives and if Prof. Lee can elaborate and substantiate this view it would be a real contribution.
What is new here, at least to me, is the very clear insistence that the goal of the DPRK is simply to be able to take over the south. It is always valuable to have a clear understanding of an opponent's real objectives and if Prof. Lee can elaborate and substantiate this view it would be a real contribution.
Your viewpoint is extremely reckless and pointless - you last sentence gives the exact reason why N. Korea will never strike first with nuclear weapons. It is wise to not engage in fear-mongering involving nuclear weapons. Only an irrational government or terrorists would use nuclear weapons first. Everyone else understands what the response would be. MAD is a very effective deterrent for the rational. If you can make a convincing case that N. Korea or any other nuclear country is irrational and a likely imminent threat, then you could reasonably argue your viewpoint, otherwise, it is reckless advocacy in response to needless fear.
1
Sorry - my comment was meant as a reply to another commenter, but I must not have hit the reply button so it is showing up as a regular comment. It was in response to someone advocating a military solution now.
1
Kim's end game is essentially a reflection of the same policy North Korea has followed since the end of the Korean War; reunification of the peninsula under the rule of Pyongyang. This is not possible so long as South Korea is an ally of the United States and US military forces remain in South Korea. It's a s simple as that.
The counter to his treats and actions I think, is therefore aside from diplomacy, is to engage him in an arms race he cannot win, just as Reagan did with the Soviets in the 1980's. I'm not particularly fond of Reagan, but in this respect, I think his strategy worked.
This would mean South Korea beefing up its defenses, beefing up American forces in South Korea, and possibly South Korea pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty. I'm not crazy about that last idea, incidentally, but then, neither would the Chinese be, and they are the ones who hold the trump card here, being the only ones to be able to pressure Pyongyang into ending its stupidity. Furthermore, the threat of being in an arms race they can't win for both economic and technological reasons.
The counter to his treats and actions I think, is therefore aside from diplomacy, is to engage him in an arms race he cannot win, just as Reagan did with the Soviets in the 1980's. I'm not particularly fond of Reagan, but in this respect, I think his strategy worked.
This would mean South Korea beefing up its defenses, beefing up American forces in South Korea, and possibly South Korea pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty. I'm not crazy about that last idea, incidentally, but then, neither would the Chinese be, and they are the ones who hold the trump card here, being the only ones to be able to pressure Pyongyang into ending its stupidity. Furthermore, the threat of being in an arms race they can't win for both economic and technological reasons.
1
To solve the Korean problem, the US needs to be ready to back away from South Korea? That sounds like a paradox, but hear me out:
The best solution for Korea would be to reunify it, like Germany did. Let the South provide massive investment and humanitarian assistance to the north. (It will require a lot of education/mental health services too, after the steady diet of over the top propaganda the people have been fed, but the South is best positioned to do that)
China is getting annoyed with the north's antics too, but they tolerate it because the north keeps a percieved american client state at bay.
If the US and China agree to jointly support S. Korea as an independent state (and this requires the US to back away and let China have some influence) then China will not fear having the reunified Korea as a neighbor.
It's time to end the cold war.
The best solution for Korea would be to reunify it, like Germany did. Let the South provide massive investment and humanitarian assistance to the north. (It will require a lot of education/mental health services too, after the steady diet of over the top propaganda the people have been fed, but the South is best positioned to do that)
China is getting annoyed with the north's antics too, but they tolerate it because the north keeps a percieved american client state at bay.
If the US and China agree to jointly support S. Korea as an independent state (and this requires the US to back away and let China have some influence) then China will not fear having the reunified Korea as a neighbor.
It's time to end the cold war.
2
NN, Ridgewood, NJ
What are options for US?
1. Would China persuade N.Korea to abandon, nuclear bombss and ICBM development? No. China considers US as an adversary. N.K is helping China in this regard.
2. Should we fear N.Korea's nuclear weapons? It is a matter of our national pride rather than real issue. We should be concerned with N.K capabilities as much as we fear China's or Russian capabilities of their weapons. N.K. is impertinent but we must live with it. N.K won't be able to use it unless it wants national suicide.
3. N.K may wants to market its weapons. Who would be customers? ISIS, Middle Eastern nations? We can disrupt these market than to persuade Kim Jong-Un. The value of nuclear and missiles are the weapons of the last war. Modern weapons seems more cyber kind.
Under these circumstances, the best things we can do is to ignore the NK.
What are options for US?
1. Would China persuade N.Korea to abandon, nuclear bombss and ICBM development? No. China considers US as an adversary. N.K is helping China in this regard.
2. Should we fear N.Korea's nuclear weapons? It is a matter of our national pride rather than real issue. We should be concerned with N.K capabilities as much as we fear China's or Russian capabilities of their weapons. N.K. is impertinent but we must live with it. N.K won't be able to use it unless it wants national suicide.
3. N.K may wants to market its weapons. Who would be customers? ISIS, Middle Eastern nations? We can disrupt these market than to persuade Kim Jong-Un. The value of nuclear and missiles are the weapons of the last war. Modern weapons seems more cyber kind.
Under these circumstances, the best things we can do is to ignore the NK.
After the the US carpet bombed North Korea and killed some 20 percent of its population in the Korean War, Washington abrogated the section of the Armistice Agreement which stipulated that no new weapons would be introduced on either side of the DMZ and introduced nuclear arms and other powerful weapons in the South. Today, South Korea is one of the most heavily armed pieces of real estate in the world. Today Washington is completing a massive, missile-saturated base with almost thirty thousand US soldiers just south of Seoul, near North Korea's border and some 200 miles away from China's.
The Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea regarding the development of nuclear weapons and the administration delayed and dragged its heals on its commitments until Pyongyang lost trust in both the agreement and Washington. The Bush administration, sensing North Korean weakness, violated the agreement and eventually ended it with the result we see today.
Broadly what we see today in American foreign policy is an empire sensing that the window of opportunity for hegemony is closing and it must strike where it can.
The Clinton administration signed an agreement with North Korea regarding the development of nuclear weapons and the administration delayed and dragged its heals on its commitments until Pyongyang lost trust in both the agreement and Washington. The Bush administration, sensing North Korean weakness, violated the agreement and eventually ended it with the result we see today.
Broadly what we see today in American foreign policy is an empire sensing that the window of opportunity for hegemony is closing and it must strike where it can.
1
Many conflict situations can be ameliorated by aligning the interests of interested parties. Trump and Kim should negotiate the construction and ownership of the Trump International Pyongyang Hotel, and the nuclear problem would just fade away.
2
The nations of East Asia no longer need our protection and for obvious reasons no longer trust us. Japan and South Korea will find it in their interests to acquire nuclear weapons.
Then we can withdraw all our forces from the Asiatic theater, an area of increasingly strong nations which we are unable to protect.
Then we can withdraw all our forces from the Asiatic theater, an area of increasingly strong nations which we are unable to protect.
2
No strategy will prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear weapon. They have the technology and the determination. Despite Nikki Haley's panicked response, developing a nuclear weapon is not an act of war. The nations that have them use them to deter any other nation from invading. The world knows, and North Korea knows, that using a nuclear weapon will guarantee its own destruction. A preemptive strike by the United States will result in the needless deaths of Koreans and Americans. The only rational response is to begrudgingly accept their membership in the nuclear club, and maintain the peace.
3
Let's assume Mr. Kim is interested in talking. Stop the useless bluster and adopt a calm and measured approach. Offer a small concession, like a halt to military exercises in exchange for sitting down with an agreed upon mediator with China and South Korea also at the table. And if, in return for a halt to his nuclear program, he seeks state status, "normalized" relations with the rest of the world and a reduction (complete elimination would be a non-starter) of US troops in South Korea, what would be the downside compared to what's on offer? If that's appeasement, so be it. But arming up and threats of war are madness.
1
"An incoherent strategy" is still better than a rash response to the crisis, like a military action. Trump can't rely on China to take care of Kim Jong-un, because the young despot has learned from his father and grandfather to stand his ground and not let his country be a vassal state of China. In Beijing's eyes, Kim Il-sung, his son Kim Jong-il and now his grandson, Kim Jong-un are an ungrateful bunch. They have taken - a lot - from China throughout decades, but given nothing - subservience - back.
If Beijing seeks to pose a danger to the North, Pyongyang won't hesitate to use its nukes against China. Putin is smugly happy to see both China and the US in a predicament. He doesn't need to fear any aggression from North Korea.
If Beijing seeks to pose a danger to the North, Pyongyang won't hesitate to use its nukes against China. Putin is smugly happy to see both China and the US in a predicament. He doesn't need to fear any aggression from North Korea.
2
For years the goals of the North Korean regime has been the same: a permanent peace treaty with the U.S.; formal recognition; a pull out of U.S. troops from South Korea; an end to U.S. interfering in the internal affairs of the Korean people, North and South.
I don't follow events in the two Koreas particularly closely. If even I can see that the North Koreans are using their nuclear weapons programs in furtherance of the above goals, why can't the U.S. government? I think it can. It just refuses to move towards those goals. Since 1953.
I don't follow events in the two Koreas particularly closely. If even I can see that the North Koreans are using their nuclear weapons programs in furtherance of the above goals, why can't the U.S. government? I think it can. It just refuses to move towards those goals. Since 1953.
2
It is difficult to accept the depth of Trump's cognitive limitations.
The evidence strongly indicates that he has no understanding of the issues whatsoever. Cease trading with all countries that trade with N. Korea? Really? Is it even remotely possible that he understood what he was saying? I think not
There are many examples, but I think the most telling may be the transcript of his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia about the Obama agreement to consider accepting certain refugees. Read it. You'll find that Trump didn't even understand what the agreement called for, or how many people were covered by it. There he was, complaining to another head of state, and he had all his facts wrong.
So, any analysis of Trump's comments has to being there. It's blather. He doesn't understand the issues. What little he does understand is that acting belligerent excites a certain type of voter.
What motivates him is the desire to put his foot on someone's neck, while others applaud him for it.
That's as deep as he gets.
The evidence strongly indicates that he has no understanding of the issues whatsoever. Cease trading with all countries that trade with N. Korea? Really? Is it even remotely possible that he understood what he was saying? I think not
There are many examples, but I think the most telling may be the transcript of his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia about the Obama agreement to consider accepting certain refugees. Read it. You'll find that Trump didn't even understand what the agreement called for, or how many people were covered by it. There he was, complaining to another head of state, and he had all his facts wrong.
So, any analysis of Trump's comments has to being there. It's blather. He doesn't understand the issues. What little he does understand is that acting belligerent excites a certain type of voter.
What motivates him is the desire to put his foot on someone's neck, while others applaud him for it.
That's as deep as he gets.
15
Unfortunately, news footage from North Korea suggests that Kim Jong-un is indeed completely deranged. Although a suicidal attack on the US is unlikely, it is certainly possible.
I'm with Teddy Roosevelt on this one: "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
Yes, the US should negotiate with the UN to achieve sanctions. Yes the US should carry out military exercises with South Korea. Yes, the US should provide South Korea with high tech weapons. Yes, the US should negotiate like mad with China.
But it makes no sense for Trump to engage in a war of words with a madman.
And the talks with China have been compromised by Trump's campaign talk about China's unfair trade practices.
China has done many things right, and admittedly some things wrong.
In the aftermath of a famine that killed somewhere from 20 to 43 million people (according to Wikipedia), Deng Xiaoping introduced a one-child program that got birth rates down and enabled China to focus on improving living standards for a more slowly growing number of people. China deserves our respect for having done that, and the US itself needs to discuss limiting population growth.
China may soon pass the US in GDP.
Instead of competition with China, we should be thinking of cooperation. And the North Korea problem is one issue on which this cooperation would pay off.
If only Trump or one of his advisers could push this point of view.
I'm with Teddy Roosevelt on this one: "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
Yes, the US should negotiate with the UN to achieve sanctions. Yes the US should carry out military exercises with South Korea. Yes, the US should provide South Korea with high tech weapons. Yes, the US should negotiate like mad with China.
But it makes no sense for Trump to engage in a war of words with a madman.
And the talks with China have been compromised by Trump's campaign talk about China's unfair trade practices.
China has done many things right, and admittedly some things wrong.
In the aftermath of a famine that killed somewhere from 20 to 43 million people (according to Wikipedia), Deng Xiaoping introduced a one-child program that got birth rates down and enabled China to focus on improving living standards for a more slowly growing number of people. China deserves our respect for having done that, and the US itself needs to discuss limiting population growth.
China may soon pass the US in GDP.
Instead of competition with China, we should be thinking of cooperation. And the North Korea problem is one issue on which this cooperation would pay off.
If only Trump or one of his advisers could push this point of view.
4
Peace treaty, anyone?
Do people remember that the Korean War has never officially ended? That North Korea used to want a peace treaty as part of the guarantee of its survival (and may still; I see no reporting on that)?
Do people remember that the Korean War has never officially ended? That North Korea used to want a peace treaty as part of the guarantee of its survival (and may still; I see no reporting on that)?
6
Ignorant fools find it impossible to develop a coherent strategy for anything, much less north korea. Unfortunately, all we have running our government are ignorant fools.
5
Anyone interested in in-depth analysis of the current North Korean crisis done by actual NK experts, please go to http://www.38north.org . It's a website maintained by US-Korea Institute of Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. I'm not in anyways related to the website.
It's just a very good website to actually understand what's going on without any fearmongering and white-washing history. NK relation is a very complex matter which can't really be dealt accurately through a mass media. And considering the danger it imposes, an average American would do well to be informed correctly on the issue.
It's just a very good website to actually understand what's going on without any fearmongering and white-washing history. NK relation is a very complex matter which can't really be dealt accurately through a mass media. And considering the danger it imposes, an average American would do well to be informed correctly on the issue.
4
This is an opportunity for Kim: The weakened leadership in the US gives Kim an unobstructed path to achieve his goals. Mr. Trump has no world view other than what we have seen. Support from nations in the area, where it really counts, is pretty much non-existent. They too see something in our leadership that makes them reticent to support the US. Kim is doing what any leader would do in his position: Push your enemy when they are at their weakest.
3
The Times offers nothing but the same old song and dance, which has failed miserably for over 20 years now.
The reality is that regime change is essential, lest Mr. Kim ignites WWIII. The man is Trump on steroids. Trump has done nothing but double down on his narcissistic tendencies and Kim is far beyond any notion of change. He is but a wild animal cornered and will fight to the end.
The Times must reconsider its unrealistic expectations for North Korea. The assumption that change is possible in the North makes about as much sense as jumping off the Empire State Building and assuming a safe landing.
The reality is that regime change is essential, lest Mr. Kim ignites WWIII. The man is Trump on steroids. Trump has done nothing but double down on his narcissistic tendencies and Kim is far beyond any notion of change. He is but a wild animal cornered and will fight to the end.
The Times must reconsider its unrealistic expectations for North Korea. The assumption that change is possible in the North makes about as much sense as jumping off the Empire State Building and assuming a safe landing.
And how do you propose to impose regime change on China's buffer between US bases and it's mainland?
Do you think you can attack North Korea without starting WWIII?
Do you think you can attack North Korea without starting WWIII?
These events have not transpired in a vacuum. Mr. Trump's equally incoherent predecessor -- George W. Bush -- cavalierly named N. Korea a member of the infamous Axis of Evil, along with Iran and Iraq. N. Korea then saw in Iraq what the US would do to an Axis member without a nuclear deterrent: its government brought down, its leaders killed or executed, its culture destroyed and its territory effectively partitioned. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, who should have known better, underscored the point with their careless policy in Libya. Qaddafi voluntarily surrendered his nuclear program and cooperated in the war against terrorism. His reward: death in a drainage pipe and the destruction of Libya as a functioning state.
The N. Korean leaders are despicable, but they're not crazy. They understand correctly that nuclear weapons are their best deterrent against US attempts to change their regime.
The N. Korean leaders are despicable, but they're not crazy. They understand correctly that nuclear weapons are their best deterrent against US attempts to change their regime.
9
Today V. Putin is publicly stamping his feet, he can't believe it: the price of fossil energy has not yet spiked, and the stock market is still steady.
1
A successful negotiated political solution has to include all of the parties' relevant interests.
Secondly, as with the Iran nuclear deal, complex negotiations of this nature should involve all primary interested parties. The idea that the US alone can work with North Korea is a non-starter as the US doesn't offer adequate non-military incentives.
Trump, however, has made clear his aversion to multinational relationships, from trade agreements to defense alliances. Trump also seems not to have the patience for long-term solutions. Meanwhile, for the DPRK, the Americans offer little else than the threat of nuclear annihilation.
So, the game of chicken continues and, as long as the Senate refuses to assert its war powers authority, the prospect of the US employing the nuclear option remains very real.
Secondly, as with the Iran nuclear deal, complex negotiations of this nature should involve all primary interested parties. The idea that the US alone can work with North Korea is a non-starter as the US doesn't offer adequate non-military incentives.
Trump, however, has made clear his aversion to multinational relationships, from trade agreements to defense alliances. Trump also seems not to have the patience for long-term solutions. Meanwhile, for the DPRK, the Americans offer little else than the threat of nuclear annihilation.
So, the game of chicken continues and, as long as the Senate refuses to assert its war powers authority, the prospect of the US employing the nuclear option remains very real.
3
This article under world news suggests that the "young leader" might self-destruct. Unfortunately it will probably be the Good People of North Korea and not he and his "generals".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-bomb-t...
Apparently the United States and other countries have eyes on N. Korea's nuclear test sites. Perhaps The Con Don should drop another "mother of all bombs" directly on it - or as many as it takes to neutralize North Korea's nuclear capability.
There is no easy answer. Thanks to The Con Don an his hate-anger-fear-violence-WAR-Lies,Lies,Lies brethren for making it worse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-bomb-t...
Apparently the United States and other countries have eyes on N. Korea's nuclear test sites. Perhaps The Con Don should drop another "mother of all bombs" directly on it - or as many as it takes to neutralize North Korea's nuclear capability.
There is no easy answer. Thanks to The Con Don an his hate-anger-fear-violence-WAR-Lies,Lies,Lies brethren for making it worse.
2
Hopefully the North Korean missiles aren't hacked with the wrong co-ordinates as happened when the CIA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embas...
(correct coordinates per Wikipedia GeoHack
\https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=United_States_bom...¶ms=44_46_58_N_20_27_15_E_type:event_region:RS_dim:40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embas...
(correct coordinates per Wikipedia GeoHack
\https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=United_States_bom...¶ms=44_46_58_N_20_27_15_E_type:event_region:RS_dim:40
1
Can’t we make reunification of the Korean Peninsula under South Korea more palatable to China? We know that China and South Korea would be no threat to each other, so we can guarantee (unfortunately meaningless until Trump exits the picture) a US military withdrawal. That withdrawal could help fund $10’s of billions of US aid to help the (north) Koreans modernize, providing a whole new market for China to sell to.
1
Does any nation have a coherent policy on North Korea? Trump is not the only president, premier, or head of state to run into problems with North Korea. Kim Jong-un, like his predecessors, also family members, doesn't appear to have any agenda but driving the world crazy. Like Mao in his day, he doesn't seem to care all that much about the average North Korean except as a source of forced worship of him. What does one offer a leader like Kim?
For God's sake people, wake up!
If you throw in the towel now, like John in his "NYT Pick," the U.S. nuclear umbrella will be "worthless to Japan and South Korea". We won't be able to protect them, "the age of nuclear proliferation has begun in earnest and will accelerate as North Korea exports its nuclear and missile technology". And that is John speaking, not me. He thinks the game is already over.
If we don't act now, it WILL be over, and your children will rightly blame John and the rest of you defeatists for having squandered the opportunity to prevent the inevitable descent into a new dark age in which rogue states brandish weapons that can incinerate Pittsburgh and Cologne.
We have a narrow window of opportunity, but it closes soon. For now, Kim can't retaliate against us (tough, Guam). We can use conventional weapons to (a) destroy Kim's missiles in flight (we need the practice anyway), (b) to destroy the launching sites and infrastructure (perhaps on a tit-for-tat basis, and (c) to destroy any sites or infrastructure that support nuclear testing.
And DON'T give me a sob-story about Seoul. Kim can already destroy Seoul and murder all its inhabitants with conventional weapons. If Kim attacks Seoul, he will be signing his own, and his regime's, death warrant.
So let's get on with it already!
If you throw in the towel now, like John in his "NYT Pick," the U.S. nuclear umbrella will be "worthless to Japan and South Korea". We won't be able to protect them, "the age of nuclear proliferation has begun in earnest and will accelerate as North Korea exports its nuclear and missile technology". And that is John speaking, not me. He thinks the game is already over.
If we don't act now, it WILL be over, and your children will rightly blame John and the rest of you defeatists for having squandered the opportunity to prevent the inevitable descent into a new dark age in which rogue states brandish weapons that can incinerate Pittsburgh and Cologne.
We have a narrow window of opportunity, but it closes soon. For now, Kim can't retaliate against us (tough, Guam). We can use conventional weapons to (a) destroy Kim's missiles in flight (we need the practice anyway), (b) to destroy the launching sites and infrastructure (perhaps on a tit-for-tat basis, and (c) to destroy any sites or infrastructure that support nuclear testing.
And DON'T give me a sob-story about Seoul. Kim can already destroy Seoul and murder all its inhabitants with conventional weapons. If Kim attacks Seoul, he will be signing his own, and his regime's, death warrant.
So let's get on with it already!
3
The Times continue to, what? hope for? rational policy and coherent expression from the Trump administration, but Trump himself, his communications people and his top advisors are neither sufficiently educated nor emotionally inclined to move beyond bluster, employing the techniques that Trump has demonstrated throughout his life. He is, in essence, a president who takes counsel from the comic-book version of reality available on Fox, and the Republican-controlled Congress, as it has demonstrated since the Inauguration, has no plan other than to refute whatever Democrats propose.
Trump is unfit to be president, but he will be the last to recognize that, and, one fears, the people of the Korean peninsula, mere abstractions to him, who is the most insular of public men we've endured, will suffer.
When will the Times cease treating this thin-witted, mean-spirited man as legitimate?
Trump is unfit to be president, but he will be the last to recognize that, and, one fears, the people of the Korean peninsula, mere abstractions to him, who is the most insular of public men we've endured, will suffer.
When will the Times cease treating this thin-witted, mean-spirited man as legitimate?
5
One must first hope for the best, but assume and prepare for the worst.
First, the best. The best, at this moment, would be for NK to do something like Iran did in a deal, and give up its offensive nuclear capability.
This would require China and Russia to stop fuel supplies and for the UN security council to impose draconian sanctions that would cause mass starvation in Korea. To get this "best" out of China and Russia - which we probably can't anyway, but if we *really* tried - we would have to threaten what approaches a trade war with China. Markets would plummet, possibly a worldwide recession.
And... China still probably wouldn't relent. And if China did relent and stopped supporting NK altogether, NK probably wouldn't relent. It's very possible we could cause a recession, have hurt our relations with China the global community, and NK would still cling to its nukes. And keep building them and testing them for good measure.
The worst case scenario is far most likely: NK has nukes. They are not like other nuclear powers: they have expressly threatened us with them. China, Pakistan never did that. They are not like the other nuclear powers. They *cannot* be normalized.
Dealing with a threatening nuclear NK involves choices: do we continue pressure indefinitely, or do we engage and try to "moderate" a regime that has been hostile and has nukes aimed at our cities. This is new territory and requires new strategy. Trump is in way over his head.
First, the best. The best, at this moment, would be for NK to do something like Iran did in a deal, and give up its offensive nuclear capability.
This would require China and Russia to stop fuel supplies and for the UN security council to impose draconian sanctions that would cause mass starvation in Korea. To get this "best" out of China and Russia - which we probably can't anyway, but if we *really* tried - we would have to threaten what approaches a trade war with China. Markets would plummet, possibly a worldwide recession.
And... China still probably wouldn't relent. And if China did relent and stopped supporting NK altogether, NK probably wouldn't relent. It's very possible we could cause a recession, have hurt our relations with China the global community, and NK would still cling to its nukes. And keep building them and testing them for good measure.
The worst case scenario is far most likely: NK has nukes. They are not like other nuclear powers: they have expressly threatened us with them. China, Pakistan never did that. They are not like the other nuclear powers. They *cannot* be normalized.
Dealing with a threatening nuclear NK involves choices: do we continue pressure indefinitely, or do we engage and try to "moderate" a regime that has been hostile and has nukes aimed at our cities. This is new territory and requires new strategy. Trump is in way over his head.
As Putin says, they(NK) will eat grass before giving up their nuclear weapons. It's time to accept the reality of NK being a nuclear power and to negotiate with them before the Twitterer's fingers get us into a nuclear war.
4
"The North Korean nuclear threat is worsening by the day." Yes, that's certainly what we think--here in the northwest (and Alaska), closer to North Korea than the rest of the continental United States.
China wants us out of the western Pacific (and off of the Korean peninsula). Our allies don't. But Mr. Trump is once again inadvertently helping China out--as he did with the trade pacts.
The gratuitous bellicosity of Trump and his team is particularly frightening. Even more so is the same from his generals whom we thought knew better. Apparently the generals can only imagine military solutions.
" ... unless he [Kim] is completely deranged he must know that war ... would be suicide." Ambassador Haley's claim that he is "begging for war" is wrong and worse. It looks like it is this administration that is "begging for war."
Subtlety, sophistication, and expertise are called for. This administration has not suggested a single reasonable idea. And here in the northwest and Alaska--in the firing line--we are growing more worried.
China wants us out of the western Pacific (and off of the Korean peninsula). Our allies don't. But Mr. Trump is once again inadvertently helping China out--as he did with the trade pacts.
The gratuitous bellicosity of Trump and his team is particularly frightening. Even more so is the same from his generals whom we thought knew better. Apparently the generals can only imagine military solutions.
" ... unless he [Kim] is completely deranged he must know that war ... would be suicide." Ambassador Haley's claim that he is "begging for war" is wrong and worse. It looks like it is this administration that is "begging for war."
Subtlety, sophistication, and expertise are called for. This administration has not suggested a single reasonable idea. And here in the northwest and Alaska--in the firing line--we are growing more worried.
4
There are 20 million plus people in Seoul Korea and perhaps 10 million-plus in Pyongyang -- are we really prepared to kill all of them so we can prove to the idiot in North Korea we're tough in the face of his threats? We believe we are the greatest country on earth -- is this how 'The Greatest' behaves? Do I have a solution? No! But what do I pay taxes for? Vote in congressional elections for? Why do I salute my flag? Is it to be comfortable with the madness of a nuclear, and amateur one rounder? Push the men and women we voted for to find a solution. There are too many of us to leave it in the hands of Kim and Trump.
