The only effective means to contain the North is to pressure its protector, China. No amount of negotiation with the North will do any good while it can depend on its ultimate security benefactor across the border. Hard to believe a respected site like 38North could in any scenario be recommending the US make more concessions to the North, especially on adjusting exercises with the South. In the past it gave up Team Spirit, gave up the North’s terrorist designation, and gave up the sanctions on the Kims’ family bankers in Macau. All for what benefit? The North pocketed the concessions and continued work on its nuclear weapons.
1
Because an armistice was never signed with North Korea after the conclusion of the Korean War, we are still technically at war today. We have been negotiating a peace settlement with them for over 60 years. During that time, we have offered and provided all manner of inducements to curtail their development of WMDs. Nothing has worked and now the threat has become existential. The deal we are offering to North Korea today is either surrender or die because if they don't, we might. The final terms are no longer negotiable. Everything has been tried and everything has failed. The arc of history has brought us to this climactic moment where the outcome is very clearcut one way or the other.
All these posts getting "picked" advocating any unilateral military action without acknowledging that South Korea, our ally, would never approve of it are apparently, after all the reporting on the subject, completely oblivious of the practical military situation in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do.
It's a day of deja vu at NYT. Past NYT articles have said that North Korea has agreed before to stop nuclear development, but once they got what they wanted, they took up where they left off. Bewildered by American policy? They may pretend to be so when it suits them, but their track record is one of cunning deception. Stealing large sums of money via hacking is crafty.
Signing a pact with a thug is a fool's game, and Trump may be right when he says diplomacy is wasted on them, but is war the only alternative? With all the resources and intelligence the U.S. has, can they not come up with something innovative, or at least clever?
Good headline. The administration should talk -to- North Korea -- not at it. And, ideally, Mr. Trump himself would not talk at all.
4
This isn't an opinion piece, but if accurate it is an important news story, that officials of North Korea have been engaged in an ongoing discussion on changing their official military-diplomatic positions. I did a bit of research on an interview with the first author, on NPR radio at this link: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/14/543338995/u-s-has-occasional-contact-with...
Ms. DiMaggio is quoted: " The discussions, the level can get heated and, certainly, tense, given the profound differences that exist between our governments. But I find that, in these situations, it's clear that we're not representing our government, so they don't hold us accountable for that."
Yet, in this article Ms DiMaggio states, "....North Korean government representatives sent signals......" Shame on the New York Times, the bastion of a free press for allowing what the writer stated on the record is an informal conversation to be depicted as more than it is.
The entire world is holding its breath based on the actual escalation of tensions exacerbated by our President. The last thing we need is this bulwark against the fake news slander to ever so slightly distort a story to make it more important than it is.
For generations, North Koreans have been taught to believe that all Americans are evil and must be destroyed - and this is what they now believe. We think that our beliefs are different and better because they involve goodness and love. However, in reality, they are only the other side of the same coin. We may not preach death and destruction, but the de facto effect of all beliefs and fixed values is separation and conflict.
When we finally program the human mind in a computer, we will at long last understand the real negative effect of our beliefs and set values. Until then, we are at the mercy of men like Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump.
See:
RevolutionOfReason.com
TheRogueRevolutionist.com
1
Thought Experiment:
IF economic development in NORTH KOREA is allowed by a world that accepts that they have the BOMB the problem becomes a stronger NORTH KOREA. Without evidence that NK is trustworthy VIA a revised national story coming directly from AKA Rocket Man, TRUST cannot happen and the world will not allow NK to develop economically. KIM-J-UN would have to STOP publishing movies showing the death of the USA and start publishing movies showing a friendly stance to the USA. Otherwise it seems that nothing will be practically possible because the WORLD will not trust NK and status quo will be maintained.
I trust Kim not to commit suicide, and the people around him not to allow him to commit suicide at the national level. There really is no alternative, other than volunteering now for the conflagration we fear later.
1
Southern Baptists tend to idolize Trump in much the same way as North Koreans worship Kim. I think Trump is jealous of the fervor for Kim and would like to see more of that from his congregations.
3
Given the stakes, the burden of proof falls upon Ms. DiMaggio and Mr. Wit to show that the North Korean regime is indeed "not striving to be a nuclear state with a big arsenal" and would not use nuclear weapons to blackmail the U.S. and its allies. They do not cite a single fact to support this view.