6
Trump is way out of his league here, and relying on generals who have partially built their careers on war is suicidal.
3
The first step in coming up with a coherent plan toward North Korea seems so obvious: Trump needs to stop tweeting.
The only comments coming from the United States should be through the secretary of state and perhaps the secretary of defense.
The only comments coming from the United States should be through the secretary of state and perhaps the secretary of defense.
2
The priorities for the US, Japan and South Korea should be to maintain their alliance, strengthen their missile defenses, and find ways to tighten deterrence and containment of NK that impede further NK weapons development, neutralize NK blackmail tactics, and block NK transfers of nuclear technology to others.
While doing so, the US and its allies should continue to reach out and engage in good faith with China to join in their deterrent and containment efforts, discuss mutually agreeable ways to accommodate each other's security requirements, and formulate a mutually agreeable roadmap to scale down the military confrontation across the Korean DMZ over time.
But time is a factor. Any engagement with China is going go slowly while each party feels its way along. And in the meantime NK under the Kim dynasty is going to push its nuclear build up along no matter what anyone else says or does. If China acts in good faith during this engagement process and helps curtail further NK buildup, then patient and diligent pursuit of this engagement process should be expanded to include NK. But after a reasonable time period, if China fails to act in good faith to curtail further NK nuclear development, then the US, Japan and SK should resolve to take further mutual security measures by themselves to offset NK's growing nuclear arsenal, including phasing in SK and Japan deployment of their own nuclear deterrents on a proportional basis to whatever NK deploys.
While doing so, the US and its allies should continue to reach out and engage in good faith with China to join in their deterrent and containment efforts, discuss mutually agreeable ways to accommodate each other's security requirements, and formulate a mutually agreeable roadmap to scale down the military confrontation across the Korean DMZ over time.
But time is a factor. Any engagement with China is going go slowly while each party feels its way along. And in the meantime NK under the Kim dynasty is going to push its nuclear build up along no matter what anyone else says or does. If China acts in good faith during this engagement process and helps curtail further NK buildup, then patient and diligent pursuit of this engagement process should be expanded to include NK. But after a reasonable time period, if China fails to act in good faith to curtail further NK nuclear development, then the US, Japan and SK should resolve to take further mutual security measures by themselves to offset NK's growing nuclear arsenal, including phasing in SK and Japan deployment of their own nuclear deterrents on a proportional basis to whatever NK deploys.
I find the Libya/DPRK, Gaddafi/Kim analogy (strangely cited by BOTH the NYT Editorial Board and Vladimir Putin) specious.
"Accusing the rebels of being "drugged" and linked to al-Qaeda, Gaddafi proclaimed that he would die a martyr rather than leave Libya. As he announced that the rebels would be "hunted down street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe", the army opened fire on protests in Benghazi, killing hundreds."
I'm sure back channel offers were made to remove Gaddafi and his family from Libya but he refused. As to his "nuclear weapons program" he gave up in 2003, it couldn't have come close to comparing with N. Korea's.
Qatar sent troops to help the rebels. The Arab League recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya BEFORE the US and NATO got involved.
Editorial Board, let's do some research before publishing such pat, facile analogies, please.
"Accusing the rebels of being "drugged" and linked to al-Qaeda, Gaddafi proclaimed that he would die a martyr rather than leave Libya. As he announced that the rebels would be "hunted down street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe", the army opened fire on protests in Benghazi, killing hundreds."
I'm sure back channel offers were made to remove Gaddafi and his family from Libya but he refused. As to his "nuclear weapons program" he gave up in 2003, it couldn't have come close to comparing with N. Korea's.
Qatar sent troops to help the rebels. The Arab League recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya BEFORE the US and NATO got involved.
Editorial Board, let's do some research before publishing such pat, facile analogies, please.
1
We are being held hostage to our own sense of civility, morality and reason. You can't be civil with the uncivil or reason with the unreasonable and expect a positive outcome. It rarely works.
Putting aside for a moment the present situation in Washington D.C., would Kim and the DPRK behave this way if South Korea and Japan had vastly superior nuclear weapons and delivery systems? I don't think so. Why? Because South Korea and Japan might actually use them.
As I've written several times before: We live in the Dark Ages and any appearance of it being a modern world is merely an illusion. Fasten your seat belts, folks.
Putting aside for a moment the present situation in Washington D.C., would Kim and the DPRK behave this way if South Korea and Japan had vastly superior nuclear weapons and delivery systems? I don't think so. Why? Because South Korea and Japan might actually use them.
As I've written several times before: We live in the Dark Ages and any appearance of it being a modern world is merely an illusion. Fasten your seat belts, folks.
If Clinton was able to do something diplomatically with North Korea and George Bush comes along and stomps out all diplomacy, what does that say about the other side of the aisle? After that the DPRK resumed its nuclear program and then Obama decided to kick the can down the road. Now we are in almost identical situations (Republican following a Democrat) and foreign policy goes down the drain again with the current administration. That is just amazing. What does this say about our leadership to the present?
The President's strategy is quite clear. There are many 'things' to consider. 'Things' that are very complicated. He's consulting his Generals about 'things.' He should have all these 'things studied in two weeks. And the result will be,as he says about everything.......we'll see.
Speaking to Sung Yoon Lee's article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/the-way-to-make-north-korea-b...
I think Trump is too stupid to comprehend the economics and too vain to be able to make any sacrifice he would personally have to make to get that very good idea to work. It certainly allows for the Chinese to go on pretending they aren't the driving force behind Jong Un while rolling back this very dangerous failed gambit.
We should still tell China that whatever the DPRK does, we will be reacting to it as if China had done it to the US.
I think Trump is too stupid to comprehend the economics and too vain to be able to make any sacrifice he would personally have to make to get that very good idea to work. It certainly allows for the Chinese to go on pretending they aren't the driving force behind Jong Un while rolling back this very dangerous failed gambit.
We should still tell China that whatever the DPRK does, we will be reacting to it as if China had done it to the US.
1
Did Trump really say "talking is not the answer"? Oh dear God. Sometimes I think we are doomed. Talking is the ONLY answer. There is no military option here -- as even Steve I-am-the-destroyer-of-worlds Bannon recognized. There is no "surgical strike" option: the relevant sites are too deeply buried, hidden or mobile, and the first bomb triggers a massive artillery barrage on South Korea's capital from hundreds of artillery pieces pre-positioned just across the border in the North. A barrage which experts estimate will kill tens of thousands. And, of course, it escalates from there -- very quickly to the unthinkable. Could there be a president more unfit to deal with a nuclear crisis? Instead of walking quietly and carrying a big stick -- Teddy Roosevelt's advice which is exactly the right prescription here -- we have Trump, this bellicose idiot, who does just the opposite. Instead of simply not responding to the North Korean war-mongering rhetoric while quietly working with allies to squeeze North Korea economically and force talks, Trump alienates our allies, including South Korea, and responds with his own school yard "fire and fury" bluster. The problem with war-mongering rhetoric is that the words -- if there are enough of them and if they are sufficiently misunderstood -- can lead to war. See, e.g., August, 1914. God help the United States of America. God help us all.
Is it not possible that Kim believes the only chance for survival of his regime, and himself, is to become a nuclear power? The excellent article in the NYT a month or so ago which analysed his thinking and his positions on variuoas issues suggested exactly that. He knows the US wants regime change, he fears ending up like Gadaffi, he believes his only chance to avoid this outcome is to do exactly what he is doing. With his missiles trained on Seoul, he has positioned NK perfectly to execute this strategy. As Steve Bannon said, Kim has got us. To a person who believes he/she is facing a situation that will lead to an almost certain death, an approach which some may call suicidal becomes a realistic option.
I am no fan of Trump and his team, but on the other hand this may be a case where a seemingly incoherent strategy may be as good as any and may produce a changing situation from which a workable strategy may emerge. The idea of getting in there and mixing it up is not that bad, better than an ineffective approach which has as its only appeal that it seems "coherent" to the NYT editorial board.
I am no fan of Trump and his team, but on the other hand this may be a case where a seemingly incoherent strategy may be as good as any and may produce a changing situation from which a workable strategy may emerge. The idea of getting in there and mixing it up is not that bad, better than an ineffective approach which has as its only appeal that it seems "coherent" to the NYT editorial board.
I've written this before in comments on the N. Korean problem: there is no good military solution, as has been repeatedly stated by the majority of knowledgeable observers. The risk of enormous loss of life is simply too high. Given that, what other strategies might work? We have tried economic sanctions, continued military bluster, tough talk, and encouraging China to somehow solve the problem. Has not worked for the simple reason that a country acquires tremendous power when it possesses working deliverable nuclear weapons.
What has not been seriously pursued is simply accepting the situation and living with it as we have with other potential threats. To reduce the risk of continued military posturing and for other practical and moral reasons, we should engage N. Korea in the way that they want by accepting their status and making it clear that we will not strike first. Then, offer real economic inducements and collaborative efforts to improve their people's standard of living and prospects. Tie them to the US and the countries in the region through trade and joint business enterprises.
When a country develops a thriving middle class, it is better able to progress in an enlightened way, and the need for military threats or actions is minimized. That should be our goal for any country. N. Korea will never strike first because it would be suicide, so the preposterous fear-mongering about SF or wherever being taken out is nonsense. Their people's welfare should come first.
What has not been seriously pursued is simply accepting the situation and living with it as we have with other potential threats. To reduce the risk of continued military posturing and for other practical and moral reasons, we should engage N. Korea in the way that they want by accepting their status and making it clear that we will not strike first. Then, offer real economic inducements and collaborative efforts to improve their people's standard of living and prospects. Tie them to the US and the countries in the region through trade and joint business enterprises.
When a country develops a thriving middle class, it is better able to progress in an enlightened way, and the need for military threats or actions is minimized. That should be our goal for any country. N. Korea will never strike first because it would be suicide, so the preposterous fear-mongering about SF or wherever being taken out is nonsense. Their people's welfare should come first.
3
If China wants N. Korea as a buffer state, it needs to remove Kim, install new leadership and find a more productive use of it's people and resources. China needs to put Taiwan on the back burner for now and concentrate on redeveloping N. Korea before it is reduced to a pile or rubble. That is an outcome nobody wants but certainly could happen give our current state of affairs.
1
This problem is bigger than Trump's mind or even focus can handle. We are stuck with an individual who cannot apply any brain power to major issues that require study. The heat "dealmaker" is over his depth.
Left Field idea.
How about annexation? North Korea would obviously lash out if an enemy like the US planned or taking over the country, but what if it were an ally? It would be less offensive if an ally like China annexed North Korea. North Korea would then function as a Chinese territory. There would no longer be a need for additional nuclear weapons as China already has them. There would also no longer be a need to threaten attacks as China is an ally.
How about annexation? North Korea would obviously lash out if an enemy like the US planned or taking over the country, but what if it were an ally? It would be less offensive if an ally like China annexed North Korea. North Korea would then function as a Chinese territory. There would no longer be a need for additional nuclear weapons as China already has them. There would also no longer be a need to threaten attacks as China is an ally.
1
Maybe Trump/Tillerson/Haley should read the original book describing how a US administration could not understand who it was dealing with.
It was called the Ugly American.
Name of book not meant as a pejorative about American people but instead described the shortsightedness of fatheaded diplomatic policy created in Washington versus listening to people who were local giving advice on the situation.
It was written in the 1950's!
JFK made it mandatory reading for the State Department.
It was called the Ugly American.
Name of book not meant as a pejorative about American people but instead described the shortsightedness of fatheaded diplomatic policy created in Washington versus listening to people who were local giving advice on the situation.
It was written in the 1950's!
JFK made it mandatory reading for the State Department.
This is where we land when we elect an incompetent leader. Our State Department is in tatters and has been gutted when we need them most due to failed leadership with an agenda to to tear down instead of build up. I completely understand the need to face this dilemma head on due to the heightened risk posed by North Korean's escalation of their nuclear capability. What I do not understand is the total disregard for diplomacy when it is needed the most. Talk softly and carry a big stick is an appropriate approach in this situation but instead we get a juvenile tweeting threats and escalating rhetoric so he can see himself as strong and powerful. He has threatened everyone, including our allies of 70 years who now see us as a threat instead of a partner. Trump does not seem to care that South Korea will suffer first and the most of anyone unless the nukes start to fly. Trump is lost and if we end up in a war because of one of his tweets, this will go down in history as the biggest mistake made by any leader at any time. I thought I was afraid when he got the nomination... now I am truly afraid. His incompetence is going to kill us all.
Trump throughout the 2016 campaign kept attacking Obama as a weak leader and blaming all the weak leaders of the world for North Korea’s progress in developing a nuclear weapon. Except that Clinton was able to get North Korea to freeze their program for eight years. It resumed under another bombastic clueless Republican, George W. Bush. Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy kept North Korea moderated, not to mention getting Iran to dismantle its own nuclear program without an equally untenable military confrontation. But since Trump took over, North Korea has vastly accelerated its program, unleashing nearly 20 missile firings and nuclear tests including a hydrogen bomb (and Iran is re-thinking its nuclear agreement as Trump tries to reimpose sanctions). And Trump’s only answer is to further incite, and to antagonize and attack allies – South Korea and China. He contradicts even his own cabinet and advisers. Trump is not just pathetically inept. He is dangerous. I have never before in my life feared my own country’s nominal “leader” more than a foreign adversary.
1
Under president Clinton the solution was worked out.
President of SKorea had sunshine policy which led
to some thawing of relations, split families allowed
to visit and setting up some manufacturing. The great
decider, George W Bush, rejected the policy and
prevailed upon S Korean president to stop his reaching
out to N Korea. N Korea then resumed nuclear
program. Editorial stops short by not calling for
peace treaty to replace armistice singed in 1954.
Why keep the pot boiling? Reduction in the military
exercises won't accomplish much. Whenever the
exercises take place, Kim Jung-Un will respond with
nuclear or ballistic missile tests. It will end up at
square one repeatedly. China can't and wouldn't
want o cause collapse of N Korean economy. Besides
dealing with the refugees, unless US is willing to
take them, Kim Jung-Un's reaction is not predictable.
If he is losing power and N Korea is falling apart, he
may launch nuclear attack on China- the country
causing his regime to collapse.
President of SKorea had sunshine policy which led
to some thawing of relations, split families allowed
to visit and setting up some manufacturing. The great
decider, George W Bush, rejected the policy and
prevailed upon S Korean president to stop his reaching
out to N Korea. N Korea then resumed nuclear
program. Editorial stops short by not calling for
peace treaty to replace armistice singed in 1954.
Why keep the pot boiling? Reduction in the military
exercises won't accomplish much. Whenever the
exercises take place, Kim Jung-Un will respond with
nuclear or ballistic missile tests. It will end up at
square one repeatedly. China can't and wouldn't
want o cause collapse of N Korean economy. Besides
dealing with the refugees, unless US is willing to
take them, Kim Jung-Un's reaction is not predictable.
If he is losing power and N Korea is falling apart, he
may launch nuclear attack on China- the country
causing his regime to collapse.
1
President Theodore Roosevelt, a seasoned warrior unlike the dolt who occupies the same office, stated, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick; you will go far." He also described his style of foreign policy as, "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis."
These are wise words when dealing with a regime that is isolated on the world stage.
In WWI, the Allies made a huge mistake by treating all Nazis as the same. They offered zero help or offer of amnesty to people inside the regime who would negotiate an end to the war and the overthrow of Hitler. Threaten a starving population with violence and fury and they will turn further patriotic and support their canny leadership.
The whole world , including the North Korean leadership, knows of the USA's obvious military super-superiority. I can't think of a reason for the USA to parade itself with the same kind of bluster that comes out of the mouth of Kim Jong-un.
The proposals of both China and Russia to call off war games at a time of crisis is a reasonable token of a concession, and gives NK a less than graceful way of backing out of their threats against Guam.
These are wise words when dealing with a regime that is isolated on the world stage.
In WWI, the Allies made a huge mistake by treating all Nazis as the same. They offered zero help or offer of amnesty to people inside the regime who would negotiate an end to the war and the overthrow of Hitler. Threaten a starving population with violence and fury and they will turn further patriotic and support their canny leadership.
The whole world , including the North Korean leadership, knows of the USA's obvious military super-superiority. I can't think of a reason for the USA to parade itself with the same kind of bluster that comes out of the mouth of Kim Jong-un.
The proposals of both China and Russia to call off war games at a time of crisis is a reasonable token of a concession, and gives NK a less than graceful way of backing out of their threats against Guam.
2
You seem unaware of the real game going on here.
This is China working us as they have been with their proxy North Korea since reagan gave away the game by not reacting forcefully to their terrorism in the 80's.
This is China working us as they have been with their proxy North Korea since reagan gave away the game by not reacting forcefully to their terrorism in the 80's.
NK is not a China proxy; it may be useful at times as a barrier to the US but China and Russia have nothing to gain by NK having nuclear weapons. Radiation does not respect international boundaries. Furthermore, South Korea is China's biggest trading partner, and North Korea is a drain-sump on China's economy.
'Incoherent'? That's too mild a description. Inconsistent, befuddled, disconnected, meandering, idiotic, random.... These may come closer to the fact. But then that's Trump. He staggers from one screw-up to the next, stirring up hornets wherever he goes, and ultimately resolving nothing. I know... I'm off topic with, but the announcement of DACA's revocation is a perfect example of Trump making a magisterial pronouncement, without any thought to the consequences on real people's lives.
1
Is that Major Kong from Dr. Strangelove riding the bomb in the illustration?
2
A more proactive and analytical piece ran in the WSJ two days ago. You can read it here. https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-hard-truths-govern-the-confrontation-....
I am about as anti-war as any old guy I now. The Vet Nam era cured me. But North Korea's direction must be changed starting with its regime. Selective subversion is the solution I favor, just as I have with respect to Iran. (Iran is a better candidate given facts on the ground, but I'd give it a try in both.) The basic idea is to identify and nurture local opposition forces and give them all the help they need, material, moral, political. The changes must come from within North Korea (and Iran). The changes must be articulated in the people's language and clothed in local culture. They must sink roots in the local legal system (however bare bones it may currently be).
If opposition and resistance could be established in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, they can be nourished in today's North Korea and in Iran. It will take extraordinary bravery from local people, and, as we used to say, with a little help from their friends.
I am about as anti-war as any old guy I now. The Vet Nam era cured me. But North Korea's direction must be changed starting with its regime. Selective subversion is the solution I favor, just as I have with respect to Iran. (Iran is a better candidate given facts on the ground, but I'd give it a try in both.) The basic idea is to identify and nurture local opposition forces and give them all the help they need, material, moral, political. The changes must come from within North Korea (and Iran). The changes must be articulated in the people's language and clothed in local culture. They must sink roots in the local legal system (however bare bones it may currently be).
If opposition and resistance could be established in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, they can be nourished in today's North Korea and in Iran. It will take extraordinary bravery from local people, and, as we used to say, with a little help from their friends.
1
We're going around in circles here. Same problem as last week, simply more bellicose. Trump is like a cat. You point at something and the cat stares at your finger. Trump can't see passed the nuclear threat. If nuclear weapons are North Korea's primary leverage, remove the leverage. Let them have a nuclear program. The terms would need to be conditional but what difference does it make? A military option is insanity even now. A thermonuclear bomb versus an enhanced atomic bomb is not going to alter the equation much.
Meanwhile, North Korea is not going to fall without China's say so and they are not inclined to give such permission. The United States has no leverage to force China's hand either. Trump needs to acknowledge his own impotence and bargain for a face saving exit. Punching our allies and yelling at our enemies has the opposite than desired effect. I honestly don't know how anyone involved in the U.S. side hasn't already resigned in disgust. Someone please tell Trump he's making us look stupid rather than strong. We're going to end up a beggar at the negotiating table whenever it arrives.
Meanwhile, North Korea is not going to fall without China's say so and they are not inclined to give such permission. The United States has no leverage to force China's hand either. Trump needs to acknowledge his own impotence and bargain for a face saving exit. Punching our allies and yelling at our enemies has the opposite than desired effect. I honestly don't know how anyone involved in the U.S. side hasn't already resigned in disgust. Someone please tell Trump he's making us look stupid rather than strong. We're going to end up a beggar at the negotiating table whenever it arrives.
Russia borders North Korea, as well. Why is Trump failing to include his buddy, Putin, in diplomatic efforts with North Korea?
We should have the Editorial Board of the New York Times conduct foreign policy. That will fix everything. Or, we can assume they don't have all the facts, don't have the information that President Trump has, and they're not nearly as insightful or persuasive as they imagine themselves to be, or someone else be President today.
2
Let us not forget we will win any military conflict so do we really care if we have to use that option.
Trump is a classic bully. Yeah it worked sometimes in his career but he postures more than he acts. He's trying to intimidate his way to reach his goals but he is just not savvy enough to play this game. He like most bullies back down when the rubber meets the road. As horrible as he has been with his policies he will not start a war to save face.
Incoherence is Trump's middle name. The things he decries President Obama for Trump has compounded our problems with foreign powers, both friend and foe. Our allies are laughing at US, and our enemies are ready to clean our clocks. They all know Trump is an idiot. They also know Trump is the one whose boastful bragging is just that, all talk and no action. And if we're not very careful Trump is going to take US to war, not by volition but by accident. God Bless America indeed. This nation needs You now more than ever.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
China fears an oil ban because it “could set off a collapse of the Kim regime, a flood of refugees into China and the reunification of the Korean Peninsula under South Korea”.
Hmm.
Hmm.
So the People's Army suddenly has a problem with murdering innocents to gain compliance? Or is it that they have a problem with the outside world being aware of them doing it?
It was reported in the Korean newspaper that Kim Jung Eun made his wish lists to Chinese diplomat.
1. First he wants North Korea to be recognized by the world & USA as a nuclear power country and stop trying to either regime change or to take neclear power away and asking China to be the guarantor
2. Once the first condition is met, then North Korea wants to open economic trade with USA and other countries as well.
This shows that Kim Jung Eun is playing a dangerous game but he is neither stupid nor crazy. USA has recognized Pakistan as a nuclear power country and signed a formal diplomatic status. Why not North Korea? North Korea with nuclear arms is a problem to China as much as South Korea and Japan but there are no good options other than trying to negotiate the deal with Kim Jung Eun directly without China and Russia. Why not take the chance and try to bring North Korea out of China and Russia's influence?
1. First he wants North Korea to be recognized by the world & USA as a nuclear power country and stop trying to either regime change or to take neclear power away and asking China to be the guarantor
2. Once the first condition is met, then North Korea wants to open economic trade with USA and other countries as well.
This shows that Kim Jung Eun is playing a dangerous game but he is neither stupid nor crazy. USA has recognized Pakistan as a nuclear power country and signed a formal diplomatic status. Why not North Korea? North Korea with nuclear arms is a problem to China as much as South Korea and Japan but there are no good options other than trying to negotiate the deal with Kim Jung Eun directly without China and Russia. Why not take the chance and try to bring North Korea out of China and Russia's influence?
2
OK, I'm just going to ask: What's wrong with direct talks with North Korea? This always seems to be off the table. We tried 6-ways talks some years ago. How about 2-way talks now? Most people in the world are saying that war is not the answer. #45 says talking is not the answer. So, what's left? Try the one thing that everybody is ruling out and that might be productive— the U.S. talking directly with North Korea. And I say this being very aware that Kim is not to be trusted one whit for one single second. But isn't it worth a try?
Trump boastfully challenging North Korea, has only strengthened Jong Un's position. It has given Jong Un a platform he did not previously have for an extended period of time. Thanks to Trump's impulsive tweets and not having a well thought out plan, Kim is now affecting foreign policy for the entire world.
1
There are no real options here regardless of who proposes them. From Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump, trying to control and focus on North Korea's nuclear program is a waste of diplomatic effort.
We have to be more creative. No, actually we just need political will. You would think our diplomats are tired of having the same conversations and negotiations, but stalling normalized relations between North Korea and the US actually aligns more with our broken foreign policy. If there was real peace on between North and South Korea, would our US Navy fleet still be needed or welcomed?
We have to be more creative. No, actually we just need political will. You would think our diplomats are tired of having the same conversations and negotiations, but stalling normalized relations between North Korea and the US actually aligns more with our broken foreign policy. If there was real peace on between North and South Korea, would our US Navy fleet still be needed or welcomed?
Until South Korea evacuates Seoul the US's hands are tied. Once evacuated the US could take out the artillery and North Korean forces on the DMZ while simultaneously vaporizing Pyongyang and any other areas of military interest.
Total cost would be a billion or two for the nukes and would send a resounding message to Iran that they too can be vaporized.
Total cost would be a billion or two for the nukes and would send a resounding message to Iran that they too can be vaporized.
"Mr. Trump would be better advised to work with China on a diplomatic initiative that could include the threat of tougher sanctions but would offer the North a deal in which Pyongyang would freeze its nuclear and missile tests in exchange for some American concessions, like a reduction in military exercises."
What evidence do we have that Mr. Trump knows how to exercise diplomacy? Give an example.
What evidence do we have that Mr. Trump knows (or cares) anything about geopolitics in general and Korean politics and the two Korean cultures in particular?
What evidence do we have that Mr. Trump listens to informed, wise advice or that he exercises good judgment in his personal, business, and new political life?
Mr. Trump has proven he does not play well with others, including America's best allies in Europe and South Korea. At every choice point so far, Mr. Trump has chosen to make a bad situation worse.
Time to vent: It is completely maddening that the popular vote by the American people was ignored and that mostly isolated rural counties determined that Donald J. Trump would be President of the United States--a man who has no real political experience and is a self-absorbed, con artist, who continually lies, changes his position, destabilizes every situation, and only knows how to act aggressively.
What could possibly go wrong???
What evidence do we have that Mr. Trump knows how to exercise diplomacy? Give an example.
What evidence do we have that Mr. Trump knows (or cares) anything about geopolitics in general and Korean politics and the two Korean cultures in particular?
What evidence do we have that Mr. Trump listens to informed, wise advice or that he exercises good judgment in his personal, business, and new political life?
Mr. Trump has proven he does not play well with others, including America's best allies in Europe and South Korea. At every choice point so far, Mr. Trump has chosen to make a bad situation worse.
Time to vent: It is completely maddening that the popular vote by the American people was ignored and that mostly isolated rural counties determined that Donald J. Trump would be President of the United States--a man who has no real political experience and is a self-absorbed, con artist, who continually lies, changes his position, destabilizes every situation, and only knows how to act aggressively.