3
It doesn't matter if that is what they want. We can't stop them, without killing millions of South Koreans, and tens of thousands of American military.
But it makes no sense for them to want such an arsenal. Kim does not want to die like Gaddafi and Hussein. All indications are that he doesn't want to die, at all. He needs -- and he does need, as much as we may despise him -- nuclear weapons to stay alive.
There are thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us. I wish there were none, but none is not on offer. Nobody has used one, because doing so is suicidal. North Korea using one would be even more suicidal. And we have established that Kim is not suicidal. So, we have to live with all kinds of unpleasant people having nuclear weapons. Including our President.
2
How you talk to North Korea requires understanding what you are talking about. If the Trump Administration -- that hurts my typing fingers -- think that the problem is North Korea having ONE nuclear weapon, then there is nothing to talk about.
If, on the other hand, Trump wants to talk to them about limiting the size of their arsenal, eliminating testing of complete weapons, not firing missiles over Japan, and putting an end to proliferation, and is willing to give something in return, something that can help the economy grow, then we may have something.
But that sounds like "strategic patience," and that is not his thing.
4
This all assumes the idea of the U.S. having a president with the intelligence and the maturity to follow-through on diplomacy. There is no reason to believe that that is the case now, or will be anytime in the future (at least until 2020). It's disturbing to say this but the North Korean's are right to be "bewildered" by what's going on in this country.
2
Why should North Korea listen to the west?
Morally, the US supplies its nuclear armed client state, Israel, with all the military force it needs. If it is ok for Israel to introduce nuclear missiles into the Middle East, why isn't it ok for North Korea?
Morally, the US has thousands of those same weapons, so it cannot say the simple possession of them is evil, in fact, it says that they are the only way the US can defend itself.
Morally, Israel has said that now it has nuclear weapons it has no existential threats. Certainly the beleaguered North Korean people have the same right to the same weapons.
I am no friend of North Korea, but am writing to point out the hypocrisy of my country's position, and also to provide a warning.
China has said it will get involved if the US invades North Korea. Are you willing to engage in a nuclear exchange with the Chinese?
End nuclear weapons, make that a requirement to belong to the UN, work for peace rather than the inevitable nuclear war that is coming.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
5
Funny how nobody mentions What does South Korean want ?
It is as if it didnt exist .
7
Often overlooked in this crisis is the high probability that Mr. Kim's regime may have already secretly transferred nuclear weapons technology, or worse nuclear weapons components themselves to destinations" overseas" (as noted by the authors). There, these warheads could act as the ultimate "sleeper agents" to be activated and detonated at the start of US hostilities against North Korea - with devastating results to the US and its allies. One more reason to negotiate with this regime to find a peaceful resolution to this crisis as if our lives depend upon it. Because they do! Failure is not an option.
1
Yes but America is misled by an ignorant, immature, inexperienced, incompetent, intemperate and insecure 71 year old inheritor of wealth bent on making money for his family from being President and following the ordered agenda values and interests of KGB/FSB Russian President Czar wannabe Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
Along with the lesser foreign demons Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt and Recip Erdogan of Turkey.
Calling for North Korea to give up nukes and missiles is the height of cynical hypocrisy as long as the rogues Israel, India and Pakistan have both. While Japan has more enriched weapons grade material than any nation without nukes.
5
November 8, 2017
Interesting to suggest that reason can be made to sooth and confront talking with meaning, but with this type of confrontation - it's more say forget what is said, enough already but watch how preparation for advantage is not a child's game but taking of the challenge of world class power to punish and make one to believe that the day they were born what can come of it is ashes on the burial ground target. Shock jock talk is not all rational but the instinct to know muscles is the primal, instinctual and victorious to end what is never wanted, respected, or effective - the point of gun of rational authority is like the old man with a strap to force reason - backsided.
1
Someone installed a leader in Iran a while back. I'm fairly sure that was our country. The hyper religious men who kicked him out and keep power might be an object lesson to others.
Creating a condition of perceived safety isn't that unreasonable given this current world and our country. Holding that as safety, not threat isn't easy. Containing and moving forward has its rationale. That may not be possible from a bullies perspective.
Trump shouldn't talk to North Korea. For once, he should keep his big trap shut and let those trained in international relations run the show.
It's safe to say every rational person in the world is tired of the words and tweets coming out of the village idiot. God help us all!
2
A nuclear-free Korean Peninsula and a nuclear free North America would go a long way to make the world a safer place.
2
How do you think the influence with Russia and China would change if we had no nuclear weapons?
How do you think WWII might have been different if Hitler & Japan had a large and powerful Nuclear arsenal and none of the allies did?
I expect there would be far less safety if the United States was nuclear free.. Much of our safety comes from economic resourses, and I expect our economy would dearly suffer if we were unable to stand up to our enemies.
The world can not rid itself of Nuclear weapons because it is not verifiable and countries would lie.
Is your statement realistic?
3
I served in the USAF and as a crew chief and 2nd job special unit decontamination team. I know the power of these and other WMDs. No world wars have been fought as MAD insurers no winners. Not a beautiful idea and for now in a world filled with what's so; this in my opinion holds for now.
Social evolution of awareness and consideration of ourselves will arrive first.
There is no Peace Agreement to the Korean War. There is only an Armistice Agreement, signed on July 27, 1953. The Agreement remains in force with the UN, but has been repeated violated, first by the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement
Over the past two generations, North Korea has repeatedly asked for a Peace Conference to formally conclude the Korean War and memorialize a Peace Agreement. The U.S. has always avoided this.
The time has come to replace the 1953 Armistice with a permanent resolution, memorialized in the form of a ratified Treaty, ending the isolation of North Korea and integrating it into the world economic and political system.
6
Trump stood right behind Hillary at that televised debate trying to intimidate her. He's trying the same tactic with Kim. It won't work on him either.
Increasing sanctions only hurt the people of North Korea, who are already starving while the military and political leadership are eating well.
A more rational approach that recognizes NK's sovereignty and offers more carrots than sticks might work. But first Trump has to sit down and listen.
3
Simply sign an agreement with all nuclear enabled countries (including Russia and China, of course) that any proactive use of weapons of mass destruction will result in the obliteration on North Korea.
it's not new that NK has an economy and foreign policy based on blackmail. or that we have remained technically at war with them since 1953.
in this game, the people of NK. are pawns... and any other people anyplace else play a similar role.
maybe they really do feel existentially threatened and maybe its part of their game, but does it really matter?
sure, it's a brutal dictatorship... but some of our closest friends and allies around the world also fit into that category.
what do they really, really want? could the USA ever actually make their hopes and dreams come true? should we?
what if we sued for peace and lifted sanctions? would that be enough, or is nothing ever going to be enough?
or, using Arab, Russian, and Chinese financing, Kushner could just buy NK and make it into a golf course.
1
How many times has north Korea made agreements and then broken them? My question is, Why is this time differant?
2
Congratulations to the authors for a very sensible approach to North Korea. Step-by-step engagement to explore possibilities for crisis management if not crisis resolution is the wisest path, even if in the end it means acceptance of the North's possession (but stored) of a limited number of nuclear weapons. Complete denuclearization is probably unachievable; but that goal should not stand in the way of tension-reducing moves.
4
Many people "blame President Trump" for finally confronting the psychopaths who presently rule North Korea. But he is simply now doing what other world leaders would not do. They were content to look the other way, and to treat these psychopaths as legitimate heads of state. They tried to appease them. The psychopaths recognized this and have taken full advantage of it for many decades. They think of themselves as legitimate. They think this is their due.
President Trump is the first leader to express intolerance for these behaviors and to refuse to accept them. He has pointed out, quite correctly, that these psychopaths have no regard for human life anywhere on the planet, and they are a clear-and-present danger to literally everyone else.
The psychopaths' reaction to finally being so confronted simply confirms just what sort of creature they really are.
The North Korean psychopaths appear to expect Glorious War, and to welcome it. They have no regard for their own people, and have told them to expect one day to die in battle. But, they cannot escape world Solidarity. If the world community, acting as truly "United Nations," refuses to continue to accept it and refuses now to look the other way, the power of these evil leaders will be neutralized and thereby their country will be ... saved.