What could possibly go wrong???
Domestic and foreign policy collective liars, fools, and total IDIOTS!
or to put it in a haiku of sorts :
Caught in the snares of ignorance
senseless animosity and disaster-
little birds' mindless tweeting
or to put it in a haiku of sorts :
Caught in the snares of ignorance
senseless animosity and disaster-
little birds' mindless tweeting
The editorial The Way to Make North Korea Back Down makes some solid points
Well, President Trump could bury his head in the sand for 8 years like his predecessor St. Barry. That worked really well.
3
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at 35 years old has more experience leading a nation state than the entire Trump White House staff and Cabinet combined.
Mr. Kim has been consistent and coherent in his strategic objectives. Having seen what happened to the leaders of Libya and Iraq when they surrendered their nuclear ambitions to America, Mr. Kim sees nukes and missiles as a guarantee against any covert and overt American regime change efforts.
Having been declared as part of "an axis of evil" North Korea is surrounded by American arms and troops in South Korea and Japan along with the surrounding seas. South Korean and Japanese lives would be at risk in any war on the Korean peninsula. North Korea's northern neighbor is the People's Republic of China which would feel the brunt of war.
Unlike the nuclear weapons rogue nations like Israel, India and Pakistan, North Korea was and still is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. Toleration of nuclear weapons among those states is hypocritical. America and Russia have 96% of the worlds nuclear weapons.
A coherent American North Korea strategy begins with giving up any regime change efforts and ends with limiting and eliminating nuclear weapons among all nations.
Mr. Kim has been consistent and coherent in his strategic objectives. Having seen what happened to the leaders of Libya and Iraq when they surrendered their nuclear ambitions to America, Mr. Kim sees nukes and missiles as a guarantee against any covert and overt American regime change efforts.
Having been declared as part of "an axis of evil" North Korea is surrounded by American arms and troops in South Korea and Japan along with the surrounding seas. South Korean and Japanese lives would be at risk in any war on the Korean peninsula. North Korea's northern neighbor is the People's Republic of China which would feel the brunt of war.
Unlike the nuclear weapons rogue nations like Israel, India and Pakistan, North Korea was and still is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. Toleration of nuclear weapons among those states is hypocritical. America and Russia have 96% of the worlds nuclear weapons.
A coherent American North Korea strategy begins with giving up any regime change efforts and ends with limiting and eliminating nuclear weapons among all nations.
1
Why can other nations have nuclear weapons, but not N. Korea? Because their leadership is unpredictable, insane?
You could make that case against the U.S. right now.
We will be left with a nuclear N. Korea, and will have to live (or die) with it.
You could make that case against the U.S. right now.
We will be left with a nuclear N. Korea, and will have to live (or die) with it.
Like much of Trump's "foreign policy" -- if it can even be called that -- his North Korea strategy amounts to nothing more than incoherent bluster. And since everyone from Bannon on down has already admitted that war with Kim and maybe China is not an option, Trump's rumblings of fire and fury are taken less and less seriously by the rest of the world. It is significant that when Trump tweeted we will stop trading with any nation that trades with North Korea -- meaning China, which would shave 5% off our GDP and cause a massive recession -- the Chinese didn't even react but treated it for what it was, the babblings of an idiot who is being allowed to play president in the White House but who is not taken seriously even by members of his own administration.
1
If any member of the Times editorial board thinks he/she can do a better job, run for president, and if elected, show us. In short, put up or shut up.
1
Two lunatics who care nothing for consequences. Looks like they each think they can personally survive whatever happens; the rest be damned. Neither have convinced us they want to "talk."
Name one coherent strategy that has come out of this administration. Just one. Why would you expect one on North Korea?
nikki haley is just another amateur in a white house full of amateurs. her begging comment is political not helpful. i also think she deserves some sort of award for saying, in the same statement- "War is never something the United States wants." huh? did she miss the run up to the itaq war? the lying? dare i say the begging?
3
Appeasement is not a bad strategy. I think since everything else has failed we should directly negotiate with North Korea. The Swedish government has offered to be mediator if needed. We should offer desperately needed food grains and medicines to them and ask nothing for now. Sooner or later the people there will realize, just like the Soviet Union, that missiles will not feed the hungry. They will be a revolution and that would be the end of dictatorship. President Clinton did offer food grains and other enticements in exchange for nuclear freeze. If it fails so be it - at least we would have helped some starving and sick people to some extent.
The scenarios poised by the Editorial Board are naive.
Why in the world would China feel threatened if North Korea's
dictatorship fell and South Korea unified all of Korea ?
What does China have to fear from a Unified Korea ?
As for the Refugees, well the Chinese Army could get some
live training on how to hunt down people "invading China"
and send them back to Korea.
Kim is deranged, has been deranged and probably will always be deranged
just as Hitler was. Does not mean he does not have some sort of
strategy in his madness - but what it is - Progressive Liberals of
the New York Times Editorial Board will never fathom.
We have to hope that someone with sense removes Kim from
power and that the two Koreas may soon be united.
Why in the world would China feel threatened if North Korea's
dictatorship fell and South Korea unified all of Korea ?
What does China have to fear from a Unified Korea ?
As for the Refugees, well the Chinese Army could get some
live training on how to hunt down people "invading China"
and send them back to Korea.
Kim is deranged, has been deranged and probably will always be deranged
just as Hitler was. Does not mean he does not have some sort of
strategy in his madness - but what it is - Progressive Liberals of
the New York Times Editorial Board will never fathom.
We have to hope that someone with sense removes Kim from
power and that the two Koreas may soon be united.
1
"What does China have to fear from a Unified Korea ?"
The same willing China have to see American troops in its border is the same of a hypothetical presence of Chinese troops near the American border.
The same willing China have to see American troops in its border is the same of a hypothetical presence of Chinese troops near the American border.
Little Panda,
Yes, that is correct the US which cannot even
win the war in Afghanistan, has grand plans to invade China.
What are they teaching you in the "Celestial Heaven" ?
A Nuclear North Korea is much more a threat to China
than a Unified Korea.
Yes, that is correct the US which cannot even
win the war in Afghanistan, has grand plans to invade China.
What are they teaching you in the "Celestial Heaven" ?
A Nuclear North Korea is much more a threat to China
than a Unified Korea.
1
Trump is used to getting his way by bullying contractors, real estate agents, lawyers, and anyone else who crosses his path. With Kim Jong-Un, he's hit a wall (maybe Mexico paid for it?) and bullying doesn't work. The State Dept is as hollowed out at the Midwest rust belt that put Trump in office and the UN Ambassador is inexperienced and out of her element.
The strategy on North Korea isn't incoherent, it is non-existent.
Maybe the best option is to put Joe Arpaio on a missile, Slim Pickens style, drop it somewhere (eye of a hurricane?), put on our eclipse glasses, and wait for the show.
The strategy on North Korea isn't incoherent, it is non-existent.
Maybe the best option is to put Joe Arpaio on a missile, Slim Pickens style, drop it somewhere (eye of a hurricane?), put on our eclipse glasses, and wait for the show.
3
Whether it's North Korea or theft of intellectual property, onerous joint venture and "technology sharing" requirements, unequal market access, or any of the other myriad legitimate reasons, we should indeed start the process of disconnecting our economic future from China.
It disturbs me that the vaunted NYT Editorial Board sees this as a non-starter.
I am certainly no fan of Trump but he was dealt a bad hand on N. Korea which he, of course, immediately made worse. Still, this op=ed rivals Trumps N. Korea policy in its incoherence. Is the NYT for or against sanctions? If China won't help an international effort to put the economic screws to N. Korea, what should we do then? What does the NYT mean by "engagement?"
It's become clear that Kim intends to keep and bolster his nuke capability and it's been clear for a long time that the US, Japan, South Korea, even China and Russia official stance is to not allow that to happen. We either mean it or we don't.
Short of war (remember, Kim's biggest deterrent is still the massive artillery threat to Seoul, NOT his unproven nuke delivery capability), sanctions seems to be the way to go at this point. If China won't get "on side" then they must pay an economic price too. They can't be allowed to continue their double game.
It disturbs me that the vaunted NYT Editorial Board sees this as a non-starter.
I am certainly no fan of Trump but he was dealt a bad hand on N. Korea which he, of course, immediately made worse. Still, this op=ed rivals Trumps N. Korea policy in its incoherence. Is the NYT for or against sanctions? If China won't help an international effort to put the economic screws to N. Korea, what should we do then? What does the NYT mean by "engagement?"
It's become clear that Kim intends to keep and bolster his nuke capability and it's been clear for a long time that the US, Japan, South Korea, even China and Russia official stance is to not allow that to happen. We either mean it or we don't.
Short of war (remember, Kim's biggest deterrent is still the massive artillery threat to Seoul, NOT his unproven nuke delivery capability), sanctions seems to be the way to go at this point. If China won't get "on side" then they must pay an economic price too. They can't be allowed to continue their double game.
1
Chosun Minchu-chi Inmin Konghwaguk [Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or North Korea] and Taehan Min'guk [Republic of Korea, or South Korea] are two entities roughly created at Potsdam in July-August 1945 which remain divided a la mode of the Panmunjom armistice of July 27, 1953 during the post-Cold War. It would be a fatal mistake in ignoring Xi Jin-ping's colonial interests in Chosun. We are facing a very complicated situation which cannot simply summarize in two rough resolutions of military actions and talks.
Trump will attack, sooner or later - and the Times will support it, as has supported every military misadventure for over fifty years.
1
For ever I was a peaceful person. I hate wars, never supported any war which was committed by any major power since I was born. Soviet invasion in Czech at 1968, Gulf wars, Grenada, Panama, Putin wars, Balkan NATO operation, you name it. Millions of people were killed in vain, without any major good achieved
However, regarding North Korea i feel differently. For never was a regime on this planet, which oppresses people mind, like Kims do. Orwell 1984, not to mention Stalin USSR and Nazis Germany, looks like a progressive liberal society compared to North Korea. Everyone, who ever been over there, cannot forget these miserable, starved, fearing people who roams Pyongyang streets , and god only knows what happens in countryside
When someone will put an end to this nightmare, even at the cost of some civilians collaterals, I will only applaud.
However, regarding North Korea i feel differently. For never was a regime on this planet, which oppresses people mind, like Kims do. Orwell 1984, not to mention Stalin USSR and Nazis Germany, looks like a progressive liberal society compared to North Korea. Everyone, who ever been over there, cannot forget these miserable, starved, fearing people who roams Pyongyang streets , and god only knows what happens in countryside
When someone will put an end to this nightmare, even at the cost of some civilians collaterals, I will only applaud.
As I read these comments particularly those that advocate armed action I can only ask, are you willing to get your weapon and your boots and march into the carnage that will certainly be manifested? Or, hope some other poor fool with delusions of heroism will satisfy your blood lust for war?
North Korea knows that they would cease to exist if they launched an attack against the Unites States. I assume they are not stupid. But what if they decided to share their nuclear knowledge with with some third party like Middle East terrorists and let them do the dirty work? I don't feel very safe with a bonehead like Trump in charge.
If Trump's strategy is "Incoherent" then what was the strategy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama? It is THEIR kicking the can down the road that has us in this position. I remember seeing Clinton stating that the NKs would give up their program for food and money. How successful was that? Is it possible that ALL previous strategies have failed? Did Kim back off firing around Guam since he wasn't sure his missile were accurate within 20 miles or did he realize that it would start a war. He is surrounded by sycophants who agree with anything he says-or else. No god answers here only bad, worse, and worst. From my perspective it just might be too late to stop him without catastrophic casualties. He might want to have conversations only like his did and grandpa did to obtain more nuclear weapons. IF Hitler had been stopped at Munich! Then again if pigs had wings they would not be pork chops.
1
As military options won't work, here's a suggestion ... use the Sony maneuver. Unplug N Korea from the internet for an extended period.
After the Sony hack, N Korea's web access was entirely cut off. Electronic isolation would send a strong signal to the regime. If a movie studio hack justified the prior action, then a hydrogen bomb test is a good enough reason to act again.
After the Sony hack, N Korea's web access was entirely cut off. Electronic isolation would send a strong signal to the regime. If a movie studio hack justified the prior action, then a hydrogen bomb test is a good enough reason to act again.
3
Kim smells Trump's weakness and is proud to be at the big boy's table with
nukes. It is as if Trump and his cabinet are taking turns at a dartboard for a solution. Solution with this crowd may be too strong a word. This is the pivotal moment where humanity's future is at stake. It is incredible to see nuclear proliferation a main topic again. So much for learning from history.
nukes. It is as if Trump and his cabinet are taking turns at a dartboard for a solution. Solution with this crowd may be too strong a word. This is the pivotal moment where humanity's future is at stake. It is incredible to see nuclear proliferation a main topic again. So much for learning from history.
Oh, but Kim has learned from history. The West and the UN will bluster and huff and puff, and maybe issue yet another condemnation, while Americans cut themselves down as being the "real threat", etc. All the while North Korea has and can do essentially whatever it wants, for it knows - has learned from the history of the past few decades - that nothing meaningful will actually happen to it and it proceed apace with its quest for more nuclear arms.
From the beginning, Trump seemed to prefer military strikes over diplomacy. And taunting China to do as he says.
Of course, Trump has no military experience, and asked multiple times why we can't use nuclear weapons, preferring fire and fury over diplomacy.
It's all beginning to sound like the run up to the Iraq War under G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
South Korea, the sitting duck in the midst of all of this, wants a deal involving diplomacy that limits our U.S/South Korean military exercises.
Trump, having never been in a fox hole, or scared by a midnight explosion near an army tent, cannot relate to diplomacy.
The art of the deal is a farce.
Of course, Trump has no military experience, and asked multiple times why we can't use nuclear weapons, preferring fire and fury over diplomacy.
It's all beginning to sound like the run up to the Iraq War under G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
South Korea, the sitting duck in the midst of all of this, wants a deal involving diplomacy that limits our U.S/South Korean military exercises.
Trump, having never been in a fox hole, or scared by a midnight explosion near an army tent, cannot relate to diplomacy.
The art of the deal is a farce.
In retrospect, the best time to take care of this was during the Clinton administration. But unfortunately, Carter interfered and gave Clinton a way out of making what would have been the right decision - a military strike.
1
Who really is thinking that North Korea would be able playing this war game on it´s one and without China´s authorization and hidden assistance? It is clear to me that China has a massiv interest in the undercover built-up of the most sensivitive area of it´s weaponry. Given it´s political status in the UN Security Council and the economical interdepence the real truth will hardly be admitted. Once Korea has fullfilled the given task executing the tests, China will simply take over it. What would the USA really do against this given the tremendous power, and population size. The question is why the US polititians do not openly address this thesis.
Indeed, the current loud-mouthed occupant of the White House is doing nothing to forestall the nuclear threat of a rogue state. If that imbalanced dictatorship can be neutralized by conventional weapons, the hour has struck to act accordingly.
Perfect storm: Two lunatics with the same mindset. Each believes he is omnipotent. Each is ludicrously empowered to generate an internecine war. We can only pray that both leaders can be thwarted because neither can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Kim is crying out for respect. Trump is crying out for approval from his base. Stay tuned.
Trump is confusing leadership with appealing to his ever-shrinking authoritarian base, creating a very dangerous situation. Either that, or he relishes war as a way out of all his self-inflicted damage... just like the Kim that Trump praised on January 9th, 2016, as "incredible" and a "maniac." "... he wiped out the uncle..." etc.
Very scary stuff.
Very scary stuff.
Somebody is going to get under Trump's skin by calling him out as a kitty cat, pointing out his tough statements and no action. And just like Marty Mc Fly he will snap and bingo we will have nuclear war. So maybe we lose SF and Seoul, but will will win.
Maybe then the Republicans will tire of him. But look at the bright side, at least we will have reduced both the number of nukes and the population of the planet.
Maybe then the Republicans will tire of him. But look at the bright side, at least we will have reduced both the number of nukes and the population of the planet.
This is the American President that said all he needed to do was sit down with the kid in Pyongyang and have a hamburger to negotiate an end to the nuclear crisis. The NYT is proposing some kind of incremental step in the face of lunacy by Trump and Kim. The editors are ignoring the fact that the Russian and Chinese Presidents just met at the BRIC summit and Russia issued highly derogitory statements about the US President. The US is led by an incompetent Commander-in-Chief who thinks he can negotiate a deal over a happy meal. One could imagine him trying to send this problem to Congress, if he could. He can't, so he blames South Korea for the problem.
It has always need Barzini behind Sollozzo.
China seeks to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its Asian allies, particularly South Korea. Differing defense objectives are already beginning to show; ultimately, the U.S. will be unwilling to risk a nuclear war to prevent the intimidation and subjugation of South Korea. China plays the long game.
Seoul, facing a potential barrage of 15,000 artilllary pieces, is being held hostage now as a bargaining chip in this effort to bully the United States out of East Asia.
Instead of looking for another opportunity to criticize Donald Trump, perhaps The New York Times might consider the actual issues at stake, other than to parrot the nonsensical Chinese contention about Korean refugees streaming across the Yalu River.
For those that continue to advocate more and more Government spending, and corresponding U.S. Treasury debt, potential consequences and limitations are slowly coming into view, as China is a major lender. Not only has China gained leverage over the U.S. economy, but China has also been able to suppress the value of their currency, by rolling their trade surplus into U.S. debt.
China seeks to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its Asian allies, particularly South Korea. Differing defense objectives are already beginning to show; ultimately, the U.S. will be unwilling to risk a nuclear war to prevent the intimidation and subjugation of South Korea. China plays the long game.
Seoul, facing a potential barrage of 15,000 artilllary pieces, is being held hostage now as a bargaining chip in this effort to bully the United States out of East Asia.
Instead of looking for another opportunity to criticize Donald Trump, perhaps The New York Times might consider the actual issues at stake, other than to parrot the nonsensical Chinese contention about Korean refugees streaming across the Yalu River.
For those that continue to advocate more and more Government spending, and corresponding U.S. Treasury debt, potential consequences and limitations are slowly coming into view, as China is a major lender. Not only has China gained leverage over the U.S. economy, but China has also been able to suppress the value of their currency, by rolling their trade surplus into U.S. debt.
Why isolate the flailing around bellicosity re NK from all the
other examples of comparable amateur hour, self-defeating shooting in
foot postures, and a historical, pathetically simplistic takes on complex
issues? Anyone who has paid any attention to the so-called potus'
behavior for decades easily predicted this type of posturing and bullying
were he given power.
Unfortunately not enough paid attention in November, and they are going
to get their just punishment in what surely will be a sequence of
major disasters whose profiles are self evident. There is surely NK, but
one shouldn't overlook the current weirdness re Iran. These two
are surely the two "bigglies" when it comes to major major Iraq war level catastrophe.
It will only be by several well timed strokes of undeserved fortune that we can avoid a major military disaster with several nuclear weapons exploding and millions dying soon after.
Perhaps only after that will the nihilistic death obsession that seems to have
seized large portions of this country (though hardly limited to this country)
recede. But that seems to be what is required.
The fact that no one seems to be doing any strategizing and role playing
to devise a common strategy re NK is quite astonishing. It is hardly
reasonable for this country to antagonize most of the regional players,
nor is it clear why the public attitude towards SK should have deteriorated so quickly.
And no one is capable of nor willing to justify it.
other examples of comparable amateur hour, self-defeating shooting in
foot postures, and a historical, pathetically simplistic takes on complex
issues? Anyone who has paid any attention to the so-called potus'
behavior for decades easily predicted this type of posturing and bullying
were he given power.
Unfortunately not enough paid attention in November, and they are going
to get their just punishment in what surely will be a sequence of
major disasters whose profiles are self evident. There is surely NK, but
one shouldn't overlook the current weirdness re Iran. These two
are surely the two "bigglies" when it comes to major major Iraq war level catastrophe.
It will only be by several well timed strokes of undeserved fortune that we can avoid a major military disaster with several nuclear weapons exploding and millions dying soon after.
Perhaps only after that will the nihilistic death obsession that seems to have
seized large portions of this country (though hardly limited to this country)
recede. But that seems to be what is required.
The fact that no one seems to be doing any strategizing and role playing
to devise a common strategy re NK is quite astonishing. It is hardly
reasonable for this country to antagonize most of the regional players,
nor is it clear why the public attitude towards SK should have deteriorated so quickly.
And no one is capable of nor willing to justify it.
Why is America the sole antagonist towards North Korea. It would seem that nuclear weapons in the hands of a deranged leader would be the concern of the world.Russia has already refused to join the boycott of Oil to North Korea, which has wakened any additional sanctions.We are now at at cross roads, do we flex our muscles & attempt to destroy their nuclear capacity,& risk nuclear retaliation, or do we leave this quagmire & give South Korea whatever they need to stand up to North Korea.It is apparent that we are the fly in the ointment, by our military presence in South Korea. The North has indicated they would be open to negotiations with the South if we would be out of the picture.It seems the South would prefer this rather then continued saber rattling by Mr. Trump.It gives us an opportunity to get out of a potential nuclear conflict.
We have invested enough Treasure & Blood in Korea. lets leave it up to the Koreans to resolve their differences.
We have invested enough Treasure & Blood in Korea. lets leave it up to the Koreans to resolve their differences.
2
Is there no way we could make an ironclad commitment to China (and the world) that, come what may, we would never occupy the area north of the DMZ?
All Trump's efforts trying to contain North Korea have failed. Negotiation is one way out. It also prevents war which South Korea is desperately trying to avoid. Any war will cause devastating damage to Soul, capital of South Korea.
The bottom line is what are the benefits of war to North Korea and how long it can endure. A good analysis may yield real solution to the Korea crisis.
Trump has been smart out by King Jung Un. Use brain, not muscle, Donald Trump.
The bottom line is what are the benefits of war to North Korea and how long it can endure. A good analysis may yield real solution to the Korea crisis.
Trump has been smart out by King Jung Un. Use brain, not muscle, Donald Trump.
Where is Russia and China in this equation? If the worst case scenario were to occur - Kim attacks South Korea and possibly Japan after we initiate some type of military action designed to destroy missile sites and attempt to end Kim's antics - then it becomes a blood bath, the likes of which the world has not experienced since World War II. It may well be that Kim is deranged and that he would trigger a war which would then involve the international community after the fact. Is this the scenario the world wants? Has Kim or any of his terrorized followers considered the ramifications of their continued threats and reckless actions? There is still time to initiate increased economic sanctions but this involves the partnering of the Russians, Chinese and the United Nations, certainly South Korea and Japan as well. If this does not bring Kim to his senses then it seems quite likely, perhaps inevitable, a catastrophic scenario will follow. Trump's role in all of this should be obvious - he should keep his mouth shut let others relay messages as his inane inarticulate rants and bravado only serve to fan an already blazing fire.
This is what happens when we lose our trust and the world cannot trust our agreements with every change of Administration we threaten to change the rules of the game whether it is TPP, Paris Accord, Nafta, or the JCPOA. Why do we expect that Kim Jong would trust our word of today.
BTW, The Armistice was signed by the North, the UN/US but not by the South Koreans who are still working on to remove the DMZ officially to create a unified Korea. and that is the history.
BTW, The Armistice was signed by the North, the UN/US but not by the South Koreans who are still working on to remove the DMZ officially to create a unified Korea. and that is the history.
1
The real danger is that Kim decides to use his nukes for blackmail - "Pay me a trillion dollars or I launch against a target that I won't tell you in advance."
What then? Give in and keep paying blackmail? Preemptive nuclear strike? Massive retaliation after some major city gets hit?
What then? Give in and keep paying blackmail? Preemptive nuclear strike? Massive retaliation after some major city gets hit?
1
"Incoherent" is a perfect adjective. There IS no plan and no strategy, because Donald Trump is deeply and permanently compromised by Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Thus, he is far less functional than he appears at first blush.
Due to his mental disorder, Trump will always make poor decisions. He is not able to see, much less stick to, the long game. Immature and with poor impulse control, he will continue to endanger Americans and de-stabilize the world. This is why Trump needs to be removed from office as soon as possible, using any means possible. We need to give up being outraged by his outrageous behavior, and get him out of the Oval Office.
Due to his mental disorder, Trump will always make poor decisions. He is not able to see, much less stick to, the long game. Immature and with poor impulse control, he will continue to endanger Americans and de-stabilize the world. This is why Trump needs to be removed from office as soon as possible, using any means possible. We need to give up being outraged by his outrageous behavior, and get him out of the Oval Office.
Trump's chaotic, rudderless, inconsistent, loudmouth style is totally unsuited to most aspects of the Presidency, but in particular to foreign policy issues such as North Korea. He has zero credibility after saying North Korea would experience "fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen" if they threatened the US or its allies (they have since made numerous threats, fired a missile over Japan, tested a hydrogen bomb...). There's a complete amateur in the White House and, compounding his inexperience, he is a volatile narcissist. It's a dangerous combination.
3
The North was created by Chinese and the Soviet Communists as one of their first proxy nations. When did everyone decide to forget this?
The Korean War was started by the North clearly at the instruction of China and the USSR. They attacked the South and The United Nations came to the aid of the South. The US lead that effort because we were the most prepared and capable nation for the job at that time.
We fought them and drove them back to the Yalu River which is the border with China where we stopped. It seemed like it was over and a peace could be negotiated any day when one evening without warning "The Chinese Attacked". My father said looking across the valley (he was somewhere around Chosin reservoir) "It looked as if someone had poured out a pepper shaker on a white table cloth (it was winter).
As it was at the start of that nation, during the Korean War and to this very day it is CHINA that is the aggressor on the Korean Peninsula and no one else.
The solution is to stop playing the charade that the DPRK exists as an independent nation and deal with China directly here as they are the driving force behind what is going on.
It wasn't rebels who rose up in Libya, it was the Libyian People as part of the Arab Spring. Khadafy chose to suppress them and we chose to help them after the French set the example. See how the truth changes the story you tell?
"Peace in our time" does not work, especially when you ignore the true source of the problem, CHINA.
The Korean War was started by the North clearly at the instruction of China and the USSR. They attacked the South and The United Nations came to the aid of the South. The US lead that effort because we were the most prepared and capable nation for the job at that time.
We fought them and drove them back to the Yalu River which is the border with China where we stopped. It seemed like it was over and a peace could be negotiated any day when one evening without warning "The Chinese Attacked". My father said looking across the valley (he was somewhere around Chosin reservoir) "It looked as if someone had poured out a pepper shaker on a white table cloth (it was winter).
As it was at the start of that nation, during the Korean War and to this very day it is CHINA that is the aggressor on the Korean Peninsula and no one else.
The solution is to stop playing the charade that the DPRK exists as an independent nation and deal with China directly here as they are the driving force behind what is going on.
It wasn't rebels who rose up in Libya, it was the Libyian People as part of the Arab Spring. Khadafy chose to suppress them and we chose to help them after the French set the example. See how the truth changes the story you tell?
"Peace in our time" does not work, especially when you ignore the true source of the problem, CHINA.
1
The true source of the problem is the mania from the U.S. establishment since the end of the World War 2 to play the role of attempting to change regimes that it doesn't like...
No the problem is CHINA's hegemonic mania for total control of the western Pacific and the world.
You'd think that after 6 thousand years of doing the same thing over and over and failing every time they would stop and try something new but no. As they always have the Chinese rise up, install dictatorial leaders and inevitably destroy themselves because their leaders refuse to be mature or to accept limits on themselves. They inevitably put all into fighting for their arrogant self image and by that destroy the whole nation again.
I have a western concept for you China "Enlightened Self Interest"
You'd think that after 6 thousand years of doing the same thing over and over and failing every time they would stop and try something new but no. As they always have the Chinese rise up, install dictatorial leaders and inevitably destroy themselves because their leaders refuse to be mature or to accept limits on themselves. They inevitably put all into fighting for their arrogant self image and by that destroy the whole nation again.
I have a western concept for you China "Enlightened Self Interest"
Donald J. Trump is confused himself. How can anyone expect coherent strategy from someone who is so out of touch with the real world? He lives in a fantasy world of his own making. The best we can hope is that he isn't allowed to start a nuclear war, or any other military conflict during one of his many childish fits of anger. So sad! Let us hope that the generals have disabled his nuclear button and have a plan to prevent him from doing more than tweeting his ridiculous rants.
The choices are do we accept North Korea as a nuclear power or do we stop them now? We have accepted Pakistan and India in the nuclear club so why not North Korea?
The problem is that the North Koreans apparently don't have a clue how the game is supposed to work. They honestly believe that their behavior is somehow going to earn them respect. Yet the rest of the world sees a madman with his finger on the button.
They are a very weird bunch, those North Koreans.
The problem is that the North Koreans apparently don't have a clue how the game is supposed to work. They honestly believe that their behavior is somehow going to earn them respect. Yet the rest of the world sees a madman with his finger on the button.
They are a very weird bunch, those North Koreans.
1
When you let the Donald play with these kinds of military toys way bad things can happen. Previously, the most dangerous thing he ever had at his disposal was an eviction notice.
Let's hope cooler heads prevail. Only trouble is, one of them is the Donald's.
You get the government you elect and we elected a grifter from Queens who had no government experience of any kind.
Brother.
Let's hope cooler heads prevail. Only trouble is, one of them is the Donald's.
You get the government you elect and we elected a grifter from Queens who had no government experience of any kind.
Brother.
As opposed to the brilliant strategy followed by the previous 4 Presidents?
1
Isn't an incoherent strategy an oxymoron?
1
Why not see if China's serious about wanting this perpetual mess to resolve? Contact their leadership and South Korea and make a firm agreement that, if the North Korean regime collapses, American forces will permanently depart the peninsula (possibly substituted by international, including Chinese, peacekeepers for a transitional period). Loop in UNHCR and the G-7 to pledge joint support to fully absorb any costs and long-term responsibility China would otherwise bear in case of a flood of refugees. Then see if China will apply serious sanctions against the regime.
Good thoughts Paul. But, I am afraid we will need to outsource all that.
It seems that Bush's policy "Axis of Evil", Obama's policy "Strategic Patience" and Trump's policy "Fire and Fury" has failed. Also, western Media hasn't mentioned about North Korea's policy is fairly consistent. They want security guarantees from the US that they won't get attacked. In the 1990's the US and North Korea signed an Framework to stop its enrichment program in exchange for light-water reactors (which can't produce nuclear weapons.) Later Bush botched this agreement altogether. The US could've negotiated some kind of peace settlement with North Korea and non-nuclear proliferation in the 6 party talks, but thanks to Obama's Asian Pivot policy, that didn't happen. With the prospects that North Korea can do major damage to the continental US, the US has even less of a bargaining power than 10 or even 5 years ago.
First you have to remember that the DPRK is a proxy of China. Then you have to go back to the reagan admin when "the north" was engaged in open acts of terrorism and reagan did nothing. That gave the Chinese all they needed to know about how to work us and they have been doing so ever since.
So its Sepuku for the USA then?
There may be no alternative to war, and Kim Jong-un may indeed be deranged, it would certainly seem so. But we owe it to the world and ourselves to try to talk to him. The least Trump could do is to offer to do so. But if Trump has been consistent in one thing, it is in doing more harm than good. I do not think this will end well.
1
As a citizen I would simply like to hear a simple articulation for what the objectives of the US foreign policy are in North Korea as well as other theaters. Is it reunification of the Koreas? Is it containment of the Kim regime? Is it prevention of nuclear proliferation? Is it maintaining a military presence in East Asia to resist the rise of China?
How is the public supposed to judge anything the politicians and talking heads, including this editorial, say if we don't know what are objectives are. This goes all the way to not really knowing what MAGA means as no reporter ever asked.
How is the public supposed to judge anything the politicians and talking heads, including this editorial, say if we don't know what are objectives are. This goes all the way to not really knowing what MAGA means as no reporter ever asked.
3
The Gross Domestic Product of North-Korea is estimated at 28 billion USD (2016) or less than half of the one of e.g. Ethiiopia, Costa Rica or Guatemala. How can it be that North-Korea became in these circumstances the 9th nuclear power of the world without external help?
There is every reason to believe that China is the big and only sponsor of it.
China is playing a double game. When the US wants to deal with president Kim, it has to imagine that it deals with president Xi. Only then, an attempt for appeasement could start to work.
It means de facto a normalisation of the ties with North-Korea. That is the quid pro quo for an appeasement.
There is every reason to believe that China is the big and only sponsor of it.
China is playing a double game. When the US wants to deal with president Kim, it has to imagine that it deals with president Xi. Only then, an attempt for appeasement could start to work.
It means de facto a normalisation of the ties with North-Korea. That is the quid pro quo for an appeasement.
4
At least I'm not alone.
Obviously you're right. And do you know why? Because the US still wants to play the role of the regime changer in NK and it sounds bad not only for the NKoreans' ear as well as for the Chinese and Russians'.
Actually, it was largely Pakistan that helped them along.
Kinda reminds me of a German leader bereft of logic in WWII. Didn't turn out too well for Germany.
2
I'm reminded of the British leader who promised "Peace in Our Time".
3
Kim’s goal is unification of Korea under Kim and the North has nuclear weapons and the South has American promises. The new factor is an ICMB with an H-bomb that can reach an American city to give us second thoughts. South Korea is struck between two governments with mad men at the helm and might cause a war by excessive saber rattling.
It is time to even the scales. Install nuclear short range missals in deep bunkers in South Korea to be fired as soon as the North fires an ICBM the result would be making the Korean Peninsula un livable. Yes back to MAD, mutually assured destruction.
The result will sooner or later be a new Korean War when the North Korean Army invades the South. There is of course the risk of a coup in the North and the ruling family security is center of all policy. A successful assignation might change North Korean policy or start a nuclear war.
We are at the mercy of people who place great value on their own lives, families and fortunes and who couldn’t give a damn for the hundreds of millions affected by their decisions, and the same is true in P’yongyang.
It is time to even the scales. Install nuclear short range missals in deep bunkers in South Korea to be fired as soon as the North fires an ICBM the result would be making the Korean Peninsula un livable. Yes back to MAD, mutually assured destruction.
The result will sooner or later be a new Korean War when the North Korean Army invades the South. There is of course the risk of a coup in the North and the ruling family security is center of all policy. A successful assignation might change North Korean policy or start a nuclear war.
We are at the mercy of people who place great value on their own lives, families and fortunes and who couldn’t give a damn for the hundreds of millions affected by their decisions, and the same is true in P’yongyang.
In the first place, you say nothing in criticism of Mr. Obama who did nothing while NK was building up. Well, not nothing, he helped to destabilize Libya and tried to destabilize Syria as well.
In the second place, surely you do not expect Mr. Trump to tell the New York Times, WHEN and HOW or IF the US will attack North Korea. He knows that you will shout the news from the housetops and Kim Jong Un will have plenty of warning.
Trump may be crazy but he is not nearly as crazy as THIS newspaper.
In the second place, surely you do not expect Mr. Trump to tell the New York Times, WHEN and HOW or IF the US will attack North Korea. He knows that you will shout the news from the housetops and Kim Jong Un will have plenty of warning.
Trump may be crazy but he is not nearly as crazy as THIS newspaper.
2
So far, Trump has been talking, and no bullets have been fired. The Masters of the Wall Street Universe will disapprove of Trump's trade tweet. The US may have to absorb some kind of first strike before attacking NK. If that should happen, here's the solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
I hope we still have a massive stash of these. If not, there should be an RFP sent out soon. Like tomorrow. No redesign, no nothing. The USG will pay $10 each for as many as a million. First come, first served. The pisols must work. The airlift of these pistols should begin as soon as the NK airspace has been secured. There should be a short note from DJT on the back of the 8 1/2" x 11" instructions:
Dear North Koreans: We the people of the United States offer our sincere apologies for invading your country and causing so many innocent deaths. Your leader, Kim, has forced our hand on this matter. As you know, your leader does not care for the people of North Korea. Use this gun to get a gun. Overthrow Kim, and join the rest of the democratic world in prosperity and peace. Sincerely, DJT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
I hope we still have a massive stash of these. If not, there should be an RFP sent out soon. Like tomorrow. No redesign, no nothing. The USG will pay $10 each for as many as a million. First come, first served. The pisols must work. The airlift of these pistols should begin as soon as the NK airspace has been secured. There should be a short note from DJT on the back of the 8 1/2" x 11" instructions:
Dear North Koreans: We the people of the United States offer our sincere apologies for invading your country and causing so many innocent deaths. Your leader, Kim, has forced our hand on this matter. As you know, your leader does not care for the people of North Korea. Use this gun to get a gun. Overthrow Kim, and join the rest of the democratic world in prosperity and peace. Sincerely, DJT.
1
Consistency has worked so well for past Presidents that we should continue down that road. Seriously, is that what the editorial board really believes? What planet do they live on?
2
What scares the hell out of me is that North Korea will intentionally destroy the 23 nuclear reactors in South Korea if there is a war. An atomic bomb will release its radioactivity quickly to the atmosphere but 23 melting nuclear reactors will pollute the entire planet with radioactive fallout for decades. The entire Korean peninsula, Japan, nearby China and Russia will suffer the worst and the prevailing west to east winds will carry these radioactive isotopes and deposit them in California and over the US. Even if these 23 nuclear plants aren't hit, who is going to stay on site to keep them safe. No one talks about this threat because its too horrible to contemplate!
1
Maybe I'm considerably naive but so what about N Korea? Our strategy should simply be if N Korea was to launch a missile/attack on the US or an ally, they would be annihilated within 30 minutes. Their other option is to change course from this militaristic pursuit and join the world community, thereby taking a path to economic growth and prosperity.
Lol...clearly you don't have friends or relatives living in South Korea otherwise you wouldn't say so.
Donald needs to invite Kim to his garish club and feed him a delicious chocolate cake. That ought-a do it.
4
Trump has no intentions. He has no plan. He is innocent of knowledge. He "tweets". Why does the media, why does the Times waste a drop of ink on this moron? Why does the NYT breathlessly report every juvenile burst? Why do you print anything that is "tweeted"? Why?
The "tweet" is as insipid as it's name. Why does the media legitimize the musings of an idiot? Why?
Why does the NYT legitimize the medium of "tweet" by reporting it?
The "tweet" is as insipid as it's name. Why does the media legitimize the musings of an idiot? Why?
Why does the NYT legitimize the medium of "tweet" by reporting it?
I wonder if Mr. Kim is a proud member of the NRA, He would sure fit.
Our President is a coward and a stupid one too; he likes to talk tough but ultimately delegate to others the responsibility of implementing policies so as to blame them if unsuccessful or take all the credit if successful. As result, this administration has made America a "Paper Tiger" in the eyes of Kim Jong-un, who may be a crazy malicious tyrant but stupid he is not.
3
Trump's threat to halt trade with China to put pressure on Kim Jong-un is hilarious.
If I threw out everything in my house that was made in China, I would be hard-pressed to prepare a meal, go outside fully dressed, survive a Texas summer in relative comfort, or even see well enough to type this comment. I'll guarantee you even your most ardent alt-right militant militia/survivalist is in the same boat.
From the appliances in the kitchen to the machines that moderate the temperature in my home to the clothes on my back to the glasses perched on my nose to the vehicles in my garage, if all the items and parts made in China were tossed out, I'd be half (or more) naked, barefoot, sweating or freezing, hungry and not your happiest camper.
Trump has yet again blown another hole in his Italian footwear. It must be getting difficult to walk with all the self-inflicted damage. That may be why a golf cart is always nearby, charged up and...Oh, sorry, Mr. President, the tires were made in China and, per your orders...
If I threw out everything in my house that was made in China, I would be hard-pressed to prepare a meal, go outside fully dressed, survive a Texas summer in relative comfort, or even see well enough to type this comment. I'll guarantee you even your most ardent alt-right militant militia/survivalist is in the same boat.
From the appliances in the kitchen to the machines that moderate the temperature in my home to the clothes on my back to the glasses perched on my nose to the vehicles in my garage, if all the items and parts made in China were tossed out, I'd be half (or more) naked, barefoot, sweating or freezing, hungry and not your happiest camper.
Trump has yet again blown another hole in his Italian footwear. It must be getting difficult to walk with all the self-inflicted damage. That may be why a golf cart is always nearby, charged up and...Oh, sorry, Mr. President, the tires were made in China and, per your orders...
1
So, Trump has an incoherent strategy with no results.
Can someone list all the ways Obamas 8 year (coherent?)strategy contained the North Korean threat, or even slowed it?
Where are the success stories from the "engagement" strategy?
Its looking more and more like there is only one option.
Can someone list all the ways Obamas 8 year (coherent?)strategy contained the North Korean threat, or even slowed it?
Where are the success stories from the "engagement" strategy?
Its looking more and more like there is only one option.
2
I love when the NYT EB talks about North Korea like they've only been awake for the past 24 hours.
The "strategy" on NK has been "incoherent" for at least two decades, starting with glory-boy Bill Clinton's attempts to appease and be blackmailed, lasting through the hated GWB's attempts to appease and be blackmailed, and driving through golden-child Obama's attempts to appease and be blackmailed. With the NYT EB cheering on their favorites and saying their hated one's moves were not enough.
Never once did the NYT EB declare facts: that NK is a nation led by a tyrant that wants to conquer its southern, prosperous neighbor with death and destruction. That Communism, the tyrant's chosen ideology and still the paean of the Left, is a system of organized death and destruction. That sanctions and appeasement, the latter reminiscent of 1938 Munich, do not work.
The "strategy" on NK has been "incoherent" for at least two decades, starting with glory-boy Bill Clinton's attempts to appease and be blackmailed, lasting through the hated GWB's attempts to appease and be blackmailed, and driving through golden-child Obama's attempts to appease and be blackmailed. With the NYT EB cheering on their favorites and saying their hated one's moves were not enough.
Never once did the NYT EB declare facts: that NK is a nation led by a tyrant that wants to conquer its southern, prosperous neighbor with death and destruction. That Communism, the tyrant's chosen ideology and still the paean of the Left, is a system of organized death and destruction. That sanctions and appeasement, the latter reminiscent of 1938 Munich, do not work.
2
This editorial and the comments show thoughts on a very difficult subject. Do you people realize that President Trump is an idiot?
North Korea wants to take over South Korea. Sometimes a person's appearance can tell you a lot about a person. Kim looks strange. So did Hitler. Sometimes what happens in wars is governed by the personal agenda of one person. In this case, Kim wants South Korea. Look at where he put his nuclear testing facility. If you nuke your own country, where are you willing to live? Somewhere else of course. South Korea, to be precise. I kept focusing on the word "existential threat." Putin used these words for a reason. What did he mean? Find out what Kim wants, before something bad happens like a nuclear mistake. That's my gut talking.
Here we are. An idiot can start WWIII. This worse than Dr. Strangelove
One simpleton to the other:
Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
I have a H-Bomb.
Do you have one too?
Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
I have a H-Bomb.
Do you have one too?
A pseudo- leader running amok. And we are not talking about the creepy clown of North Korea. Playing with fire will risk harming ourselves as well. Stop this mayhem.
Let's see. President Trump inherits this nutbag of a problem from his predecessor, who kicked the problem down the road to the next administration for eight long years. Trump has been in office for eight months as Kim Jong-un, emboldened by years of inaction by the world's only superpower, raises the stakes with direct threats to Japan, Guam and even California. China will not help, they will talk and dissemble for another 5000 years. Talk is cheap.
2
Nonsense.
The Times Editorial Board knows nothing about negotiating.
Brilliantly, Trump is giving North Korea a taste of its own medicine: sowing confusion about his intentions.
For the first time Kim has met his superior. Professor-in-Chief Obama understood nothing about Kim. Trump understands Kim's psychology perfectly. If Kim wants to continue enjoying his cushy life as dictator of North Korea, he will have back down. No fat 33-year old looking for "respect" is ready to commit suicide.
The Times Editorial Board knows nothing about negotiating.
Brilliantly, Trump is giving North Korea a taste of its own medicine: sowing confusion about his intentions.
For the first time Kim has met his superior. Professor-in-Chief Obama understood nothing about Kim. Trump understands Kim's psychology perfectly. If Kim wants to continue enjoying his cushy life as dictator of North Korea, he will have back down. No fat 33-year old looking for "respect" is ready to commit suicide.
2
Eight months of the Trump presidency have revealed pretty much all the sides of his personality that we are going to see...although yesterdays "shoot the hostages" attack on the Dreamers certainly confirms that he is a first rate coward....but Trumps scattershot feckless bluster on North Korea is the best evidence we have of the just how disastrous this presidency may yet be...
1
Please explain how the Clinton,Bush,Obama ( H. Clinton) approaches to North Korea has proven to be more successful!
3
I bet that the Times would suggest waiting before taking out Hitler. Oh, it already did that.
1
I believe that the cult leader in the dark house will get us in a war (even nuclear) if that boosts his ego or his ratings. "That none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof" wrote President John Adams in 1800 (you still can see it on the mantle of the fireplace in the WH state dining room). Clearly, God ignored that prayer. May he help us all now.
President Trump should invite Kim Jong-Un to Mar el Lago, and then to Disney World. Royal treatment the whole way.
2
This editorial is what needs clarification. President Clinton's appeasement approach did not unravel under President Bush. It didn't unravel at all because it never was tightly wound. It allowed NK time to spool up its pursuit of weaponry. It also gave them the means to achieve its goal of nuclear bombs. And President Obama furthered the ability of NK to continue this very same goal. At the same time, President Obama drastically reduced our own military abilities. The problem of NK was not faced at all for decades. Throughout it all, though, the Lying New York Times pursued its goal, the protection of all Democrat Presidents and the smearing of all Republican ones. This paper is as dangerous to America as NK. It propagates lies and distorts reality to the public. The public felt assured under Bill Clinton largely because this paper (and other media outlets) portrayed what he did as sane and secure. And as for Barak Obama, I don't recall this paper's editorial board castigating him for making us more vulnerable to NK and other hostile nations. I know the people who run this paper will never change. I mean the last time a Republican candidate for president was endorsed here was when Dwight Eisenhower ran for the office. All that can be said is the truth: the people who create this paper are unthinking and blind to reality. They prefer to live in their odd little world, no matter what -- even when it means their own safety has been compromised.
2
The headline on the South Korean news is that thousands of protesters have converged on the city of Seoungu to prevent our miltary missile protection system THADD. A system designed to protect the American men and women who provide the defense for the South. It appears that both Koreas see y he US as their enemy. Time to leave the Koreans to themselves.
3
Haven't you heard - it's a beautiful plan, same as all of Mr. Trump's other plans for the nation.
2
DT says " talking is not the answer?" Then why haven't we had armed conflict with Korea in over 60 years? Does everyone, including the NY Times, forget that we haven't had this serious a possibility of nuclear war until 7 months ago when this fool took over the WH?
Wonderful. A bunch of immature spoiled megalomaniacs throughout the world playing baseball with nuclear bombs and pitching with ICBM's. What a bunch of fools! We as individuals in the whole world really need to get our acts together, pray and return to a proper, humble relation with God. I think that we are in a really precarious position right now.
Batter up! One point for each city destroyed!
I prefer the World Series the way we used to play it - with baseballs, gloves and bats, even if we think the umps are a bunch of bums!!
By the way, in what ash-heap do we get to receive the trophy if we do win?
Batter up! One point for each city destroyed!
I prefer the World Series the way we used to play it - with baseballs, gloves and bats, even if we think the umps are a bunch of bums!!
By the way, in what ash-heap do we get to receive the trophy if we do win?
Incoherent strategy=No strategy.
Kim will not shoot his massive nuclear toys.
So the best thing to do is ignore him.
Do not shame Kim, do not respond to Kim, do not do or say anything to or about Kim.
He is like the Grifter in Chief: he loves the attention and he will continue to spout anything just to get the attention if you give him the attention in the first place. So simple...
So the best thing to do is ignore him.
Do not shame Kim, do not respond to Kim, do not do or say anything to or about Kim.
He is like the Grifter in Chief: he loves the attention and he will continue to spout anything just to get the attention if you give him the attention in the first place. So simple...
1
Hold hands and sing "Kum By Yah." That worked well for President Clinton and Bush, and real well for Obama. Kim got hundreds of thousands of tons of food, millions of gallons of fuel oil, and his nuclear war program just moved along merrily. It is right on track to irradiate one or more American cities.
His blackmail works so well, Kim will never choose to stop. The only thing that will stop him is force.
Make no mistake about it. Honolulu, or LA, or Chicago will disappear in a mushroom cloud unless the business end of US power stops him.
And if it does it will not be something the US has chosen to do. It will be what Kim has forced us to do to prevent him from killing millions of Americans.
It's not a nice world out there. We need barricades manned by tough guys to let us sing and dance and drape flowers on each other.
Jefferson said it: "If we beat our swords into plowshares, we will end up slaves doing the plowing for those who did not."
His blackmail works so well, Kim will never choose to stop. The only thing that will stop him is force.
Make no mistake about it. Honolulu, or LA, or Chicago will disappear in a mushroom cloud unless the business end of US power stops him.
And if it does it will not be something the US has chosen to do. It will be what Kim has forced us to do to prevent him from killing millions of Americans.
It's not a nice world out there. We need barricades manned by tough guys to let us sing and dance and drape flowers on each other.
Jefferson said it: "If we beat our swords into plowshares, we will end up slaves doing the plowing for those who did not."
Talking is the only answer, short of war, which is no answer at all.
Our efforts at regime change have been demonstrable failures.
It's time to enact article 25 and remove this psychopath from public housing.
Our efforts at regime change have been demonstrable failures.
It's time to enact article 25 and remove this psychopath from public housing.
Thousands of Chinese become refugees every year when the flooding and landslides start up. What's the difference if they have to feed and shelter Koreans?
What about the Trump administration is coherent?
An Incoherent Strategy on [fill in the blank]
It may be true that President Trump and his cabinet are not handling this nightmare in the best possible way, whatever that might be, but let's be very clear about whose fault this all is.
This nightmare began with the pusillanimous Bill Clinton making a deal with Korea that everybody knew, at the time, was a farce. Then, George W. bush kicked the can down the road for eight years. Then, not only did the unteachable Barack Obama kick the can further down the road regarding Korea, but he made a similar, treasonously idiotic nuclear deal with Iran---another nightmare scenario coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Now, after three disastrous presidencies and more than 20 years of catastrophically idiotic foreign policy, your problem is with Donald Trump, who has been in office approximately seven months? May I say: you are not helping.
This nightmare began with the pusillanimous Bill Clinton making a deal with Korea that everybody knew, at the time, was a farce. Then, George W. bush kicked the can down the road for eight years. Then, not only did the unteachable Barack Obama kick the can further down the road regarding Korea, but he made a similar, treasonously idiotic nuclear deal with Iran---another nightmare scenario coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Now, after three disastrous presidencies and more than 20 years of catastrophically idiotic foreign policy, your problem is with Donald Trump, who has been in office approximately seven months? May I say: you are not helping.
NYT bizarro history...we get comments on the current situation, which, one must agree, President Trump must handle with greater aplomb, Bill Clinton's efforts and their failure under George Bush (implying that it was Bush's fault rather than a unworkable idea by Clinton, but no matter). And ABSOLUTELY NO mention whatsoever of eight years under Obama, which, as the whole world sees oh so clearly, did less than nothing to stop progress in North Korea of its evil intent. Did everything just sit peacefully by during his tenure and suddenly have a technological leap since January 20?? I shouldn't be surprised at this convenient lapse, of course, but I really expect more of the Times than this tiresome duck and cover for their beloved ex-president.
All of that being said, we get the usual platitudes of decades of failed efforts, "tougher sanctions", "offer the North a deal", etc. At some point it must be clear even to the Editors that this has been done over and over again, and has brought us to this wretched state, under both Republicans and Democrats, not to mention the utterly useless UN. Something clearly has to be done, and due to those failed prior years, the choices are very few and very poor. But beating the same old drum clearly hasn't worked, and Kim knows it and revels in it. Rather than just carp about Trump the Times needs to recognize that this situation cannot be allowed to continue.
All of that being said, we get the usual platitudes of decades of failed efforts, "tougher sanctions", "offer the North a deal", etc. At some point it must be clear even to the Editors that this has been done over and over again, and has brought us to this wretched state, under both Republicans and Democrats, not to mention the utterly useless UN. Something clearly has to be done, and due to those failed prior years, the choices are very few and very poor. But beating the same old drum clearly hasn't worked, and Kim knows it and revels in it. Rather than just carp about Trump the Times needs to recognize that this situation cannot be allowed to continue.
1
Isn’t the most dangerous thing in the forest a cornered beast? How about a crazy cornered beast? Kim Jong-un is crazy, trapping him in a corner will have a predictable outcome.
seems to me i recall The Donald saying something like `i love nukes` and
if we have them why can`t we use them? Obviously he has trouble seeing the
big picture. God help us!!
if we have them why can`t we use them? Obviously he has trouble seeing the
big picture. God help us!!