3
I am increasingly worried that Trump is being played for a fool by China. Having grown up in a communist country I do understand how communists think and try to control every aspect of the their reality, including their neighbors. It is hard to believe that they would allow N Korea to escape their control, given that 90% of NK imports come from China. Simply unimaginable!
What happens in NK is not quite the NK craziness, it may just be well designed game in their effort to play Americans and Trump. I do thonk China is playing a double game, allowing, or even directing NK all this testing in order to make themselves the only solution in the matter. Kind of a bad cop (NK) and good cop (China) routine. One way of testing this possibility would be to recover the remnants of NK rockets and see if any of the parts may have come from China.
Playing on American public emotions, and internal political divisions, via those rocket testing, may be the easiest way for China to achieve their goals. Obama in my opinion has not been playing along, Trump swallowed it line, hook and sinker.....
3
American diplomats and military should read the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The same deal could be offered North Korea, trading a guarantee of non-interference for disarmament.
Sadly, Trump is no JFK.
There is zero chance that Donald Tump will take heed of this wise analysis and suggested way of moving forward in regards to North Korea. It would require too radical a change in personality and values and influences, a change that it is simply not going to happen.
Donald Trump is an agent of chaos, a purveyor of trash talk and belligerence, not stability and diplomacy.
He wins or he loses. If he wins, America wins; if someone else wins, he (and by extension, America) has been "treated unfairly." He never loses; if the outcome is negative, it is everyone else's fault but his.
In his own mind, of course.
The conditions which convinced North Korea that it needed to acquire nuclear weapons have not changed, they have grown more acute. Trump's threats and bombast have only convinced them how right their policy is, and has caused them to double down. There is nothing short of a devastating war that could prevent them from completing their program, no matter who is president of the US.
If I am wrong in that assessment, the policies and procedures as outlined in this article could lead to a moratorium on the North Korean nuclear program; if I am right, it might at least make a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons less of a threat.
Sadly, Donald Trump has no interest in pursuing such an understated, rational, course. There's nothing in it for him.
3
Watched his speech last night on MSNBC
To give the devil his due, I thought he did a good job in terms of his delivery, and the speech itself was well-written. Content was fine, sort of a carrot and stick, with plenty of respect to his hosts.
What does it all mean? Who knows, except that he can play the statesman when he wants to. I did not recognize him and my wife said, "who is this guy?"
2
Obama, for all his weaknesses, was successful in keeping Iran non-nuclear. Perhaps he had the personal credibility and international prestige to overcome American foreign policy weaknesses, and if he had continued that would have been the way to handle it. But I suspect his successor lacks these strengths.
Because American foreign policy is a mess. They have proven time and time again to be untrustworthy and this time the evidence is too overwhelming to give the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of the media spin, after Gaddafi disarmed his WMD capability based on assurances from the Americans, they effectively lied and double crossed him. And then there was Saddam. And let's not even talk about what's happening to the Kurds.
America needs to fix it's foreign policy approach and try to be a bit more reliable and stop the lies. Because no one looking at the facts and with any sense would trust American assurances in the longer term. Currently, the lesson is that if you're an isolated weaker nation at odds with the US policy you need WMD options to protect yourself. Thanks to the Americans, this means NK has no choice but to go nuclear. In fact, it's likely that Iran will regret having trusted Obama and not going nuclear.
6
Trump ignores that NK has nothing to lose by the threats of nuclear retaliation. It is like fighting to the death in the defense of their homeland. Wouldn't you?
4
The US can't possibly live with a nuclearized NK, because allowing those who are not under our thumb has proven to be horrible. Look at Russia and China, fr'instance. They have nukes, and... oh, nevermind. Let's consider something more relevant -- the NK artillery. We can't even handle the idea of that being used, and have we taken that out? Have we talked about it? Bloviation reigns.
1
With a North Korean missile on its way to production and a few nukes to carry with the goal of preventing a preemptive attack by the USA, is there is a livable balance to be found among the various considerations?
The credible and sane goal of North Korea is also to then switch to economic development given adequate nuclear deterrence is a way for their society to move forward and relieve oppression.
With an attack by either side, including an attack on America’s allies, North Korea has no impunity. Their nuclear system has a defensive effect but is no real help offensively given the consequences.