Do you think Jung Un’s attempting to victimize the U.S., which he trusts not to nuke him, might have been encouraged by Putin invading Crimea and killing his own in The Ukraine, while Putin saw The United States choosing not to want a war, or to tempt a nuke war, as his victimization of the U.S.? Could Jung-Un see Russia and China as in on his nuke power games ‘with’ him?
This madman will get us into a war. No, not Kim, Trump.
This editorial suffers from myopia. It was actually on President Obama's watch, and pursuit of "strategic patience" that North Korea developed its arsenal and ICBM's. So let's not act as if there was a working strategy in place that the Trump team has suddenly disturbed. Quite the contrary. I'm not a fan of much from the Trump White House, and don't think he should be tweeting about anything, especially North Korea. But having a Defense Secretary in Mattis who clearly outlines the consequences of North Korea's actions may be language more understandable to Kim Jong Un (and more importantly to China) than was Obama's tepid and wholly ineffective "strategic patience." My sense is that China feels more urgency to act to rein in North Korea today than it did during the Obama Administration.
3
In the schoolyard, kids may brag "My father can lick your father," but the world now faces a more serious taunt which is being flung back and forth by the unhinged leaders of the U.S. and North Korea: "Our country can lick your country!" Let's hope neither side chooses to test the truth of it.
25
Neither a member of the North Korean House of Kim nor a member of the American House of Trump is going to put themselves in harms way risking life and limb in the event of any hostilities.
1
Trump has no unified theory on how the world works.
3
The issue for North Korea is existential in that they feel having nuclear weapons will protect them from the "regime change" we have imposed repeatedly around the world. This is complicated by the reality that North Korea is a "Jonestown" nation --
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/04/undercover-in-north-korea-all-paths-...
Given the brutal history that gave birth to North Korea, they will maintain a nuclear arsenal but the less they feel threatened, the less likely a threat they will be. Better to soothe the ego of the "great leader" by acknowledging their power and tone down the threats and war games than to risk nuclear war with it's massive casualties and fallout -- real and political.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/04/undercover-in-north-korea-all-paths-...
Given the brutal history that gave birth to North Korea, they will maintain a nuclear arsenal but the less they feel threatened, the less likely a threat they will be. Better to soothe the ego of the "great leader" by acknowledging their power and tone down the threats and war games than to risk nuclear war with it's massive casualties and fallout -- real and political.
The strategy is very coherent: Pick a twitter fight with North Korea to divert attention away from the Russia connection, knowing that N. Korea has no intention of any kind of nuclear attack until they have a much larger stockpile of weapons (that could be years, into another President's term). When North Korea's stockpile is large enough, then they can insist on acceptance as a world nuclear power and dissolution of sanctions. Trump meanwhile can claim credit for preventing a nuclear attack on the US when they have no stockpile.
It's time for realistic results. Accept N.Korea as a Nuclear Power but requiring it join the nuclear club and all its requirements and responsibilities including regular inspections and meeting all the rules and regulations. Then lay out a plan to bring its people and economy into the 21st century improving their lives. This includes recognizing and honoring the rights of its people as the country starts to prosper.
This whole thing is dependent on a paradigm shift by its ruler and the Trump administration.
One could contemplate "what if".
This whole thing is dependent on a paradigm shift by its ruler and the Trump administration.
One could contemplate "what if".
1
In Trumpworld, the worst thing that can happen is bankruptcy and the loss of a few bucks.
Problem is, in, you know, reality land, the worst thing that can happen in butting heads and egos with crazy nuclear powers is world wide conflagration.
I know that, but I seriously doubt he gets the dangers.
Sorry Secretary Mattis, but working for peace and a world without nuclear weapons is the best option for all of us.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Problem is, in, you know, reality land, the worst thing that can happen in butting heads and egos with crazy nuclear powers is world wide conflagration.
I know that, but I seriously doubt he gets the dangers.
Sorry Secretary Mattis, but working for peace and a world without nuclear weapons is the best option for all of us.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
1
This morning on NPR, Suzanne DiMaggio, a senior fellow at the think tank New America held talks with North Korean officials is May of this year in Switzerland. Her assessment this morning was that NK absolutely wants to and will weaponize to the extent that they have a place at the table, that their country will survive, that we know they can fight back. We've know this since May. I have to believe the white house has known this since May. Adults need to take over now, today, because this child in the white house is going to get a lot of people killed. Think twice about whether we want a second rate real estate agent taking us to war. What have we become?
"An Incoherent Strategy on North Korea" - Translation: President Trump has decided to continue the same policies as his two immediate predecessors.
1
With the added foolishness of tweeted taunts by our so-called leader, hawkish talk by our military leader(s) with no balance of diplomatic talk from our...oh, wait, we don't have any diplomats (I don't consider Nikki Haley a diplomat, more like a parrot). That could be a problem. This "administration" is nothing like the two immediate preceding administrations, we have a loose cannon at the helm. I guess maybe we are getting a little taste of what it's like to be DPRK citizens.
The Times editorial claims it would be suicide for North Korea to fight a war with the U.S., but the last U.S. - Korean war resulted in 37,000 American soldiers killed in action. Is the Times' writer assuming a nuclear war ? What would China and Russia have to say about nuclear bombs exploding en masse near their borders ? Remember, that when we were pushing the North Korean army around at will, China came into the war and did likewise to us. Down what ugly path would the next war, nuclear or not, with Korean lead ? Let's not be so glib in our predictions of the future.
1
In the penultimate sentence of this editorial the NYT does lay out the only reasonable solution: North Korea stops testing in return for reduced joint exercises. North Korea has already attained its status as a nuclear power. Talks should also include agreements to stop issuing threats and boasts, cultural exchanges, preliminary talks about recognition of North Korea and two Koreas. It should be noted that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and President Obama did nothing (nor should he have) to assist Ukraine when Russia annexed Crimea.
Finally, I'm tired of hearing " China is the key". It might be the key but it doesn't fit this lock. The NYT is right that non-starters include sanctions, war, and threats. Let's do better with Iran.
Finally, I'm tired of hearing " China is the key". It might be the key but it doesn't fit this lock. The NYT is right that non-starters include sanctions, war, and threats. Let's do better with Iran.
1
The DPRK military strategists have no doubt learned the lessons of the Korean and Japanese WW2 conflicts: But if war is what Trump wants, many targets are defensive, one target is foolish, and we can expect the DPRK (aided by Chinese "volunteers" ala the Korean War) to fight a wide global strategy from Third World allies above and under the earth and under the open seas, in the air and in outer space.
For the first lesson of the Korean conflict is to never fight your opponent's war! Next is that "jaw-jaw," as Churchill would say, is always better, for all concerned, than "war-war." And China's support, in actions, not just words,is the target of Trump's bluster, not the DPRK.
For the first lesson of the Korean conflict is to never fight your opponent's war! Next is that "jaw-jaw," as Churchill would say, is always better, for all concerned, than "war-war." And China's support, in actions, not just words,is the target of Trump's bluster, not the DPRK.
I never thought I'd see the use of nuclear weapons in my lifetime.
1
While Trump blusters on exacerbating tensions with no particular plan in mind the threat of an accidental war grows.
1
"Incoherent Strategy" is to assume Trump has one in the first place. Trump is shouting at the TV, he's doesn't have any strategy what-so_ ever. He is running this country like he ran his businesses - into the ground and then will take lesser deals to have a foreign party bail him out, in this case South Korea and China. His entire business life is comprised of getting bailed out by the Saudis, Russians and Chinese.
This man is putting our country at risk every hour of every day. Those in Congress and his own party we rely on to keep him in check is failing the American people. This is why we don't have single party rule, this is why running a country isn't the same as a business, this is why we don't have ignorant carnival barkers in positions that directly impact millions of people's lives.
This man is putting our country at risk every hour of every day. Those in Congress and his own party we rely on to keep him in check is failing the American people. This is why we don't have single party rule, this is why running a country isn't the same as a business, this is why we don't have ignorant carnival barkers in positions that directly impact millions of people's lives.
1
NYT ran an article about a Nagasaki survivor, Sumiteru Taniguchi and his lifelong quest to bring the horror of war, particularly nuclear war to the conscious minds of the world. He recently passed away.
For decades US leaders have wrung their hands and babbled furiously about North Korea accomplishing nothing. Our treatment of Gaddafi told Kim all he needs to know about trusting the US with such matters.
Now we continue to toss about talk of war, of nuclear war. It would seem that the important message Mr. Taniguchi shared has been lost in this dangerously out of control debate.
For decades US leaders have wrung their hands and babbled furiously about North Korea accomplishing nothing. Our treatment of Gaddafi told Kim all he needs to know about trusting the US with such matters.
Now we continue to toss about talk of war, of nuclear war. It would seem that the important message Mr. Taniguchi shared has been lost in this dangerously out of control debate.
1
The strategy is so "incoherent" that Kim thinks the US may attack and Trump is crazy enough to not back down like Clinton and Obama did. Trump is crazy like a fox. Stay tuned.
"He seems to regard nuclear weapons as his only guarantee of survival in the face of American hostility."
This rationalization for the DPRK's nuclear program does not hold up to logic.
The US and South Korea has had military and nuclear weapons advantages over the DPRK for decades, but North Korea has not been attacked, despite severe provocations, such as airliner bombings (KAL 858) and assassination attempts (eg: the Rangoon bombing) on South Korean leaders, as well as numerous naval attacks.
The previous status quo has always regarded war with North Korea as an unwanted option, despite North Korean hostility. There should be no need to remind everyone that North Korea started the Korean War by invading the South. North Korea has proven itself to be the untrustworthy actor in the region.
North Korea has used its nuclear program to extract concessions from its neighbors, and it is very likely to increase demands and belligerence as it continues to build up its arsenal. Strategically, NK can threaten to invade or bully South Korea, while increasing the difficulty of the US to stomach the prospect involvement (either due to NK nukes or due to having a hand involved with nuclear holocaust on the Korean peninsula).
Therefore, it becomes strategically likely that South Korea will eventually, strongly want its own nukes as a deterrent. And Japan will follow.
This rationalization for the DPRK's nuclear program does not hold up to logic.
The US and South Korea has had military and nuclear weapons advantages over the DPRK for decades, but North Korea has not been attacked, despite severe provocations, such as airliner bombings (KAL 858) and assassination attempts (eg: the Rangoon bombing) on South Korean leaders, as well as numerous naval attacks.
The previous status quo has always regarded war with North Korea as an unwanted option, despite North Korean hostility. There should be no need to remind everyone that North Korea started the Korean War by invading the South. North Korea has proven itself to be the untrustworthy actor in the region.
North Korea has used its nuclear program to extract concessions from its neighbors, and it is very likely to increase demands and belligerence as it continues to build up its arsenal. Strategically, NK can threaten to invade or bully South Korea, while increasing the difficulty of the US to stomach the prospect involvement (either due to NK nukes or due to having a hand involved with nuclear holocaust on the Korean peninsula).
Therefore, it becomes strategically likely that South Korea will eventually, strongly want its own nukes as a deterrent. And Japan will follow.
1
Sanctions were put in place about an hour ago. Think you can give them time to actually work or do you really think they would work instantly???
Trumps approach is new compared to the former administrations whose programs obviously did not work either.
You got any ideas???
Trumps approach is new compared to the former administrations whose programs obviously did not work either.
You got any ideas???
With all the emphasis on rocket technology and capability, what would stop Kim from putting a nuke on a container ship or factory fishing boat and positioning it where he wants to?
With all the emphasis on economic sanctions, what would stop Kim from selling nukes to other countries or rogue regimes, making money off them, and then buying things on the black market? Severe sanctions might even hasten Kim selling nukes.
The sane countries of the world must band together to end proliferation foremost, and put all other 'strategic concerns' on the back burner, otherwise, we'll soon see a mushroom cloud over a city, and then all the other concerns that were seemingly so important will be exposed for their sheer insignificance.
With all the emphasis on economic sanctions, what would stop Kim from selling nukes to other countries or rogue regimes, making money off them, and then buying things on the black market? Severe sanctions might even hasten Kim selling nukes.
The sane countries of the world must band together to end proliferation foremost, and put all other 'strategic concerns' on the back burner, otherwise, we'll soon see a mushroom cloud over a city, and then all the other concerns that were seemingly so important will be exposed for their sheer insignificance.
25
An America misled by the ignorant, immature, incompetent, inexperienced intemperate and insecure likes of Donald Trump is not among " the sane countries of the world".
Mr. Kim is the leader of a nation state with a known location. Unlike a non-governmental terrorist organization leader Mr. Kim is rationally reasonably interested in political governing survival instead of suicide or martyrdom.
Mr. Kim is the leader of a nation state with a known location. Unlike a non-governmental terrorist organization leader Mr. Kim is rationally reasonably interested in political governing survival instead of suicide or martyrdom.
1
Unfortunately we helped Pakistan get the bomb and they helped NK.
1
How coherent would you be if a nut case is holding a loaded gun to your head?
N. Korea is now an existential threat to the United States. It can wipe out dozens of American cities and has expressed the willingness to do so. This situation is intolerable and we must never be placed in a position to agree to any of their endless demands.
That leaves us only two choices. We can collapse the world economy by imposing stiff sanctions on China for providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or, if that doesn't work, we can annihilate N. Korea.
That's it. We can't agree to freezing Kim's nuclear arsenal. He will cheat and still be capable of destroying us. We would be a perpetual captive of one the smallest and poorest countries on earth led by a maniac worshipped by a cult following.
N. Korea is now an existential threat to the United States. It can wipe out dozens of American cities and has expressed the willingness to do so. This situation is intolerable and we must never be placed in a position to agree to any of their endless demands.
That leaves us only two choices. We can collapse the world economy by imposing stiff sanctions on China for providing aid and comfort to the enemy, or, if that doesn't work, we can annihilate N. Korea.
That's it. We can't agree to freezing Kim's nuclear arsenal. He will cheat and still be capable of destroying us. We would be a perpetual captive of one the smallest and poorest countries on earth led by a maniac worshipped by a cult following.
12
That's unduly simplistic. The choices are not binary. It's diplomatic brinksmanship insofar as China is concerned.
1
Nonsense. N. Korea is no more an existential threat to the U.S. than Pakistan, India, Israel, France or the UK, all of whom have had nuclear weapons for decades. Russia and China have them by the shipload.
Your binary approach to this issue is painfully simplistic, engendered by Kim's brinksmanship games and Trump's adolescent responses to them.
Your binary approach to this issue is painfully simplistic, engendered by Kim's brinksmanship games and Trump's adolescent responses to them.
2
Nonsense.
You are confusing Mr. Kim with the ignorant, immature, intemperate and insecure Mr. Trump. Mr. Kim wants to remain in power. America has overtly and covertly threatened his regime. America is an existential threat to North Korea.
North Korea has not attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland.
America lived with and tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union/Russia and China. America has tolerated nuclear weapons in Israel, India and Pakistan. America can live with nukes in North Korea.
South Korea and Japan will carry the brunt of any lost blood and treasure in any military conflict.
You are confusing Mr. Kim with the ignorant, immature, intemperate and insecure Mr. Trump. Mr. Kim wants to remain in power. America has overtly and covertly threatened his regime. America is an existential threat to North Korea.
North Korea has not attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland.
America lived with and tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union/Russia and China. America has tolerated nuclear weapons in Israel, India and Pakistan. America can live with nukes in North Korea.
South Korea and Japan will carry the brunt of any lost blood and treasure in any military conflict.
2
We can blame Trump for lack of a strategy, but, and I may have missed it, I have not seen a cogent strategy presented for this situation, one that has grown increasingly threatening over the last decade. The fact is Kim is establishing "table stakes", but ultimately he will either have to play his hand or be seen as bluffing. That is dangerous. There are three key parties to all this - China, Russia, and the US. At present, China and Russia are content to allow Kim to toy with the US, via Trump, as it distracts their common adversary while they become ascendant, and Kim thus concludes that they have his back. But, eventually, probably sooner than later, China and Russia will have to either conclude that Kim is entirely bluffing, or that the US is. That too is extremely dangerous. To me, the only sane solution is for China, Russia, and the US to agree on the increasingly dire risks to our common planet, and to jointly make it crystal clear to Kim (and all other would-be Kims) that any offensive use of nuclear or other mass-destruction weapons will result in instant annihilation. We must work on the presumption that, while he is irrational (from our perspective), Kim is not insane. And if he is in fact insane we're all in a world of trouble.
3
If America does not act as a mediator and honest broker in encouraging the peace process on the Korean Peninsula, but instead takes one side and demonizes the other, the side that is being demonized has no choice but to assume that any negotiations will not be in good faith. Therein lies the essential problem. America has this nasty habit of dividing countries into allies and enemies, and playing the divide and conquer game to maintain its influence. North Korea is saying loud and clear to the Americans that they are to be treated as an equal and legitimate partner on the Korean peninsula. If America is going to play power games in Korea instead of acting as a mediator willing to consider both sides and achieve compromise solutions, then North Korea is left with no option but to reciprocate in this power game, up to and including nuclear diplomacy. The Korean people have a great destiny before them, and to prevent them from achieving this glorious destiny is an exercise in futility, as the world is slowly coming to recognize.
1
So a brutal and vicious dictatorship is an equal to a democracy that respects law and rights? Bizarre equivalency.
There are only three options in dealing with North Korea's nuclear program:
(1) Negotiate for a non-nuclear Korean peninsula with a guarantee
of non-interference in North Korea;
(2) Let North Korea develop it's nuclear deterrent and engage in the Cold War
policy of detente and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction);
(3) A preemptive (first) strike to destroy their nuclear arsenal.
Only (1) and (2) are feasible with (3) leading to a nuclear war that probably would involve China along with certain massive destruction in South Korea and perhaps Japan.
It's time for the Trump Administration to stop the brinksmanship, "the war of increasingly threatening words," and come back to the reality that seven U.S. Presidents embraced in successfully dealing with the far more serious threat posed by the former Soviet Union. It's time for diplomacy and statesmanship from the world's major superpower rather than high school braggadocio and tweeted taunts.
(1) Negotiate for a non-nuclear Korean peninsula with a guarantee
of non-interference in North Korea;
(2) Let North Korea develop it's nuclear deterrent and engage in the Cold War
policy of detente and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction);
(3) A preemptive (first) strike to destroy their nuclear arsenal.
Only (1) and (2) are feasible with (3) leading to a nuclear war that probably would involve China along with certain massive destruction in South Korea and perhaps Japan.
It's time for the Trump Administration to stop the brinksmanship, "the war of increasingly threatening words," and come back to the reality that seven U.S. Presidents embraced in successfully dealing with the far more serious threat posed by the former Soviet Union. It's time for diplomacy and statesmanship from the world's major superpower rather than high school braggadocio and tweeted taunts.
2
I have to say it.
All you liberals who think (1) is possible and (2) is acceptable are idiots.
(1) If you read your fellow liberal-ideologues editorial you would realize that Kim will never accept US "assurances" and will use Libya or Iraq as an excuse. Kim and his ancestors slaughtered North Korea via starvation to acquire nukes and ICBMs (plus a host of other weapons). You think he will give them up?
(2) MAD is a fallacy when it comes to Kim. He will use his ICBM nukes as blackmail. A man who uses chemical weapons on his relatives, blows up top advisers with anti-air missiles, and puts millions in labor camps along with their relatives for minor slights, will have no qualms about launching a devastating nuclear attack on America with the full knowledge that America will not respond in kind, because it would mean Kim launching the rest of his nukes.
When Kim engages in diplomacy and statesmanship, he gives his unfathomably capable negotiators explicit instructions, which result in him giving up nothing and gaining as much as possible.
The best way to deal with Kim is indirectly and through extreme pressure. I do not have all the information or expertise, but it is quite evident that "strategic patience" and diplomacy have not worked for the North Koreans who are oppressed by the Kim's or the US
It's crucial that Americans put their childishness behind them. Kim is a real threat.
If at all possible, affect an oil cutoff to North Korea
All you liberals who think (1) is possible and (2) is acceptable are idiots.
(1) If you read your fellow liberal-ideologues editorial you would realize that Kim will never accept US "assurances" and will use Libya or Iraq as an excuse. Kim and his ancestors slaughtered North Korea via starvation to acquire nukes and ICBMs (plus a host of other weapons). You think he will give them up?
(2) MAD is a fallacy when it comes to Kim. He will use his ICBM nukes as blackmail. A man who uses chemical weapons on his relatives, blows up top advisers with anti-air missiles, and puts millions in labor camps along with their relatives for minor slights, will have no qualms about launching a devastating nuclear attack on America with the full knowledge that America will not respond in kind, because it would mean Kim launching the rest of his nukes.
When Kim engages in diplomacy and statesmanship, he gives his unfathomably capable negotiators explicit instructions, which result in him giving up nothing and gaining as much as possible.
The best way to deal with Kim is indirectly and through extreme pressure. I do not have all the information or expertise, but it is quite evident that "strategic patience" and diplomacy have not worked for the North Koreans who are oppressed by the Kim's or the US
It's crucial that Americans put their childishness behind them. Kim is a real threat.
If at all possible, affect an oil cutoff to North Korea
So what would a coherent strategy towards North Korea look like? It is easy to play the critic but not so easy to define success. Being unpredictable might not be so bad at this moment in time. We had predictability for decades and all that did was get us to this point. China is the key no matter what anyone says. I don't think Trump is the right person to work with China but hey what about the Secretary of State? I know Trump wants us to forget him but he is most likely the most qualified person in the group right now. Let Rex do his job.
4
North Korea is a nuclear power. The only questions now are: what does its leadership want? Is it a price that the world is willing to pay? If not, is the UN prepared to authorize war against a nuclear state?
This is a global problem not a US problem, and Trump ought to stop talking trash.
This is a global problem not a US problem, and Trump ought to stop talking trash.
2
Who is Mr. Trump listening to re: strategy on N. Korea? You published an op-ed recently arguing that Trump should read some books on this issue. I think you should make note of it if our President is not talking to, and asking advice from, people like Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign relations. He could hire some experts from RAND, he could turn to some university professors. He could assemble a team of North Korea, diplomacy, and deterrence experts - that would be a great idea. Maybe suggest something like that in your next editorial on NK. There is also a new article in Foreign Affairs, "Take Preventive War With North Korea Off the Table," that Mr. Trump, Mr. Tillerson, and Mr. Mattis should read.
1
The best-articulated piece by the NYT Editorial Board on the NK nuclear quandary, so far.
The Trump administration -- greatly assisted by Kim Jon-un -- is bringing the world closer to an inconceivable nuclear war.
The military standoff in the Korean Peninsula is the new 21st-century type of asymmetrical warfare. NK, with a GDP equivalent to less than 1% of NYC annual budget dares to confront the most powerful military power the world has ever seen.
The Trump administration has two alternatives. Either risk a catastrophic nuclear war or seek a diplomatic solution which includes, fundamentally, two points:
One, normalization of diplomatic relations and recognition of NK's political regime. Economic sanctions lifted step by step and NK's economy integrated into the global trading system.
Two, in return an immediate freeze in NK's atomic/missile programs, thus avoiding military confrontation. It would be followed by a pari-passu disarmament program in both Koreas and reunification talks be resumed.
The steps mentioned above could certainly be accepted by NK with China as guarantor. The question is: could the Trump administration accept a major change in 67 years of economic and diplomatic ostracism of NK's regime?
The Trump administration -- greatly assisted by Kim Jon-un -- is bringing the world closer to an inconceivable nuclear war.
The military standoff in the Korean Peninsula is the new 21st-century type of asymmetrical warfare. NK, with a GDP equivalent to less than 1% of NYC annual budget dares to confront the most powerful military power the world has ever seen.
The Trump administration has two alternatives. Either risk a catastrophic nuclear war or seek a diplomatic solution which includes, fundamentally, two points:
One, normalization of diplomatic relations and recognition of NK's political regime. Economic sanctions lifted step by step and NK's economy integrated into the global trading system.
Two, in return an immediate freeze in NK's atomic/missile programs, thus avoiding military confrontation. It would be followed by a pari-passu disarmament program in both Koreas and reunification talks be resumed.
The steps mentioned above could certainly be accepted by NK with China as guarantor. The question is: could the Trump administration accept a major change in 67 years of economic and diplomatic ostracism of NK's regime?
4
In that case, the United States has every incentive to begin negotiations as soon as possible so it can freeze nk's nuclear program early on whereas Nk has every incentive to delay negotiations to build a larger nuclear arsenal.
85 percent of North Korea's trade is with China. China is not interested in putting economic pressure on that country. The rest of the North's trade is for the most part with other Asian nations. If you get those Asian nations to put economic pressure on North Korea that margin would be enough to bring that country to end it's nuclear program.
Donald Trump want s a win. Always has. The notion of "solution" to a problem is foreign to him. That's why he shoots his mouth off in every which way instead of seriously considering his options. Sadly, he is part of the problem, not the solution.
This really is a time when the adults around him need to step up and neutralize his instincts.
This really is a time when the adults around him need to step up and neutralize his instincts.
7
You are so right. All he wants is a win. We have an entire administration that is stuck in pre-school. I don't want to hear about the generals and how smart they are. The world is far more complicated than a simple win at all costs. Just like the Dreamer program tweet mess from last night. if he is a compassionate person then why doesn't he lead the way for a solution instead of this mixed messaging ?. The lack of adults at the White house with critical thinking skills is amazing. Every day another ridiculous a tweet is posted, that adds to another conflicting statements. Just for once, can the public get one clear message that makes sense. Instead of tune in for the next tweet. Get your hands dirty do real thinking work and please grow up. My goodness you had the best education money could buy, at 71 you know what needs to be done, your not a kid. .
1
Anthony, this is an example of an education not compensating for lack of judgement, integrity, character and mental stability.
Kim's development of nukes comes at the worst possible time. We have an imbecile in Washington and a weakling in Seoul, not to mention a military and civillian public exhausted by years of war abroad with questionable strategic value. All that said, I do not believe being bullied to the diplomatic table is in our national interest as it signals weakness to other rogue states and actors. There are a range of non-military and non-diplomatic options we could pursue. Increased pressure on China and Russia in the form of sanctions, increased propaganda aimed at undermining and delegitimizing the Kim regime, increased armaments for South Korea and Japan. Even supporting our two allies in the development of their own nukes is a possibility we shouldn't rule out.
We should also officially recognize North Korea for what it really is: a Chinese catspaw. To that end, we should make clear that our policy will be to consider any nuclear attack from North Korea to be a de facto nuclear attack from China.
We should also officially recognize North Korea for what it really is: a Chinese catspaw. To that end, we should make clear that our policy will be to consider any nuclear attack from North Korea to be a de facto nuclear attack from China.
It's a very bad time for the USA. Trump is making us look weak: we do nothing while NK arms with hydrogen bombs and ICBMs. Jong Un behaves as though Trump will take no action to deprive NK of its new weapons. He's right. And China could care less. I think China wants NK to have nukes. It preserves the Kim dynasty in NK, and prevents SK from rolling up to the Chinese border with a democratic pro-USA state. The take away for me is that China is no friend of the USA.
More negotiations and diplomacy is what NK would like to have, forever. They've done this for 20 years, in tandem with nuclear weapons development. My solution would be containment (as we did vs USSR), and permanent economic quarantine of NK.
More negotiations and diplomacy is what NK would like to have, forever. They've done this for 20 years, in tandem with nuclear weapons development. My solution would be containment (as we did vs USSR), and permanent economic quarantine of NK.
You mentioned Libya but the same applies to Iraq who did give up their nuclear weapons and explains why Iran was desperately struggling to obtain nuclear weapons. With the election of a weak and untrustworthy leader like Trump, one of the few rational decisions remaining is to accelerate your nuke program as North Korea has done. The North Korea leader may well be unstable but the same applies to Donald Trump.
3
The best way to tone down this crisis is to defuse the politicization of the matter, but this is just what really justify the U.S. presence in this quarrel as an alien party to an Asian issue. In fact it wouldn't be wrong to realize that the U.S. and the Kim family are the real source of the problem of the Koreas since the end of WWII because both are the personification of the politicization that aggravate the Korean issue concerning the unification.
A good solution, although unreal because the U.S. is not really interested ONLY in peace - its interest comprises peace PLUS the achievement of its political agenda for the region. Anyway a real peace for it should have:
1. the expelling of all US military presence from the Korea Peninsula.
2. China to topple Kim and find another "leader" for the country among some of its military officers.
3. to sign a definitive peace treaty formally ending the 1950-1953 Korean War including a recognition of its regime WITHOUT KIM.
That would be enough but due to the nasty role that for sure the U.S. would carry out aiming to destabilize the regime regardless being or not being in South Korea, unfortunately it'd be necessary to add two more items to the previous three:
4. to allow North Korea to possess nuclear arsenal - to defuse any U.S. attempt to try to destabilize the new regime. Qadaffi and Saddam are the living-proof of that,sorry for the pun
5. And to counterbalance the item 4, allow South Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal.
A good solution, although unreal because the U.S. is not really interested ONLY in peace - its interest comprises peace PLUS the achievement of its political agenda for the region. Anyway a real peace for it should have:
1. the expelling of all US military presence from the Korea Peninsula.
2. China to topple Kim and find another "leader" for the country among some of its military officers.
3. to sign a definitive peace treaty formally ending the 1950-1953 Korean War including a recognition of its regime WITHOUT KIM.
That would be enough but due to the nasty role that for sure the U.S. would carry out aiming to destabilize the regime regardless being or not being in South Korea, unfortunately it'd be necessary to add two more items to the previous three:
4. to allow North Korea to possess nuclear arsenal - to defuse any U.S. attempt to try to destabilize the new regime. Qadaffi and Saddam are the living-proof of that,sorry for the pun
5. And to counterbalance the item 4, allow South Korea to develop its own nuclear arsenal.
3
If Trump is such a great negotiator, why will he not negotiate with Kim? Nobody even knows what Kim wants. JFK said we should never fear to negotiate nor ever negotiate in fear. It sounds like Trump fails both sides of that idea. Kim knows that he has Trump's attention and has him in fear. Kim's not psychotic; he obviously does not want war with the US. He wants to maintain his despotic hold on his people, and he wants his people's respect. Poking his finger in the eye of the US earns him the respect of his people.
Trump wants to put Kim in fear, but these are hollow threats. Kim believes that Trump is not psychotic either. Trump wants to maintain his despotic hold on his base, and he believes that threatening Kim (as well as poking his finger in the eye of everyone who even mildly disagrees with Trump) maintains that hold. There is a lot in common between Kim and Trump. The problem Trump has is he is dealing with someone who is seemingly as irrational as himself, and he has no idea what to do.
The matter requires quiet diplomacy that is away from the TV cameras. Trump should appoint a veteran diplomat, who is respected by both political parties, to start a dialogue with North Korea. If Trump could be persuaded that doing so would make him look good and also avoid responsibility for failure of the negotiations, he just might do it.
Negotiations are not appeasement, and they may be difficult. But war is not the answer.
Trump wants to put Kim in fear, but these are hollow threats. Kim believes that Trump is not psychotic either. Trump wants to maintain his despotic hold on his base, and he believes that threatening Kim (as well as poking his finger in the eye of everyone who even mildly disagrees with Trump) maintains that hold. There is a lot in common between Kim and Trump. The problem Trump has is he is dealing with someone who is seemingly as irrational as himself, and he has no idea what to do.
The matter requires quiet diplomacy that is away from the TV cameras. Trump should appoint a veteran diplomat, who is respected by both political parties, to start a dialogue with North Korea. If Trump could be persuaded that doing so would make him look good and also avoid responsibility for failure of the negotiations, he just might do it.
Negotiations are not appeasement, and they may be difficult. But war is not the answer.
This is nicely written, but it is basically a recommendation to back down. Trump is, by contrast, taking a tougher stand. Sooner or later, it will pay off.
1
We are asking too much of our President. Shallow, uninformed, oblivious, and rather stupid is he. I'm not sure Putin did himself any favors by helping Trump win. The GOP's hypocrisy is on the stage now as never before. They can't control him. He will not deliver what they expected of him as far as legislation since he is so clueless about government.
So, how can we expect a strategy on NK to emerge from them? That requires a cohesive government that no longer has a functioning executive branch that is not so closely tied to a malfunctioning congress and a corrupt SCOTUS. We voters are responsible for this mess.
So, how can we expect a strategy on NK to emerge from them? That requires a cohesive government that no longer has a functioning executive branch that is not so closely tied to a malfunctioning congress and a corrupt SCOTUS. We voters are responsible for this mess.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - A. Einstein
It is beyond frightening to think that the only adults in the room are the three generals that we all hope can prevent the greatest deal maker and negotiator ever, from negotiating us into obliteration with a tweet. How did this happen? Where are the smart people?
It is beyond frightening to think that the only adults in the room are the three generals that we all hope can prevent the greatest deal maker and negotiator ever, from negotiating us into obliteration with a tweet. How did this happen? Where are the smart people?
This is a job for Superman...or an extremely competent Secretary of State. Unfortunately, neither one exists.
Incoherent is an appropriate adjective. Strategy is an overstatement of his skills. I am disappointed that potential nuclear destruction is being communicated via Twitter. I'm quite sure Social Media was not invented to replace diplomatic relations, with friendly and unfriendly nations. The great negotiator seems to be striking out on all fronts. Maybe he should try Facebook and send friend requests to Kim Jong Un. I mean "Friends don't let Friends Nuke Each Other" and Facebook makes it so easy to stay in touch!
Kim's goal is to fulfill his Grandfather's dream of uniting the Koreas under the Kim dynasty. His nuclear arsenal is intended both as a shield against U.S. retaliation as well as an instrument of blackmail against the international community, all in service to his ultimate goal. A quick North Korean strike could take Seoul and Inchon and his nuclear forces could then be used as threats to forestall U.S. aid to its South Korean allies. At that point, and only at that point, will Kim be ready for serious negotiations. Anything else is futile.
1
This is the most serious example of the danger we and the rest of the world face in having Trump as president. Trump has neither the knowledge nor the interest nor the attention span to deal with this crisis, leaving him to act on impulse. And the GOP in Congress don't care!
It's hard to say anything more on N. Korea because we have a President who is flying blind without the benefit of any advice from the Military, State Department, S. Korea, or the many experts who have devoted their lives to solving this problem. We could talk about how past administrations would do a strategic review with all the key players, and then make logical and informed adjustments to our policy in the region. But none of that is happening right now. Instead we have a President who behaves as if he were a right-wing radio talkshow host and in doing so is playing right into the hands of Kim Jong Un and his propaganda ministry.
I would expect Mr. Kim to use Trump's rhetoric as justification to legitimize his regime and nuclear development, and he is more likely to find sympathetic help from Russia, China, Iran, etc. If he's smart, he may even see a President who is out of sync with his own government and will use that opportunity to further advance N. Korea's strategic priorities.
But none of this really matters because we have a President who doesn't care about anything but his own ratings on TV. If we get into a war, this might be the first time since the 19th century that a country went to war because the ruler or king was personally offended. I just hope those around the President care more about the country than TV ratings and will be in a position to prevent a catastrophy from occuring.
I would expect Mr. Kim to use Trump's rhetoric as justification to legitimize his regime and nuclear development, and he is more likely to find sympathetic help from Russia, China, Iran, etc. If he's smart, he may even see a President who is out of sync with his own government and will use that opportunity to further advance N. Korea's strategic priorities.
But none of this really matters because we have a President who doesn't care about anything but his own ratings on TV. If we get into a war, this might be the first time since the 19th century that a country went to war because the ruler or king was personally offended. I just hope those around the President care more about the country than TV ratings and will be in a position to prevent a catastrophy from occuring.
It doesn't help that the U.S. administration is hopelessly incompetent, seemingly unable to even craft a coherent message let alone forming a policy.
It all starts at the top with Trump not even able to offer a believeable 'madman theory' like Ike and Nixon both used at times during their tenures.
It all starts at the top with Trump not even able to offer a believeable 'madman theory' like Ike and Nixon both used at times during their tenures.
Assuming that Mr. Kim is coherent we should understand that his weapons program is intended to help him survive. By developeing his nuclear weapons he wants to benefit from the protections available through the assured mutual destruction principle. Thusly larger countries that he feels might want to attack NC would be deterred fearing their own destruction as well. Mr. Trumps plan to intimidate by threats of destruction or strangulation is only increasing Mr. Kim's certainty that his paranoia is correct and that his weapons program is indeed his only hope. Mr. Trump must abandon threats of and consideration of a "military option" since it would surely lead to world chaos.
This morning I read this title, "Moon Seeks Putin's Help, Warns of Uncontrollable North Korea," and came to the depressing realization that Trump's mission to destroy the US and its standing in the world is nearly complete. Ever the eternal optimist, it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to hold out hope for our beloved country.
Trump and Kim are very much alike, both ego maniac demagogues.
You are in the right direction on the policy to de fang Kim.
The carrot and stick approach with China. They can immediately force No. Korea to do anything they want. Without China, No Korea and Kim would collapse.
The stick first. Tell China unless they force No Korea to de nuke, America will dramatically increase their military presence in the area and dramatically increased military aid to So. Korea and Japan up to and including giving them/helping them develop nuclear weapons if they want.
The carrot too must go along with it. If China does this, America will dramatically reduce their military presence in the area.
You are in the right direction on the policy to de fang Kim.
The carrot and stick approach with China. They can immediately force No. Korea to do anything they want. Without China, No Korea and Kim would collapse.
The stick first. Tell China unless they force No Korea to de nuke, America will dramatically increase their military presence in the area and dramatically increased military aid to So. Korea and Japan up to and including giving them/helping them develop nuclear weapons if they want.
The carrot too must go along with it. If China does this, America will dramatically reduce their military presence in the area.
1
In other words...you underestimate the Chinese cleverness...first increase the troops and later decease the troops. Chinese do know math ;)
1
Thank you for your reply Little Panda....yes...if they give in to what we want, a de nuke no Korea, then we reduce our military presence.
It is not rocket science. History has taught us, it is the best way to deal with somebody like Kim.
It is not rocket science. History has taught us, it is the best way to deal with somebody like Kim.
1
The U.S. currently has the incoherent policy of threatening with a big stick - over and over and over again. Are they so stupid as to not realize that a carrot dangling from the end of that stick would likely have a more desirable result? Or are they too pigheaded and proud to admit their policy is unsound, of not dangerous?
My understanding is that North Koreans are in need of decent food. The "carrot" could be literal. And even if it does serve their dictator for political means, at least the people of that country could get a decent meal once in a while.
My understanding is that North Koreans are in need of decent food. The "carrot" could be literal. And even if it does serve their dictator for political means, at least the people of that country could get a decent meal once in a while.
Now there's an oxymoron for you: an incoherent strategy. A strategy, by definition, requires well thought out plans, a carefully considered rationale and plan. Trump merely reacts, like a flatworm in a petri dish moving away from light.
Confrontation, threats and taunts, can't solve any problem in international relations, much less a very serious matter of life and death of a paranoid regime.
Still, this Editorial is unrealistic about the alternatives. It suggests, "A deal in which Pyongyang would freeze its nuclear and missile tests in exchange for some American concessions, like a reduction in military exercises."
That is wishful thinking. Everything from them for so little from us is just not going to happen.
The North sees this as life and death, confronted by an aggressive US set on regime change. That may not be true, but it is not unreasonable either. It is after all the editorial position of serious people like the WSJ, who support this Administration.
Any deal will need to deal with the real problem as seen from the North. Trump's rhetoric is making that harder, and raising the price instead of making a deal more possible.
It is past time to talk with South Korea about the offers that might work. They have been realistic about that, in their own internal discussions.
We also need to talk with China about its needs in this, which includes assurance about its own Yalu border and about refugee flows. We must acknowledge that we have caused massive refugee flows in several places quite recently. We did make an attempt on the Chinese Yalu border that did lead to open war once before, when MacArthur went to the Yalu before Chinese intervention in the Korean War. Our actions now have consequences.
Still, this Editorial is unrealistic about the alternatives. It suggests, "A deal in which Pyongyang would freeze its nuclear and missile tests in exchange for some American concessions, like a reduction in military exercises."
That is wishful thinking. Everything from them for so little from us is just not going to happen.
The North sees this as life and death, confronted by an aggressive US set on regime change. That may not be true, but it is not unreasonable either. It is after all the editorial position of serious people like the WSJ, who support this Administration.
Any deal will need to deal with the real problem as seen from the North. Trump's rhetoric is making that harder, and raising the price instead of making a deal more possible.
It is past time to talk with South Korea about the offers that might work. They have been realistic about that, in their own internal discussions.
We also need to talk with China about its needs in this, which includes assurance about its own Yalu border and about refugee flows. We must acknowledge that we have caused massive refugee flows in several places quite recently. We did make an attempt on the Chinese Yalu border that did lead to open war once before, when MacArthur went to the Yalu before Chinese intervention in the Korean War. Our actions now have consequences.
2
I disagree.
Clearly, President Trump's strategy dealing with North Korea and its nuclear threat is a form of brinkmanship that hasn't been popular in American foreign policy since JFK stared down Nikita Khrushchev in the Missiles of October. But the other side of that argument is that nobody had any business voting for Trump if he didn't accept that Trump was pretty good at brinkmanship -- likely a Texas ton better than a young JFK with little related experience. Trump took his business dealings to the brink every day over a long life, and usually won.
What's more, the true threat with North Korea doesn't come within galaxies of what existed in October of 1962. Then, Russia had in Cuber what we claimed were operational nuclear missiles just off our Florida coast: today, we have Kim testing one-offs, half a world away, and those one-offs represent new and unproven technology to them.
Not even China apparently understands what Kim is really after with this very dangerous (almost entirely to North Korea) game. In the absence of clear motivations, what Trump is doing isn't a bad response: keep the pressure up, make it clear that we're not in a dealing mood, and see what emerges as those motivations.
Once a clear understanding develops of what Kim wants, Trump can sit back and determine if we (and the world) benefit more by giving it to him or by aiming a few dozen of our OWN ICBMs at Kim's elegant coif.
It doesn't appear "incoherent" at all.
Clearly, President Trump's strategy dealing with North Korea and its nuclear threat is a form of brinkmanship that hasn't been popular in American foreign policy since JFK stared down Nikita Khrushchev in the Missiles of October. But the other side of that argument is that nobody had any business voting for Trump if he didn't accept that Trump was pretty good at brinkmanship -- likely a Texas ton better than a young JFK with little related experience. Trump took his business dealings to the brink every day over a long life, and usually won.
What's more, the true threat with North Korea doesn't come within galaxies of what existed in October of 1962. Then, Russia had in Cuber what we claimed were operational nuclear missiles just off our Florida coast: today, we have Kim testing one-offs, half a world away, and those one-offs represent new and unproven technology to them.
Not even China apparently understands what Kim is really after with this very dangerous (almost entirely to North Korea) game. In the absence of clear motivations, what Trump is doing isn't a bad response: keep the pressure up, make it clear that we're not in a dealing mood, and see what emerges as those motivations.
Once a clear understanding develops of what Kim wants, Trump can sit back and determine if we (and the world) benefit more by giving it to him or by aiming a few dozen of our OWN ICBMs at Kim's elegant coif.
It doesn't appear "incoherent" at all.
2
This is one issue where Trump's approach is interesting precisely because NOTHING has worked for 60+ years.
1
When brinkmanship fails in the world of real estate, you declare bankruptcy, don't pay your workers and let your lawyers deal with the fallout. That won't work here, so I'm don't think the comparison is valid.
1
Bullies ultimately loose. Your approach and that of Trump risk the lives of thousands in the East, not Americans, except the sons and daughters of the middle class who will finally needed to put closure on another N Korean war.
The Trump Administration not only does not speak with one voice but also it has no coherent strategy or policy on any subject--foreign or domestic. America, this is what we elected in November 2016 with the help of non-voters, 3rd party voters, a complicit media and some help from Russia. Armed conflict may end up the outcome here. It's hard to tell. Those of us on the sidelines just will have to wait and see. We are learning that elections certainly do have consequences--and these consequences may be dire indeed.
3
One important reason for the incoherent strategy is the Trump administration's failure to fill key Asia policy positions. There is no appointed assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, no assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs and no ambassadors appointed by Trump to Asia. This means that strategy and policy are being formulated by officials who have no deep Asia experience.
Donald Trump assured voters that he would appoint the "best people to my administration." He has resolutely refused to do so, and the consequences in this case couldn't be more potentially dire.
Donald Trump assured voters that he would appoint the "best people to my administration." He has resolutely refused to do so, and the consequences in this case couldn't be more potentially dire.
13
Assuming Pres. Trump decides to "fill key Asia policy positions," i.e. the dispute between Tillerson and some White House staffers gets resolved, it's not a sure bet that the appointees would contribute usefully to policy-making. It could be they'd be hawks of the fiercest nature, not strategic thinkers.
@David Huddleson: Nothing is a sure bet. But the chances of devising a successful approach to policy-making increase if those involved know what they're talking about, have firm and long-standing relationships in the region, and have an understanding of its history. Dismissing highly relevant experience as irrelevant makes no sense to me.
I agree with you that a successful strategy would be more likely if "key Asia policy positions" are filled with people who know what they're talking about. But there's a real possibility that people named to those positions might not know what they're talking about, depending upon who gets to name them, and whether the Senate would confirm them.
Since the end of the Vietnam war in 1975 American foreign policy has vacillated between the accommodationist wing of the State Department and Wall Streets liberal elites and the military hawks and their neocon allies.
President Carter negotiates a freeze with North Korea, only to have it undone under Reagan. Clinton achieves a similar deal only to have President Bush put North Korea on its hit list. Along the way US military power and presence has vastly increased and we have effectively destroyed several countries.
For reasons that can only be explained as extreme arrogance the neocons assumed that North Korea would simply surrender. Instead they doubled down on their nuclear arsenal and we now have a situation where even a massive surgical strike against the North might still leave at least one nuclear armed missile available for a retaliatory strike.
Soul might be a prime target, but so would Tokyo. Deaths from even one missile would easily be in the hundreds of thousands, if not over a million.
Against this backdrop the Trump administration still seems to be following the neocon playbook and wrongfully assumes that North Korea will acquiesce to some set of American demands.
The only rational way forward at this point is a series of negotiations. The Chinese/Russian freeze-freeze option should be on the table, as should ending the armistice with a peace treaty. Beyond that we should explore, because short of a nuclear disaster that is our only option.
President Carter negotiates a freeze with North Korea, only to have it undone under Reagan. Clinton achieves a similar deal only to have President Bush put North Korea on its hit list. Along the way US military power and presence has vastly increased and we have effectively destroyed several countries.
For reasons that can only be explained as extreme arrogance the neocons assumed that North Korea would simply surrender. Instead they doubled down on their nuclear arsenal and we now have a situation where even a massive surgical strike against the North might still leave at least one nuclear armed missile available for a retaliatory strike.
Soul might be a prime target, but so would Tokyo. Deaths from even one missile would easily be in the hundreds of thousands, if not over a million.
Against this backdrop the Trump administration still seems to be following the neocon playbook and wrongfully assumes that North Korea will acquiesce to some set of American demands.
The only rational way forward at this point is a series of negotiations. The Chinese/Russian freeze-freeze option should be on the table, as should ending the armistice with a peace treaty. Beyond that we should explore, because short of a nuclear disaster that is our only option.
26
Let's consider the North Korean threats from the perspective of South Korea and President Moon Jae-in. Their objectives must be to preserve their national integrity and avoid a disastrous military attack. Most Americans seem to assume that the South Koreans have no choice but to rely primarily on American military power to attain those objectives. From the South Korean perspective, however, there is every reason to believe that relying on American support is neither realistic nor safe. Especially with the Trump team in office, American rhetoric and policy raises the risks facing South Korea, but offers no certain security. Does anyone believe that Trump would accept an existential risk to American lives and treasure to save the South Koreans from harm? By contrast, China has proven itself to be an important and reliable trading partner to South Korea and -- should it choose to do so -- China could have real influence on the DPRK. By switching its primary alignment from America to China, South Korea could start to defuse the old cold war hostilities. To be taken seriously, this new strategy might require South Korea to eject the American military bases and reduce American influence on its own foreign policy stance. By cultivating a stronger economic and political relationship with China, however, South Korea could convince China that it need not continue its support for North Korea as a bulwark against American hegemony in its own neighborhood.
20
In the face of the gravest international emergency since the Cuban missile crisis, the President should be able to turn to the State Department and order them to explore every possible way to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, Trump has weakened the very institution which, under normal circumstances, could prove to be the best hope for finding a peaceful solution. By appointing an inexperienced businessman like Tillerson to be Secretary of State, he has given authority to someone who is hardly prepared to deal with this crisis. And he has compounded this error by reducing the ranks in the State Department, leaving it woefully understaffed at a time when diplomatic experience is desperately needed. Trump has always valued his own instincts over the considered judgements of experts so maybe having a strong State Department led by a competent Secretary of State wouldn´t matter to him. But as his reckless diplomacy of tweets makes clear, it does matter to the rest of the world.
57
Powerful economic ties between China and the United States. South Korean economy strong and vibrant. Seems to me there may be another path here. Wouldn't it be in China's economic interests to lead an initiative to depose Kim, offer economic assistance to establish a united Korean peninsula? Truly let their economy stand on it's own and be the real power in the east that they want it to be? This would illustrate to the world that China has the ability and temperament to be a world leader. China could be the real, lasting, answer to our prayers. But only if they have the courage to blaze a new, revolutionary, path.
7
China has become wildly successful in peaceful persuits promoting productivity and trade. Outside its borders China has built roads, rail lines, improved ports, and invested. China's people have toilets. China would not benefit from higher energy prices or from a weaker world market economy. Moscow's leaders might. Around the world Kalashnikovs in the hands of men with neither toilets nor shoes is a mark they have made. Negotiate with Moscow. Bring them in from the cold. Otherwise we may trade each other off the chessboard and some pawns will persist in pointless primitivity.
:..it fears it could set off a collapse of the Kim regime, a flood of refugees into China and the reunification of the Korean Peninsula under South Korea." I hope the Chinese come to realize, soon, that the above is a lot better than a nuclear war at their doorsteps.
7
Your president shows that he does not have a grasp on reality. Kim has trump so rattled that Donnie doesn't realize that his "john Wayne' bluster has half the world shaking in our boots as he yells 'fire and fury.
15
Our strategy is incoherent because our President is incoherent. Mr. Trump has drawn red lines, and shouted threats for weeks, changing our positions and ranting against our allies. Mr. Trump is leading us into a pointless war.
36
The element of surprise is a time-honored way to use resources to maximum efficiency and to keep the other side off balance. Why would we want to reveal our North Korea strategy to the world?
1
To prove that the US has one. Because it is becoming clearer by the day that, as is the case with so many areas now that Trump is POTUS, there is no strategy. Just petulent and vain Twitter outbursts.
The first rule in war or poker is not to show your hand. In this way, the USA will outsmart the North Korean dangerous nuclear adventures.
1
President Trump's incoherent and bellicose statements, if anything, would seem to validate the DPRK's nuclear program. Trump may be playing the madman-with-overwhelming-military-superiority role, but it is clearly backfiring and may well combine with Pyongyang paranoia in a nuclear conflagration. Kim's goal of de-coupling the US from South Korea has been aided immensely by Trump foolishly ill informed belligerence.
I believe America and the world can survive the Trump Presidency through any other issue, but this could be apocalyptic.
I believe America and the world can survive the Trump Presidency through any other issue, but this could be apocalyptic.
6
Has anyone else figured out that Trump likes to talk about working hard all the time, but he does very little real work of any kind. He can't engage in sustained negotiations, despite his claims about prowess as a negotiator. Maybe twenty years ago he could, although I doubt it, but certainly not now. Can he focus on anything for longer than one minute? Doubtful. What he did here is what he is capable of doing. Shoot off his big mouth, make a bunch of threats and insults to others, deflect and redirect the blame for whatever it is onto anybody but him. That seems to be his last remaining`talent' if you can call it that. The old blow hard is pretty much spent.
53
The amount of world trade for NK's 25M people is only $3B a year, less than a day of revenue for large companies. That did not stop Kim, and more sanctions, even down to zero, is unlikely to change his mind. Face it, the China card had already been played. China does not want a nuclearized Korean neighbor and they did vote for the UN sanctions. Trade is way down, but it didnt work as intended. On the contrary, NK is speeding up their bomb testing.
No one knows the solution, least of all Trump, but anything is better than an all out nuclear war with no winners.
No one knows the solution, least of all Trump, but anything is better than an all out nuclear war with no winners.
6
Another self-serving article with a shallow perspective on on the state of affairs existing between the US and North Korea over the past three president’s diplomatic policy. Compared to the past president's "Strategic Do Nothing" policy it looks like President Trump is at least addressing the issues. The long standing dissatisfaction with the Trump Presidency is mollified by the editorial boards manipulation of an unfavorable perspective of diplomatic policy.