If there is any sign of a switch to offence against our allies, a llend lease of packaged technology would quickly allow a low-cost ability for our allies to make their own response to attack, localizing mutual unacceptable destruction. A dozen old minutemen splits between South Korea and Japan might do. Given silos, they could be filled with replica as a start.
The US anti-missile system can provide an extra level of comfort when deployed against all non-allied nuclear powers, one additional much smaller power makes little long run difference.
The anti-missile system might disturb the balance of destruction, making it more destabilizing than any temporary benefit obtained.
While it may not be expected soon, a moderation of rhetoric on the part of the USA can reduce the threat level perceived by North Korea, a joint win at no loss, even if they claim a singular victory.
Sorry for the misspelked worts. lend lease, split, and replicas.
Why not real Minutemen? It may be argued that it is not offensive capability that is being proliferated, only the defensive mutual assured distruction that North Korea has claimed for itself.
It could even be implemented before North Korea has the capability.
The authors say they had held "informal discussions" with North Korea under the Obama administration. In the course of meetings both sides had been able to air their concerns - Kim Jong-un's pursuit of nuclear arms to defend his regime, and the nuclear threat posed by Pyongyang to the US and its allies.
Even before Trump got elected, Pyongyang had hinted its willingness to discuss "how to avoid a disastrous confrontation" and resume talks. After Trump's election, the North realised that the new administration would offer "the opportunity for a fresh start, and raised the idea of beginning talks without preconditions."
No doubt Pyongyang had been following what Trump said last year. In February 2016, he said China should take care of Kim, who, despite his age, shouldn't be underestimated. In May and June, he said he would have no problem speaking to Kim and receiving him, should he visit the US. In April 2017 he openly showed admiration for how Kim makes people disappear, praised him for being a "pretty smart ough cookie." He would also be "honored" to meet Kim "under the right circumstances."
Yesterday in Seoul, Trump once again reached out to Kim. This should send a positive message to Pyongyang. But we don't know how Trump's "sunshine policy" will last.
2
Assuming we survive this crisis, there must then be a serious effort to resolve the root problem: the fact that after six-plus decades, North and South Korea are still officially at war. (How many people realize that the Korean War ended not with a formal peace treaty, but with a truce?) This "original sin" has produced a situation where players on each side firmly believe that the other is determined to invade and conquer them.
The only way to resolve this is through multilateral peace talks (including the U.S., China, and possibly Japan) with the goal of establishing a secure, undisputed border between the two Koreas. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that the current madness will not be repeated, again and again.
4
Correction. The U.S. and North Korea remain at war. The U.S., China, and North Korea signed the armistice agreement, South Korea did not. While North and South Korea do indeed have serious differences, in the absence of a peace treaty to end the Korean War, the U.S. remains officially at war with North Korea.
"How Trump Should Talk to North Korea?"
He shouldn't. Our best chance to avoid war with North Korea is to put a zipper on the President's mouth. And tie one hand behind his back so he can't use his twitter buttons. Then progress may occur.
Agree with the authors, low level diplomacy, back off threatening "war games" and middle tests. Ease up on sanctions, and just see what happens. No harm in trying. You can always reinstate the sanctions.
3
"Our best chance to avoid war with North Korea is to put a zipper on the President's mouth....Then progress may occur."
My gosh, you have absolutely no comprehension of what the conflict with NK is all about, do you?
Reducing the complexities of the matter to Trump-bashing seems to be quite popular here. #Sad
2
All well and to the good. But, have we not been down this road numerous times, with pledges and promises, all broken by NK. Not only that, but what weight or influence do these NK"officials" really have on policy? My guess is slim to none. Deals may be made, and then deals will be broken. I submit that there is nothing to influence the Kim regime except as it affects self preservation, the welfare of the people be damned.
Trump has shown himself to be a nihilist brat too many times since ascending to his emperor's throne on Pennsylvania Avenue. He will brook no criticism from any quarter. His irrational splenetic outbursts on a social medium platform will enter the history books and give legs to those media that they would not otherwise have. That is, if the world can survive his insane posturing and blustering so reminiscent of the Nazis and so provocative of those who hate the USA, that our continued existence is truly in question. Trump is the greatest threat to this country since Russia set up ICBMs in Cuba in 1962.
4
All I gathered from the "Blowhard" in Chief tonight was that North Korea is BAD, and that he owns a golf course. Simply riveting television...
2
Liberals never, ever, ever learn. You don't deal with dictators by coddling them--by accommodating them--by giving in--or giving them hope.
As much as the Progressives love to refer to every Conservative as "Hitler Reincarnate", they really haven't learned a thing about the follies of appeasement. The only think tyrants understand is brute strength. The only way to bend them it to make them fear its use.
5
And belligerent militarists like you never bother to examine the underlying dynamics of any conflict. Kim Jong-un's maneuverings are all about ensuring his personal survivor. Comparing his motivations to the psychotic grandiosity of a Hitler complete misreads the reality of what is happening.
2
Unfortunately, Trump doesn't have a long enough attention span to read this well-reasoned advice. He's too busy insulting the Japanese, promoting his New Jersey golf course in South Korea and acting the chump in China to do anything but what he does best -- spouting empty threats at North Korea in a torrent of bluster, then offering to "make a deal." That's what happens when you have a moron for president and a non-existent secretary of state.
5
How trump should talk to North Korea.
He should talk to North Korea the same way he should talk period.
DON"T. Don't open your mouth, ever, and likewise, don't twitter ever..
2
In developing its nuclear and ICBM capabilities, N. Korea has spent an even larger share of its GDP on such deadend militarism than the US. We can sort of afford it; they really cannot. So I suggest two negotiating positions:
1. Given N. Korea's desperation to forestall a US invasion, let them have their missiles and their nukes. What can they possibly do with them?
2. Instead of spending >1 trillion dollars to modernize our own nukes, pay N. Korea and its scientists to provide what they have to us, saving only whatever weapons they need to feel safe. It's a win-win: they get desperately needed money, and the cost is a lot less than a trillion bucks.
The Byzantine Empire survived for hundreds of years by buying off weak but annoying opponents with cash. We should take the lesson to heart.
2
If you pay blackmail, then soon every rogue state in the world will be begin to develop a nuclear capability in order to pick up their $1 check. Soon we won't have any trillions left, and the world will be far less safe.
1
Yes, more failed talks with empty promises to buy the North Koreans time to park an ICBM in the middle of LA.
No thanks.
It was this soft, passive attitude that got us where we are now.
Wake up
2
Joel S. Wit is a senior fellow at the U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins University and the founder of its North Korea website, 38North.
http://www.38north.org/
This website is known for its scholarly and well regarded deep analysis of North Korea. Highly recommended for readers who want to get beyond the hysterical headlines and posturing that deal with NK in 30sec soundbites.
3
Before Trump opens his big mouth or fulminates in tweets against North Korea, he should remember the golden rule of dealing with adversaries. Never make threats that you are not prepared to carry out.
Trump doesnt need to talk to NK. He needs to talk to NK's enabler....China.
and this he is doing. And he will need to talk even tougher with China.
Cut NK off from the supply of missile tech and nuclear tech......or "most favored nation" status will be revoked!!
Also, no backing off from Taiwan.
One concession, never admitted to, used only in secret, could be to conceed the Spratly Islands.......China has overwhelming advantage in the south China Sea.....it is pointless for USA to attempt dominance there. China can easily cut off the Persian Gulf Oil routes here......
Instead, better to help Japan ween off Oil and put more emphasis on SAFE nuclear power and PV Solar. US can export oil to Japan AND Taiwan, too.
1
How about "Speak softly and carry a big stick?"
1
Exactly so. The sentiments expressed in this editorial are those of Neville Chamberlain.
North Korea is ruled by a group of psychopaths who must ultimately be removed from power, and by peaceful means. You cannot negotiate with a psychopath and you must not allow him to set the rules of engagement. When he finds a way to buy or to build an ICBM that can reach America, you can be certain that he will launch it, because that is what psychopaths do.
A psychopath is a person who simply does not have proper regard for the sanctity of human life, within his own country or anywhere else. He does not fear War, not even nuclear war, but will start one to suit his own purposes and even if it costs the lives of thousands of his own countrymen. This IS the type of person that you are dealing with, in the regime that now illegitimately rules North Korea.