3
Past presidents have dealt with NK but in a quiet, more nuanced way than the present occupant of the WH. Trump is loud and bullying but has done nothing. He was advised of the situation by President Obama. Rather than tweeting he should be getting schooled in the art of diplomacy. Unfortunately, he would rather talk loudly and brandish a little stick.
1
Any yet, it does seem to be an incoherent policy when Trump blusters. You do not need an editorial page to see that Trump is fanning fires rather than trying to put them out.
Yes, and that "quiet, nuanced strategy" has given NK all the nukes it wants. That's a solution? Insane.
1
" The latest was to pick a fight with South Korea"
Driving South Korea into China's arms, at this critical time, must rank as one of the most counter productive bone-headed moves of all time. Trumps legacy will rank alongside those in history who have absolutely no statues of themselves, any where in the world.
Trump family, Amercans, please intervene.
Start drinking some sanity tea.
Driving South Korea into China's arms, at this critical time, must rank as one of the most counter productive bone-headed moves of all time. Trumps legacy will rank alongside those in history who have absolutely no statues of themselves, any where in the world.
Trump family, Amercans, please intervene.
Start drinking some sanity tea.
9
Strategy? There's no strategy in this administration. Just incoherence.
15
I have to assume the Chinese have nurtured relationships with Un's Generals. I do not see why a deal is not cut between the US and China. China stages a coup and deposes Un (the Generals get to live as an incentive). China gets NK. Period. No re-unification. Forever. In return, NK goes no nuke. Forever. US gets bases in SK. Forever. Also, China agrees to open-ish borders with SK (not talking Hong Kong, but a good bone to throw to SK and the West). China would push for an extra, such as recognition of their lillypads in the S. China Sea, but can't imagine that'd be a deal breaker for them. Would the Russians be ok with this? Nope. But, we back off of Crimea. What an awful deal, What an awful world. Just better than obliterating hundreds of thousands of lives.
1
Why should Trump's strategy in North Korea be any more coherent than his strategy-- or lack thereof-- in dealing with anything else? We have a president who doesn't read, has no public experience in any field, and has no interest in anything besides himself, surrounded by what is now left of a cabinet that was only hired for the purpose of privatization and profit for a few. Kim Jong-un hasn't clearly revealed his motivations. However, it is clear that he has been waiting for an opportunity that includes weak and incompetent leadership in the US to make his move. Now, here we are...
30
The country that needs a new policy re both the US and North Korea is South Korea. They need to add a credible nuclear missile deterrent of their own and to stop depending on the US. They also may have to abandon ambitions to unify Korea.
1
The New York Times Editorial Board supported both previous agreements to limit NK's nuclear bomb development. They even supported the second after the first failed. So, on what basis is the board preaching now? Shall the Trump administration redo this over again?
There may be, unfortunately, no way to contain a madman other than through his (and his regimes) elimination. To accomplish this, the Trump administration needs to work with China to insure its support and reassure China of our intentions.
There may be, unfortunately, no way to contain a madman other than through his (and his regimes) elimination. To accomplish this, the Trump administration needs to work with China to insure its support and reassure China of our intentions.
6
INCOHERENT Is Trump's middle name. His entire presidency has been inchoate, chaotic, incoherent, unreasoned and demented. Where North Korea is concerned, I see the objective as being the least worst of the worst. In Kim Jung Un, we have an infantile, impulsive, irrational and reckless person who is bent upon bringing the world around to submit to his dictates. In Trump we have an infantile, impulsive, irrational and reckless person who is bent upon bringing the world around to submit to his dictates. Except that Kim Jung Un's hair is more manageable, though his coif is more manageable than Trump's. Trump, for a billionaire who'd like to think that he can buy anything he wants, his purchasing power has brought him more varieties of bad hair than for any other world leader. Macron may well have the highest cosmetics bill gets a bigger bang for his euro,. He comes out looking far better than Trump. Meanwhile, if I didn't know better, I'd rename the bad hair guys as the Trumpenstein Sr. and Trumpenstein Jr. Monster Twins.
Mr. Trump has managed to alienate essentially every US-allied country in the world. And in only a few months. Exhausting!
But now the chest pounding, crotch grabbing, swagger talking ego stroker finds himself backed into a corner with nowhere to turn. All the world will see (again) that Trump's words are hollow; his threats empty and the US off in the weeds.
But now the chest pounding, crotch grabbing, swagger talking ego stroker finds himself backed into a corner with nowhere to turn. All the world will see (again) that Trump's words are hollow; his threats empty and the US off in the weeds.
2
I think we now understand our diplomatic argument for getting China to compel North Korea to back down, courtesy of Dirty Harry confronting a bank robber who is deciding whether to reach for a shotgun when faced by the business end of a very large handgun: In the movie Clint Eastwood snarls:
"'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?'"
Our diplomacy is now dependent on China believing that our country's leader is crazier than their puppet state's. Spoiler alert - At the end of the scene, Harry's threat (and his gun) were empty. It might work, but I suspect China may have seen the movie.
"'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?'"
Our diplomacy is now dependent on China believing that our country's leader is crazier than their puppet state's. Spoiler alert - At the end of the scene, Harry's threat (and his gun) were empty. It might work, but I suspect China may have seen the movie.
I would be the last person to suggest that the President is coherent of fit for office, nevertheless, it is worth observing that decades of "coherent" policies ranging from what is appropriately called "appeasement" to "strategic patience" has not stopped this determined and dangerous enemy from moving the ball forward. I suggest that clear headed thinkers from Clausewitz to Kissinger would agree that some ambiguity on our part might law a foundation for resolution of this difficult problem.
2
Maybe Trump has not accomplished anything regarding NK, but that does not distinguish him from any other President. He's trying a new approach, Crazy Ivan, might work. However, lack of result is nothing new in NK. Trump does seem to have engaged China a bit more in the process than prior Presidents.
3
I spent years trying to write the great American novel. Now I'm going for a new approach -- pound on the keyboard like a chimpanzee. Might work. At least I am more fully engaged in the process than ever before!
1
This editorial begins with stating that "The North Korean nuclear threat is worsening by the day". And what this editorial still refers to as a threat, is the "possibility" of North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
However any sensible person will have concluded by now that North Korea seeing its nuclear program through to its end, which entails nothing more at this stage than some finishing touches, is a foregone reality and has far passed the stage where it can be referred to as a "threat".
Therefore its recommendation to Trump, that he would be "better advised" to try to reach "a more peaceful solution" and to get the North to freeze its nuclear and missile tests at this late stage when the development of its nuclear weapons has been almost fully achieved in exchange for a concession of something as temporary and worthless as a reduction in military exercises (not even a pause) is ridiculous on its face.
And the fact is that even the Trump administration understands that at this stage a nuclear North Korea is a done deal. This is why even they are not talking of getting the North to freeze its tests. What they are doing by threatening the North over their use of any sort force is to establish early on that North Korea's position as a weak military power will not change an iota just because they have nuclear weapons.
However any sensible person will have concluded by now that North Korea seeing its nuclear program through to its end, which entails nothing more at this stage than some finishing touches, is a foregone reality and has far passed the stage where it can be referred to as a "threat".
Therefore its recommendation to Trump, that he would be "better advised" to try to reach "a more peaceful solution" and to get the North to freeze its nuclear and missile tests at this late stage when the development of its nuclear weapons has been almost fully achieved in exchange for a concession of something as temporary and worthless as a reduction in military exercises (not even a pause) is ridiculous on its face.
And the fact is that even the Trump administration understands that at this stage a nuclear North Korea is a done deal. This is why even they are not talking of getting the North to freeze its tests. What they are doing by threatening the North over their use of any sort force is to establish early on that North Korea's position as a weak military power will not change an iota just because they have nuclear weapons.
2
Sometimes failure or at least adversity can be a hard teacher, if the student is willing to learn. Hilary Clinton made her share of mistakes as a Senator in voting for war against Iraq and in the messy removal and killing of Qaddafi. These were hard lessons in the art of power and diplomacy. One thing we know is that Secretary Clinton is a diligent student.
Imagine if she were president instead of an emotionally fraught and fragile man who transmits confusing signals. Imagine her cool calculation in this situation. Imagine. If only.
Imagine if she were president instead of an emotionally fraught and fragile man who transmits confusing signals. Imagine her cool calculation in this situation. Imagine. If only.
2
Donald J Chaos is so in over his head right now. Mr. Kim is playing Trump for a fool. He is playing a strategic game while Trump is not. Foreign policy is always strategic and we need cool-headed experienced hands in the game. Too bad Trump has not filled important positions in the State department for helping with this problem. So much for the smaller government is better approach.
It is important for the US to take a measured approach to an impulsive dictator like Kim. We have overwhelming military power. We should not be rising to the bait Kim is continually throwing our way. We do not need to engage in this game of schoolyard bullyism.
It is important for the US to take a measured approach to an impulsive dictator like Kim. We have overwhelming military power. We should not be rising to the bait Kim is continually throwing our way. We do not need to engage in this game of schoolyard bullyism.
1
Apparently Kim played a better "strategic game" than Clinton, Bush, and Obama and the toothless UN, as well, or he wouldn't have the current weaponry he now has. So much for the "measured approach".
1
So, why are we not hearing more about America developing an anti ICBM system? If we had it- the threat to America would be minimal. If America develops it, Russia and China won't appreciate it- which is why America should say it's going to develop it ASAP unless they help defuse the current problem. Of course it may be a difficult challenge to develop such a system- but if we could go to the moon almost 40 years ago, it should be possible.
1
Nikki Haley is wrong. Vladimir Putin is right. Gulp! Kim isn't "begging for war," he's insuring the security of his country. As Putin stated, North Koreans will "eat grass" before Kim will turn away from the path that will provide for his security. And Kim regards nuclear weapons his only guarantee of survival in the face of what he perceives as American hostility.
Also, while Kim might be a megalomaniac, he's also human. And when any human, especially a paranoid one, feels threatened, they go into survival mode. That means fight or flight. Kim's fighting back.
In addition, It's important to keep in mind that one's psychology, even Kim's. is the basis for one's behavior. And when an insecure autocrat like Kim is in survival mode the last thing they need to hear from the superpower they most fear, is threats of "fire and fury." That's only made Kim ramp up his efforts at being able to defend himself. He's on a roll that nothing will stop, except war. And that would be too catastrophic to contemplate.
Thus, in my view, once Kim feels he and his country are safe and can protect itself, he will be more amenable to discussions regarding containment. I truly believe, that's all we can reasonably expect.
Also, Kim's not suicidal. He loves power too much for that. And he certainly isn't a martyr. Thus, he's smart enough to know that his country would be annihilated if he should use any weapons he already has or will ever get. And that's the greatest deterrent.
Also, while Kim might be a megalomaniac, he's also human. And when any human, especially a paranoid one, feels threatened, they go into survival mode. That means fight or flight. Kim's fighting back.
In addition, It's important to keep in mind that one's psychology, even Kim's. is the basis for one's behavior. And when an insecure autocrat like Kim is in survival mode the last thing they need to hear from the superpower they most fear, is threats of "fire and fury." That's only made Kim ramp up his efforts at being able to defend himself. He's on a roll that nothing will stop, except war. And that would be too catastrophic to contemplate.
Thus, in my view, once Kim feels he and his country are safe and can protect itself, he will be more amenable to discussions regarding containment. I truly believe, that's all we can reasonably expect.
Also, Kim's not suicidal. He loves power too much for that. And he certainly isn't a martyr. Thus, he's smart enough to know that his country would be annihilated if he should use any weapons he already has or will ever get. And that's the greatest deterrent.
100
Un will eventually go the way of all cowards.
I'm sure the same argument was made with Hitler annexing the Sudetenland - he just wanted that buffer to make Germany feel safe, don't you know. "Mr. Hitler", to use Chamberlain's appellation, wasn't a threat either. Well we know how that worked out, no?
I believe that Hitler wanted to rule the world. Kim, on the other hand, I truly believe want's to "safely" rule his own country. He believes he's under constant threat unless he can protect his country in the same way that those numerous countries, including us, do with far reaching nuclear weapons. Would any one of those countries freely become denuclearized? Why not?
1
Under four presidents, we've offered a plethora of carrot and sticks, yet, the nuclear threat has grown unabated to become an existential threat to the U.S. You now meekly proffer that we renew our diplomatic efforts by offering to reduce military exercises. Seriously? Looking back at the last twenty-five years of failed approaches, you believe that'll turn the tide and have North Korea abandon their arms program? From a North Korean perspective, does it make any sense to arrest the program that got you exactly what you were targeting or would it be more likely that you double down on it and see what else it could bring?
14
Exactly we should have destroyed North Korea long ago, while telling China they can have their buffer that they desire.
Any new samctions Trump has recently put in place will take time to show any effects. It's the right strategy. Make China do the heavy lifting.
Let's give our president his due. Most likely, he's been proceeding from the premise that Mr. Kim is, like himself, a blustering threat-monger. The monstrous fly in that ointment is that Mr. Kim doesn't fear annihilation. The prospect of a nuclear and/or massive conventional exchange of obliterating firepower might actually feed and embolden the North Korean child-king's ego and megalomania.
Rattling China's cage is likewise a highly dubious proposition. Extortionate economic threats to one of our top trading partners and the holder of over twenty percent of long-term U.S. Treasury debt are, if not empty, ludicrous and potentially self-defeating.
Taunter beware.
Rattling China's cage is likewise a highly dubious proposition. Extortionate economic threats to one of our top trading partners and the holder of over twenty percent of long-term U.S. Treasury debt are, if not empty, ludicrous and potentially self-defeating.
Taunter beware.
Donald Trump has difficulty maintaining a coherent, consistent thought process on the simplest of issues. In a complicated, dangerous international confrontation, Trump is completely inadequate – both intellectually and emotionally.
As erratic and emotional as Kim Jong-un seems to be, Donald Trump makes him look like the adult in the standoff.
It is typical of what we have become accustomed to in just nine months of President Trump.
We do not expect intelligent leadership from Trump. We’ll settle for his not making the situation worse.
As erratic and emotional as Kim Jong-un seems to be, Donald Trump makes him look like the adult in the standoff.
It is typical of what we have become accustomed to in just nine months of President Trump.
We do not expect intelligent leadership from Trump. We’ll settle for his not making the situation worse.
100
No need for 700 words to recite what we know. Only constructive thing you wrote is "work with China on a diplomatic initiative that could include the threat of tougher sanctions but would offer the North a deal" Come on!!
Threatening to end US trade with China!
More proof (if any were needed) that Trump speaks without even thinking about what he's saying. How could such a threat, which would be tantamount to economic suicide on the part of the US, possibly be the least bit credible? How could Trump not realize this? What a buffoon.
More proof (if any were needed) that Trump speaks without even thinking about what he's saying. How could such a threat, which would be tantamount to economic suicide on the part of the US, possibly be the least bit credible? How could Trump not realize this? What a buffoon.
6
No foreign leader will give in to economic sanctions. And they have good reasons: sanctions are a form of blackmail and we all know that if you give in to blackmail you can expect more of the same. Just look at all those US politicians who ask for more sanctions claiming proof that they work and you understand the picture.
The only sensible strategy on North Korea is treating it like a normal country and waiting until it starts behaving like that. Unfortunately all those politicians in the US who want to profile themselves as bullies don't care.
The only sensible strategy on North Korea is treating it like a normal country and waiting until it starts behaving like that. Unfortunately all those politicians in the US who want to profile themselves as bullies don't care.
Hilarious - NK is not treated as "normal country" for the simple reason that it is now. It is a wretchedly brutal dictatorship. Pretending that just leaving them alone and honoring them as "normal" will not work. And what is your suggestion if Kim and NK does NOT "start[s] behaving like that"? Hand wringing and "oh, well"?
1
Trump runs his world by making threats when he doesn't get his way. He seems to expect China to solve this issue with the flick of the wrist while he wants South Korea to talk tough. I do not believe he realizes that at this point the world knows he is a windbag.
5
That Trump is doing little to nothing to solve this seemingly intractable problem is self-evident. However, no diplomatic path has a chance of succeeding if it does not include a very credible military alternative. And yet, even that may not be enough: contrary to the notion voiced in the article, Kim may indeed prefer national suicide to any loss of power. What little has leaked out of North Korea hints at such. Lest we forget, there were those in the Japanese government in 1945 who preferred the country to "burn like a[n expiring] chrysanthemum" rather than surrender.
Since South Korea does twice as much trade with China than the USA possibly they might consider looking in that direction for their new patron.
What strategy have any of his predecessors had?
3
Blocking Oil and tougher sanction could still be counter productive. If Kim is pushed to wall, that young hot blood of 32, may take it as announcement of war and situation can be still worse, he could sell his portable hydrogen bomb to terrorist or hostile countries as reaction or initiate unimaginable activities.
So If we are talking about the peace, lets be honest on it.
The time of showing economic concession or lolly pop is gone. Even reducing military exercises may not be very effective. That could only be the starting point to bring them to the table of talk.
The best way is too risky ( strategic attack) , but is it worthy now?
Or blocking trade deal even with China that could hurt US economy severely, but it can put immense pressure on China to resolve the situation.
So If we are talking about the peace, lets be honest on it.
The time of showing economic concession or lolly pop is gone. Even reducing military exercises may not be very effective. That could only be the starting point to bring them to the table of talk.
The best way is too risky ( strategic attack) , but is it worthy now?
Or blocking trade deal even with China that could hurt US economy severely, but it can put immense pressure on China to resolve the situation.
A nuclear power run by a seemingly deranged autocratic ego maniacal narcissist with little grasp of the world and no regard for anything or anyone other them himself? Sure sounds a lot like Donald Trump.
2
Or Pakistan and Russia!
I'll comment on the incoherency of T's North Korea "strategy" by offering the example of quickly recapping his DACA "strategy." While campaigning he opposed and vowed to end it in full. Until fairly recently he ignored it in favor of other promises he disappointed his base in failing to fulfill. He returned hard-line to DACA - atop his "pardon" of Arpaio - to compensate. Among other mendacious claims in his rationale, cited DACA for waves of young illegal gang members entering the US - at the same time he pronounced his "love" for DACA kids. Then he typically dangled the prospect of eliminating the program like a reality show teaser. Finally he announced its end while stating actions would be postponed for six months allowing Congress to attend to it. And today, amid mass criticism from all quarters, he said that if Congress failed to take the issue
up, he would "revisit" it himself. The man is a walking, blurting, tweeting, pontificating, disaster.
up, he would "revisit" it himself. The man is a walking, blurting, tweeting, pontificating, disaster.
3
Why would any country in North Korea's position negotiate with the US. Not only did the agreement that Clinton negotiated collapse under the Bush administration but now there's noise that the agreement with Iran made in good faith during the Obama administration might be allowed to collapse under Trump. We're not exactly trustworthy.
Kim Jong-Un wants to remain in power. He wants to be able to run his country the way he wants. He also wants international recognition so his country can trade and become wealthy. This is a man who was educated outside his country and he knows that there are benefits of being part of the international community.
Kim Jong-Un isn't going to start a nuclear war. He's not suicidal. For him and his country nuclear weapons are a deterrent. The rest of the world, especially the US have been telling his country what to do since the end of the Korean war and he sees nuclear weapons as a way to make us treat him and his country with respect.
Change must come from within. North Koreans must decide to overthrow the current government. Nothing we have done has changed the situation with North Korea. The time has come to make sure that they understand there will be consequences if they attack us or our allies and then make an effort to negotiate a way for them to be recognized as a legitimate country. But Kim is never going to give up his nuclear weapons.
Kim Jong-Un wants to remain in power. He wants to be able to run his country the way he wants. He also wants international recognition so his country can trade and become wealthy. This is a man who was educated outside his country and he knows that there are benefits of being part of the international community.
Kim Jong-Un isn't going to start a nuclear war. He's not suicidal. For him and his country nuclear weapons are a deterrent. The rest of the world, especially the US have been telling his country what to do since the end of the Korean war and he sees nuclear weapons as a way to make us treat him and his country with respect.
Change must come from within. North Koreans must decide to overthrow the current government. Nothing we have done has changed the situation with North Korea. The time has come to make sure that they understand there will be consequences if they attack us or our allies and then make an effort to negotiate a way for them to be recognized as a legitimate country. But Kim is never going to give up his nuclear weapons.
I think you missed an important point my friend. Megalomaniacs are by nature stupid and self-seeking with a big streak of envy. Their vision is by definition tunnel-vision and they can't see beyond themselves even if it means murdering the entire world population. They have no concept of the suffering of the other person. If they can't have world domination, nobody can! Perhaps we can try and learn from ancient Rome with all of its squabbling over who would be god of the empire.
It's time to find out what Mr. Kim wants. Oh, he wants respect. Exactly how are we to measure that? "I'll have a pound and a half of respect, sliced thinly, please. Oh, and a half a pound of Swiss neutrality in South Korea." Somehow, the supposed "adult in the room", the US government, has to figure out where to try to meet the North Korean government between Mr. Kim's position and its own, since North Korea is now in possession of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them whatever distance. It's not clear that the members of the administration know the answer to these questions any more than we laymen do. Focus on the steps necessary to getting them, not public rants, and particularly not public rants against precisely those whose cooperation you need, i.e. the leaders of China and the Republic of Korea. Before threatening to cut off trade with China, did Pres. Trump consider which government, his or Mr. Xi's will be able to survive the sacrifices such an action would visit upon their people? Has Pres. Trump even considered the possibility that the answer might not be his? There are moments when I fantasize that Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim, via Dennis Rodman, have conspired to manufacture this crisis, each for the image enhancement they see for themselves and to distract from other problems threatening them. I only wish my fantasies were reality.
While Trump may have no coherent policy on this issue, neither does the Times? If Kim feels threaten, should we reassure him by not promising to overthrew his regime? Or should we abandon South Korea and Japan, in order to ease his concern. Also, China may feel threaten by Kim's weapons,so how much leverage do they have? After all China is no longer run by people who believe in revolution world wide, the Chinese have massive investments in Western assets like stocks,bonds and real estate. If you are South Korea or Japan can you have confidence that the US will risk being hit with nuclear weapons to protect you? Calling a move by South Korea to develop nuclear weapons as compounding the insanity is arrogant. Trump may be incompetent, but there may be no way to stop North Korea from developing weapons which can strike the US. Do you think Kim will halt his nuclear program in exchange for the US giving military exercises? And what deal can be reached that you would trust Kim to keep? Lets be clear, Kim is only afraid that the US would unleash its nuclear weapons, killing millions of North Korean civilians and himself, if North Korea attacked the US with nuclear weapons.
1
Kim Jong-un is so useful to China in its long-term goal to dominate its region and send the Americans out of the Korean peninsula and out of the China Sea. Where does N. Korea, that can't feed its people, acquire the kit and know-how to create, test, conceal and maintain a nuclear arsenal? America's diplomatic efforts must focus on the puppet master, not the puppet.
If KJ-U is truly crazy, then war is probably inevitable no matter what we do. But we have to do everything we can to avoid a catastrophe. The United States should redeploy to Japan its 30,000 or so troops stationed in South Korea. After all, what purpose have they served? They haven't deterred KJ-U's provocations, and they would almost certainly be wiped out within minutes of the start of a shooting war before US forces could carpet bomb Pyongyang into oblivion. At the same time we would make it clear that the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea had not changed.
If KJ-U is crazy, this move won't make a bit of difference. In fact, I suppose he could even interpret this gambit to better protect American troops as the prelude to a preemptive strike. Clear communication of American motives would be crucial. But if he's not crazy, it might ease his suspicions that we're out to get him and convince him that negotiations are at least possible. Perhaps more important, it might persuade higher ups in the north Korean command that the U.S. is being reasonable and expose KJ-U, if he continues his provocations, as a dangerous lunatic in the eyes of his own supporters. At any rate, it seems there is much to be possibly gained and very little to actually lose if the U.S. pulls out of South Korea.
If KJ-U is crazy, this move won't make a bit of difference. In fact, I suppose he could even interpret this gambit to better protect American troops as the prelude to a preemptive strike. Clear communication of American motives would be crucial. But if he's not crazy, it might ease his suspicions that we're out to get him and convince him that negotiations are at least possible. Perhaps more important, it might persuade higher ups in the north Korean command that the U.S. is being reasonable and expose KJ-U, if he continues his provocations, as a dangerous lunatic in the eyes of his own supporters. At any rate, it seems there is much to be possibly gained and very little to actually lose if the U.S. pulls out of South Korea.
Seems to me Generals Kelly, Mattis and Secretary Tillerson could measurably improve the situation if they could just stop Trump from ANY response to Kim---any response---unless it involved a positive proposal.
1
Threatening to cut off trade with China shows that Trump.... : 1. is completely ignorant of how the world's economy is interconnected and that stopping U.S. trade with China would cause a world wide depression. 2. Thinks China is stupid. 3. Thinks Kim Jong-un is stupid.
Trumps next strategically brilliant move will be to threaten to build a wall between the US and China and make China pay for it.
Trumps next strategically brilliant move will be to threaten to build a wall between the US and China and make China pay for it.
1
That 45 has no coherent strategy in all things military, including avoiding a nuclear war, is not surprising. In this regard, one need only recall the statement he made just a few weeks into his campaign for president.
In response to a reporter's question about why he never served in the military during the Vietnam War he stated that the training he had received in his high school Junior ROTC class [a complete joke] "was as good as or better than" the training that real veterans like me (Fire Control Technician (Gunnery 3rd Class USN '65-'69) had received.
And he now has his finger on the nuclear trigger. God help us all.
In response to a reporter's question about why he never served in the military during the Vietnam War he stated that the training he had received in his high school Junior ROTC class [a complete joke] "was as good as or better than" the training that real veterans like me (Fire Control Technician (Gunnery 3rd Class USN '65-'69) had received.
And he now has his finger on the nuclear trigger. God help us all.
1
Richard,
Neither Clinton or Obama were even in the ROTC! Clinton left the country to avoid military service.
Neither Clinton or Obama were even in the ROTC! Clinton left the country to avoid military service.
1
This is what you get when you elect a marketer/reality TV star as President instead of a former Secretary of State and Senator.
1
I tried to write something coherent about this editorial but found I couldn't. The individuals discussed are all either incoherent, megalomaniac's, neophytes, loners, despots, or just lack common sense in their approach to dialing back this world threat. Introduce a new element and maybe there's hope.
What is needed to start solving this crisis can't be found with the current players. Your going to need some John Kerry types to get this crisis on the right track. And that unfortunately is unlikely to happen.
So we all will suffer the consequences.
What is needed to start solving this crisis can't be found with the current players. Your going to need some John Kerry types to get this crisis on the right track. And that unfortunately is unlikely to happen.
So we all will suffer the consequences.
1
An incoherent strategy on North Korea? It's rather "an incoherent strategy on everything." If Donald Trump did not have his hatred and meanness, his overall malignant narcissism, and his grandiose delusions about himself he would have nothing to "organize" his mind and his so-called thought process. He has the DNA of a human being but that is where all likeness to the species ends. He is a defective specimen who has grossly failed in the socialization process that turns human DNA into a human being. To leave him in office is America's collective crime against humanity. And the responsibility and guilt for all the evil that results will also be collective.
3
The incoherent strategy is not limited to North Korea or international relations.
1
There are many nuclear armed countries now including Pakistan, a Muslim country. None of them have or will drop their bombs because if they do, their country will be destroyed. That's what keeps the bombs in the silos and attached to their jets. Let Kim throw his bombs into the sea as much as he wants. Stop reacting to each one of the tests. If he aims for the US or its allies, finish him off once and for all.
The UN is incoherent in every way. Coherency for the United States would begin by getting us out of the UN. Since just after WWII we have been in NK and nothing has changed it's goal of being a country to be reconned with.
It will be quite clear when Trump's strategy becomes clear to the NYT, that they will be against it. Thus the editorial of fake news times.
It will be quite clear when Trump's strategy becomes clear to the NYT, that they will be against it. Thus the editorial of fake news times.
1
It's disingenuous for NYT to propagate a misleading fact that China is North Korea's chief ally. North Korea may have got help on their nuclear program from Pakistan, not China, but China has withdrawn all her troops from North Korea since 1956 while U.S. troops remain in South Korea. It's simple logic if U.S. withdraw her troops from South Korea in exchange for denuclearization that North Korea will not fear for their survival, this will be the bargain. U.S. do not need the military exercises or use the troops as hostages to deter invasion from North Korea, just as U.S. troops in Germany is not needed to deter Russia from invading. U.S. has sufficient nuclear submarines to deter anyone from changing status quo. It's only the nature of empire and that will drag down U.S..
President Trump and Kim Jong-un are both demonstrably demented in their thinking and their actions and their rhetoric. "Fire and Fury"? Lord save us!
North Korea is on the back burner for us Floridians now. Our people are far more concerned with a Category 5 Hurricane, Irma, tracking directly up our peninsula, wreaking havoc into the states of Georgia, South and North Carolina, unless the forecast track changes. We are all storming heaven that that track will miraculously change as ancient peoples of all countries used to face nature's unfathomable and dire assaults from Pompeii to Banda Aceh. We can be sure of only one thing, that our 45th President will beat feet next week to get down to Florida to see how his beloved Versailles-a-Lago is after Hurricane Irma's knockout punch. We hope and pray that Florida won't take as bitter a hit as Texas did from Harvey's biblical flooding. We Floridians would like to be 'safe as houses', but remembering the Three Little Pigs and the big bad wolf won't make it so.
North Korea is on the back burner for us Floridians now. Our people are far more concerned with a Category 5 Hurricane, Irma, tracking directly up our peninsula, wreaking havoc into the states of Georgia, South and North Carolina, unless the forecast track changes. We are all storming heaven that that track will miraculously change as ancient peoples of all countries used to face nature's unfathomable and dire assaults from Pompeii to Banda Aceh. We can be sure of only one thing, that our 45th President will beat feet next week to get down to Florida to see how his beloved Versailles-a-Lago is after Hurricane Irma's knockout punch. We hope and pray that Florida won't take as bitter a hit as Texas did from Harvey's biblical flooding. We Floridians would like to be 'safe as houses', but remembering the Three Little Pigs and the big bad wolf won't make it so.
1
There's a reason North Korea is ramping up their provocations. They sense the tragic flaw of incompetence in our leadership. They do have a point there ,and as most good business people before them, know to " strike while the iron's hot"
This time , however, it may end up with a radioactive glow.
This time , however, it may end up with a radioactive glow.
1
I feel like I have read this same article hundreds of times. The lexicon of strategies for dealing with the north is painfully thin as demonstrated here. It's time the world accepts that North Korea is a nuclear power.
There is no prescribed strategy for eliminating the program that doesn't lead to an ungodly humanitarian crisis, be it refugees flooding into China or the destruction of Seoul.
However we can try for detente. We can offer a non-agression pact and frame our alliance with the south as a defensive one. And in time, perhaps we coule even normalize diplomatic relations. China and Russia eventually warmed up to the west, North Korea can too.
Yes this is appeasement, but theres a difference between appeasing a World Power like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia and an impoverished 3rd world country with a gdp thats roughly half of Vermont's. I prefer to think of it as picking your battles. Our energy and resources can be better used elsewhere.
There is no prescribed strategy for eliminating the program that doesn't lead to an ungodly humanitarian crisis, be it refugees flooding into China or the destruction of Seoul.
However we can try for detente. We can offer a non-agression pact and frame our alliance with the south as a defensive one. And in time, perhaps we coule even normalize diplomatic relations. China and Russia eventually warmed up to the west, North Korea can too.
Yes this is appeasement, but theres a difference between appeasing a World Power like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia and an impoverished 3rd world country with a gdp thats roughly half of Vermont's. I prefer to think of it as picking your battles. Our energy and resources can be better used elsewhere.
79
"It's time the world accepts that North Korea is a nuclear power." That is tantamount to accepting every nation as a nuclear power. If an nearly broke and highly dysfunctional society can produce nuclear arms, then anyone can and will. If proliferation is not stopped somewhere as dangerous as North Korea, then it won't be anywhere at all.
1
David Kay: It is NOT "appeasement", it is sensible recognition and acceptance of an unpleasant fact. Don't give away the argument by accepting a wrong word with very negative connotations.
1
Yes very thin:
Do little to nothing, this only makes the danger to the US increase.
Get China to eliminate the beloved leader. Seems difficult but if say all trade was halted might work.
Eliminate him ourselves, with the price being quite high but lower than in say a couple more years.
Do little to nothing, this only makes the danger to the US increase.
Get China to eliminate the beloved leader. Seems difficult but if say all trade was halted might work.
Eliminate him ourselves, with the price being quite high but lower than in say a couple more years.
It's very embarrassing and unfortunate that Trump is a blithering fool, but Kim pays no attention to what the US says. We bombed them into the Stone Age during the Korean War, and those who did not die in the bombing faced starvation afterwards. It should be no surprise that a new generation arose, psychotically obsessed with hatred of the USA, and willing to sacrifice anything to achieve nuclear parity. That's how we got here.
3
you are talking about acknowledging long term consequences..... i think 10 years is about the length of our ability to string things together here in the US.
It’s over.
North Korea is now an established nuclear power and there is nothing that any country can do about it. In fact, the calls for a “peaceful” resolution from countries around the globe are a tacit admission of this fact.
The U.S. nuclear umbrella is now worthless to Japan and especially South Korea. The only coherent, reasonable strategy is now to “allow” or even facilitate both countries getting nuclear weapons, if they wish. If they don’t want them, it’s fine, but they must understand the new limits to the U.S. ability to protect them.
The age of nuclear proliferation has begun in earnest and will accelerate as North Korea exports its nuclear and missile technology. This will undermine the global security architecture currently enforced by U.S. conventional military power.
There goes Pax Americana, which will be very unfortunate.
North Korea is now an established nuclear power and there is nothing that any country can do about it. In fact, the calls for a “peaceful” resolution from countries around the globe are a tacit admission of this fact.
The U.S. nuclear umbrella is now worthless to Japan and especially South Korea. The only coherent, reasonable strategy is now to “allow” or even facilitate both countries getting nuclear weapons, if they wish. If they don’t want them, it’s fine, but they must understand the new limits to the U.S. ability to protect them.
The age of nuclear proliferation has begun in earnest and will accelerate as North Korea exports its nuclear and missile technology. This will undermine the global security architecture currently enforced by U.S. conventional military power.
There goes Pax Americana, which will be very unfortunate.
121
Excellent. Our war-gods are failing us. Where goest thou oh great Mars?
"North Korea is now an established nuclear power and there is nothing that any country can do about it."
I disagree. North Korea has not yet developed the ability to put a nuclear warhead atop a missile. When THAT happens, and NK testing demonstrates that the warhead can survive re-entry into the earth's atmosphere and then land where it was programmed to strike, THEN we can call NK an established nuclear power.
So in fact we have options. Preventative military strikes; assassinations of NK leaders; and enhanced economic sanctions.
Let's get to work.
I disagree. North Korea has not yet developed the ability to put a nuclear warhead atop a missile. When THAT happens, and NK testing demonstrates that the warhead can survive re-entry into the earth's atmosphere and then land where it was programmed to strike, THEN we can call NK an established nuclear power.
So in fact we have options. Preventative military strikes; assassinations of NK leaders; and enhanced economic sanctions.
Let's get to work.
Kim sees nukes as the key to his regime's survival. Maybe we should make it the key to its demise!
An incoherent strategy starts with an incoherent president whose diplomatic skills seem to be confined to tweets and bluster, absent any idea of how to ease simmering tensions with a regime headed by a loose cannon.
Kim Jong-un has the U.S. president on a string and he knows it. He gleefully mocks, incites, dares, annoys, gibes, and, yes, twits his American counterpart on a regular basis. Jong-un's actions predictably bring an angry response from the president, reacting to everything the North Korean leader says or does. Jong-un is in control of this game of cat and mouse. He holds the whip hand over his adversary.
Jong-un may be deranged but he's not stupid, and it's doubtful than he has any military or nuclear conflict with the United States in mind. He's toying with the president because he knows he can get away with it and get under his thin skin. He'll continue to prod and poke the president because it's a game he enjoys playing. And because this president does not possess diplomatic or leadership qualities or have an experienced and seasoned secretary of state to advise him in problematic global affairs, he'll continue to thrash about incoherently with threats and bluster when diplomacy and statesmanship are necessary.
Kim Jong-un has the U.S. president on a string and he knows it. He gleefully mocks, incites, dares, annoys, gibes, and, yes, twits his American counterpart on a regular basis. Jong-un's actions predictably bring an angry response from the president, reacting to everything the North Korean leader says or does. Jong-un is in control of this game of cat and mouse. He holds the whip hand over his adversary.
Jong-un may be deranged but he's not stupid, and it's doubtful than he has any military or nuclear conflict with the United States in mind. He's toying with the president because he knows he can get away with it and get under his thin skin. He'll continue to prod and poke the president because it's a game he enjoys playing. And because this president does not possess diplomatic or leadership qualities or have an experienced and seasoned secretary of state to advise him in problematic global affairs, he'll continue to thrash about incoherently with threats and bluster when diplomacy and statesmanship are necessary.
225
"... absent any idea of how to ease simmering tensions with a regime headed by a loose cannon."
Not sure what you are talking about. The US is fully engaged at the UN; we've talked with China, S. Korea and Japan.
The DPRK is not interested in easing tensions; on the contrary, the regime in Pyongyang seeks escalation.
I say we call their bluff.
Not sure what you are talking about. The US is fully engaged at the UN; we've talked with China, S. Korea and Japan.
The DPRK is not interested in easing tensions; on the contrary, the regime in Pyongyang seeks escalation.
I say we call their bluff.
If Kim doesn't want a nuclear conflict with the US, then his threats have no value. What would Hillary Clinton do if she were president? Trump isn't a statesman, but do you have any good ideas to offer? Kim is head of a failed state, and he must constantly fear for his life since he has executed so many people who survivors undoubtedly hate him. He has no coherent ideology, forget about socialism, his only goal is to maintain power. You seem to like Kim a little because he may upset Trump.
Miscalculations caused WWI!!!
1
"It is not at all clear that Mr. Kim is interested in talking. But Mr. Trump needs to test the possibility before design or miscalculation leads to war."
Mr. Kim wants to talk, alright. But NOT about his nuclear weapons program. In early August his foreign minister announced at the UN that the DPRK would never give up its nuclear weapons. The NYT reported this in great detail.
So we are left with two knowns:
1. The US will never tolerate a nuclear armed North Korea.
2. North Korea will never cede its nuclear weapons program.
This is what happens when successive administrations kick the can down the road. And the road starts to come to an end.
Mr. Kim wants to talk, alright. But NOT about his nuclear weapons program. In early August his foreign minister announced at the UN that the DPRK would never give up its nuclear weapons. The NYT reported this in great detail.
So we are left with two knowns:
1. The US will never tolerate a nuclear armed North Korea.
2. North Korea will never cede its nuclear weapons program.
This is what happens when successive administrations kick the can down the road. And the road starts to come to an end.
69
Point 1 has me scratching my head, Frank Haydn, Esq. What do you mean, "won't tolerate"? What choice does the U.S. have except to "tolerate" what North Korea already has? Are you advocating pre-emptive war or . . . just what are you advocating?
Your comment that successive administrations have "kicked the can down the road" is a bit of a platitude, don't you think?
Your comment that successive administrations have "kicked the can down the road" is a bit of a platitude, don't you think?
1
When will we retire that tiresome cliche: "kick the can down the road"? Most often, the people who use it mean that we should have gone to war a long time ago.
2
The lion's share of the blame must fall on Bush 43 and the "Axis of Evil" reveal. I'm sure the DPRK ramped up its nuclear efforts that day!
1
More evidence that words do have consequences. Trump's pathological dissembling and bluster have eliminated any possible credibility both abroad and at home. If North Korea has no reason to believe anything Trump or his people communicate, it has no reason to take a different course. Even if diplomacy were initiated, Trump's mercurial temper makes it impossible for anyone to believe he will honor a diplomatic commitment any more than than he would agree to pay vendors on a building project.
The answer to North Korea is a United States president with integrity who can be trusted to do what he or she says; and we will not have that opportunity until the incumbent has been replaced.
The answer to North Korea is a United States president with integrity who can be trusted to do what he or she says; and we will not have that opportunity until the incumbent has been replaced.
6
It's a mistake to conclude that there are no good options. But in this case, with a pretend President and a do nothing congress, the options are far more limited. Worse yet, it is likely that Trump will tweet one thing that will flap Un into some serious action. We need to get our own situation in hand before any hope of dealing with Un or anything else for that matter. We are now like a boat without a rudder. No leadership would be better than the extremely bad leadership we are now faced with. But Trump gets richer by the hour on the taxpayers backs.
22
There is no way North Korea will give up its development of nuclear weapons. Their dear leader cares nothing for his people. Millions live in squalor. He has prison camps like we have cities. All he cares about is the power of his regime.
KIm understands that the bomb gives his threats instant credibility. Don't mess with me or else. He cares for nothing else.
China can't stop him. They understand that. The only way to stop Kim is to get rid of Kim and China won't do that.
I see three primary obstacles to a resolution. One is that we are operating in the dark. No one know for sure what Kim wants. We keep second guessing him. Maybe it's time we asked him.
The second is that China views a unified Korea as a threat. A militarized, US ally at their border bothers them and bothers them a lot. If Korea was unified, we could withdraw our military presence. But unless unification takes place, we can't. Stalemate results.
The third problem is our dear leader. Right in the middle of a crisis, he threatens South Korea with trade sanctions. This is beyond stupid. It shows that Trump is out of his mind. How is South Korea supposed to respond? They have a lunatic next door pointing atomic weapons at them and a lunatic for their protector. If anything would drive them to create their own bomb, that should do it.
KIm understands that the bomb gives his threats instant credibility. Don't mess with me or else. He cares for nothing else.
China can't stop him. They understand that. The only way to stop Kim is to get rid of Kim and China won't do that.
I see three primary obstacles to a resolution. One is that we are operating in the dark. No one know for sure what Kim wants. We keep second guessing him. Maybe it's time we asked him.
The second is that China views a unified Korea as a threat. A militarized, US ally at their border bothers them and bothers them a lot. If Korea was unified, we could withdraw our military presence. But unless unification takes place, we can't. Stalemate results.
The third problem is our dear leader. Right in the middle of a crisis, he threatens South Korea with trade sanctions. This is beyond stupid. It shows that Trump is out of his mind. How is South Korea supposed to respond? They have a lunatic next door pointing atomic weapons at them and a lunatic for their protector. If anything would drive them to create their own bomb, that should do it.
105
Another impediment to any diplomatic solution is the United States' abysmal record in keeping its promises to countries that abandon their nukes (Libya and Iran come to mind). Why would anyone make a deal with a country lead by an habitual liar who has no qualms about declaring previous treaties, "bad deals," and unilaterally abrogating them?
5
Bart,
Libya was a "child" of the Obama Administration and we have no "Treaty" with Iran. "Treaties" are approved by the U.S. Senate not by Presidential Fiat!
Libya was a "child" of the Obama Administration and we have no "Treaty" with Iran. "Treaties" are approved by the U.S. Senate not by Presidential Fiat!
1
Mr. Trump's approach to the presidency "have not only produced zero positive results but they have also sowed confusion about his intentions. The president and his team seem unable or unwilling to put together a realistic and coherent strategy that goes beyond" lining the pockets of the Trump clan.
19
China wants stability on the Korean peninsula under its hegemony. The combination of a seemingly uncontrollable North Korea behaving as if it wants to embarrass China and a US President who threatens to start war but end a trade pact with South Korea may lead to a shift in the region. If China were to convince South Korea to accept unification under their sponsorship, they could eliminate a dangerous Kim Jung Un regime and US military presence. In exchange, South Korea would achieve unification and stability, with the added benefit of a potentially more stable trade partnership with China. None of this would be in the interest of the United States, but it seems to be the scenario that POTUS is setting up.
1
Let's face it. There's nothing that the US can do on its own that'll dissuade North Korea from doing what it does. Only China can put pressure on the North Koreans to alter their irrational acts.
Trump already gave away a major leverage that the US had on China by withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
As Forbes put it back in January, "Trump and his protectionist trade team have made it clear that their principal goal is to stick it to China. Withdrawing from the TPP will have exactly the opposite effect. It’s a gift to China and no one is happier about it than the government of Chinese President Xi Jinping."
Instead of threatening to end trade with China, Trump could reconsider the US withdrawal from TPP. Perhaps that'd make China rethink its reluctance to put pressure on North Korea.
Trump already gave away a major leverage that the US had on China by withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
As Forbes put it back in January, "Trump and his protectionist trade team have made it clear that their principal goal is to stick it to China. Withdrawing from the TPP will have exactly the opposite effect. It’s a gift to China and no one is happier about it than the government of Chinese President Xi Jinping."
Instead of threatening to end trade with China, Trump could reconsider the US withdrawal from TPP. Perhaps that'd make China rethink its reluctance to put pressure on North Korea.
51
RK,
HRC would also have withdrawn from the TPP if her statements during the campaign are to be believed. The U.S. Has not had a realistic Korea policy since President Truman allowed China to intervene to save the North in the '50s. That bill is now due and payable.
HRC would also have withdrawn from the TPP if her statements during the campaign are to be believed. The U.S. Has not had a realistic Korea policy since President Truman allowed China to intervene to save the North in the '50s. That bill is now due and payable.
1
TPP gives away our sovereign democratic decision making power to transnational tribunals run by corporate lawyers. That is only in the interest of global corporations that want to weaken democracy, not the American People.
Fast track short cuts do not make good trade policy. They make fast trade policy. It's not the same thing. The People are supposed to know what it's representatives are doing,. Deals that are negotiated in secret between global corporations and the politicians they pay for and signed before we know what it's in them are bound to be lopsided against workers, consumers, and the environment.
TPP would not stop NK's nuclear program, and it would not be good for US citizens.
Fast track short cuts do not make good trade policy. They make fast trade policy. It's not the same thing. The People are supposed to know what it's representatives are doing,. Deals that are negotiated in secret between global corporations and the politicians they pay for and signed before we know what it's in them are bound to be lopsided against workers, consumers, and the environment.
TPP would not stop NK's nuclear program, and it would not be good for US citizens.
I agree the highly mixed messages coming from the Trump administration are confusing. ratcheting up the tension rather than defusing it.
Why can't Trump, Mattis, Tillerson, and Haley get together in one room to formulate a realistic strategy that each can consistently communicate?
Donald Trump has made himself out to be a master businessman, so isn't uniformity of message one of the key skills a CEO must demonstrate?
In addition, Mr. Trump isn't giving this the attention it deserves. An angry AM tweet. followed by macho threats, then onto the next more politically interesting issue tells me more about presidential priorities than I care to know.
Come on, guys! Get on the same page, which must include China and South Korea, then be consistent. The North Korean leader is erratic and bombastic, but so is our president--it's up to his team to help him focus.
Anything else is international trash talk, which may make Donald Trump feel resolute but in reality, shows him to be reactive. And, with every threat not backed by action, this president shows the world he's not in control.
General. Kelly: you were hired to eliminate the chaos in the White House. Can't you help this president see that what might have served him well in the past--threats, opaqueness, bragging--is only inflaming the situation and forcing the world to watch in horror?
Why can't Trump, Mattis, Tillerson, and Haley get together in one room to formulate a realistic strategy that each can consistently communicate?
Donald Trump has made himself out to be a master businessman, so isn't uniformity of message one of the key skills a CEO must demonstrate?
In addition, Mr. Trump isn't giving this the attention it deserves. An angry AM tweet. followed by macho threats, then onto the next more politically interesting issue tells me more about presidential priorities than I care to know.
Come on, guys! Get on the same page, which must include China and South Korea, then be consistent. The North Korean leader is erratic and bombastic, but so is our president--it's up to his team to help him focus.
Anything else is international trash talk, which may make Donald Trump feel resolute but in reality, shows him to be reactive. And, with every threat not backed by action, this president shows the world he's not in control.
General. Kelly: you were hired to eliminate the chaos in the White House. Can't you help this president see that what might have served him well in the past--threats, opaqueness, bragging--is only inflaming the situation and forcing the world to watch in horror?
42
"Why can't Trump, Mattis, Tillerson, and Haley get together in one room to formulate a realistic strategy that each can consistently communicate?"
1. Because they don't have the collective experience or smarts to formulate a realistic strategy.
2. Because they don't have the discipline to communicate consistently.
3. Because they don't have the organizational skills to get together in one room.
1. Because they don't have the collective experience or smarts to formulate a realistic strategy.
2. Because they don't have the discipline to communicate consistently.
3. Because they don't have the organizational skills to get together in one room.
151
Stare decisis (look to precedent). What would BO do?
1
Because Trump is an idiot. He cares about no one but himself...
5
Hybrid warfare against the U.S. has shifted to Asia where the U.S. has serious vulnerabilities primarily due to the personality of president Trump. The objective is to force a U.S. retreat to diminish confidence of Japan and other allies. This objective has been strengthened by Trump's Tweets of empty threats.
China may even find some comfort in a U.S. presence in S. Korea to moderate the N. Korean ambitions. Russian perceived gains, however, are substantial. The U.S. has been embarrassed as a "Tweeting paper tiger" mocked by Kim Jong Un, thereby advancing the image of disciplined Russian strength.
Diplomacy can still work despite the president's Tweets. His unpredictable behavior could even be played to advantage, if the diplomats and the military simply do their expected things in the absence of Tweets.
China may even find some comfort in a U.S. presence in S. Korea to moderate the N. Korean ambitions. Russian perceived gains, however, are substantial. The U.S. has been embarrassed as a "Tweeting paper tiger" mocked by Kim Jong Un, thereby advancing the image of disciplined Russian strength.
Diplomacy can still work despite the president's Tweets. His unpredictable behavior could even be played to advantage, if the diplomats and the military simply do their expected things in the absence of Tweets.
2
It sounds to me like you are worried about a resurgent Russian threat to the Baltics.
Kim Jong-Un's actions have appeared equally incoherent. It is important for us to understand his true end game. Perhaps he wants reunification of the Korean peninsula .. with him in-charge, of course. A vital step toward achieving this goal is to separate South Korea from the US. He seems to be making progress.
While this may not be China's 'goal', they certainly find this scenario very appealing. That (partly) explains their reluctance to act against North Korea.
While this may not be China's 'goal', they certainly find this scenario very appealing. That (partly) explains their reluctance to act against North Korea.
19
Deprived of any basic understanding of international relations and diplomatic vision the blow-hot-blow-cold twitter response that President Trump resorts to has not only proved ineffective, rather counterproductive but jeopardised the security of the US' East Asian allies, South Korea and Japan, also, as its these countries that are facing the real existential threat from the aggressive nuclear behaviour of the rogue regime of North Korea than what's directed at the US by way of the failed missile attacks. In short, with their mutually hostile outbursts and provocative actions, the two maverick leaders- Kim Jong-un and Trump- have not only turned the Korean peninsula as the world's dangerous nuclear flash point but also brought the entire world to the brink of a war like situation.
91
China and the peninsula should sort out their own problems. America should protect itself with anti-nuclear devices.
Professor,
The border between India and Pakistan is an older and more dangerous flash point between two nuclear armed states that have actually fought a number of wars as well as numerous terror attacks from Pakistan into India. While North Korea will become an issue in the future as they developed actual nuclear devices that are deliverable in something more than an Ox Cart, both India and Pakistan have deliverable devices today.
North Korea like Pakistan has a stated policy of territorial expansion, unlike Pakistan no wars have been fought since the initial war and there is no state sponsored insurgency on either of it's borders. Pakistan on the other hand is surrounded by insurgencies which it both sponsors and is a victim of. While North Korea is a brutal dictatorship and the internal power struggles occasionally produce victims Pakistan is a loosely governed armed camp with a far larger GDP and deliverable nuclear weapons.
Tell me again which area is a greater danger to world peace? Your "Politics" prevent you from seeing the danger in your own back yard!
The border between India and Pakistan is an older and more dangerous flash point between two nuclear armed states that have actually fought a number of wars as well as numerous terror attacks from Pakistan into India. While North Korea will become an issue in the future as they developed actual nuclear devices that are deliverable in something more than an Ox Cart, both India and Pakistan have deliverable devices today.
North Korea like Pakistan has a stated policy of territorial expansion, unlike Pakistan no wars have been fought since the initial war and there is no state sponsored insurgency on either of it's borders. Pakistan on the other hand is surrounded by insurgencies which it both sponsors and is a victim of. While North Korea is a brutal dictatorship and the internal power struggles occasionally produce victims Pakistan is a loosely governed armed camp with a far larger GDP and deliverable nuclear weapons.
Tell me again which area is a greater danger to world peace? Your "Politics" prevent you from seeing the danger in your own back yard!
1