2
Because the previous decades of talks, resulting in their cheating on every aspect, aided by our ENEMIES the chinese proved so effective, right? Appeases sing the same tunes across the years, cowardly, fearful and oh so worried their comforts and blase insouciance would be disrupted. Move aside. We voted for action across many fronts, our Asian enemies included. Perhaps you're fine with your grandkids as vassals of the chinese; we are not. And we prefer confrontation to cowering. Willing serfs need not apply.
2
The stakes only get higher if we negotiate. Use conventional means to obliterate N. Korea's command and control, its military, and its nuclear assets, while at the same time putting in place a complete naval blockade of the country.
If we had done that in August, we would no longer be worrying about N. Korea.
6
But would it not be likely that North Korea would unleash massive retaliation toward American ships and bases in the South? Would not likely many thousands of South Koreans and many Americans be killed in this process, along with thousands of innocent civilian North Koreans?
One cannot calculate how costly in human lives such a strike would entail, but it would almost certainly be very, very high.
1
Sam:
Why would Kim do that?? He would be signing his own death warrant.
Look. Either Kim is rational, in which case he will cry Uncle because he knows we mean business
Or he is "very, very" insane, and we need to put him down asap.
Either way, we must mean business.
3
Sam McFarland wrote: “But would it not be likely that North Korea would unleash massive retaliation toward American ships and bases in the South?”
One of our carrier groups is more powerful than all of the other navies in the world combined. We have three carrier groups in the area right now. Moreover, N. Korea is well under 200 miles across, meaning our Reagan-era B-1B could pass over the entire country in about eight minutes (this is the same, non-stealthy plane that N. Korea could not detect last month). Once we begin our attack, the existence of any cohesive N. Korean military unit will be measured in minutes.
I have to tune Trump and his body language out. A 20 year old 'Law and Order' episode is much more satisfying then trumps schoolyard ego. His John Wayne attitude is totally scary/ His tweet about Gillespie losing, from S.Korea is priceless shows how poorly prepared he is for his office!
5
As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on me. Feel me twice, shame on you. Fool us 20 or 50 times....? DiMaggio and Wit want us to fall for it all over again? Shame on them.
Look back over the past year. Who was it that launched a ballistic missile over Japan (twice)? Who claims to have acquired a hydrogen bomb? Who says he has succeeded in putting a nuclear payload on a ballistic missile that can reach the US? Who has been loudly threatening to fire missiles at Guam?
Over 20, 30 or 50 years, we have talked, and they have cheated.
If North Korea sincerely wants to talk, then it must do so by its actions. That means, as you say, that it must stop its nuclear and missile testing, If Korea resumes either of those, all bets are off. There has been a lull recently. Maybe that will eventually allow talks. But nothing would be foolish than giving Kim hope that the pressure is relenting and it is safe for him to revert to the usual tricks. Kim must understand that military options are still on the table. We must not make the same mistake as in the past and accept words instead of actions.
1
The North Korean regime doesn't care about bombs. It cares about its criminal enterprise, which makes the elites wealthy and also relatively impervious to "sanctions". After all the sanctions of the past, have you seen the photos of North Korea today, and the lifestyle of the elites?
There is no positive outcome to negotiating with a criminal enterprise. If these people were the Mafia or the Yakuza or the Bratva trying to develop a bomb, hacking into banks, torturing the citizenry, committing assassinations abroad, threatening mass destruction on a neighbor state, would we feel like negotiating with them? I don't think so.
Take of the blinders of tactics and blusters, overtures and hints, positions and concerns, and you have an enormous criminal enterprise. Ban their international travel, close their embassies, freeze their accounts, intercept all shipments of strategic materials and sit on them until they cry uncle. Enough is enough.
2
Starting with the color of his hair, my dislike of Trump began with way he looked and then went on to include his treatment of women and minorities, incessant lying, tax avoidance, real estate swindling, ignorance of social and foreign policy, never-ending braggadocio and trashing of this country's reputation as the last real hope of endangered people everywhere.
Lately, however, I find myself concentrating on his looks again. He looks
increasingly mean to me these days. Always scowling, never a bit of humor in anything he says. Almost as if he knows his act is not working and will soon becoming to a bad end.
5
Wow, the proposed talks are nothing less than a repeat of the 1990's Clinton era which began this horrendous mess.
1
I agree with your editorial. Sadly I have no confidence that our president has the intelligence or the temperament to successfully pull this off, or to even see its necessity.
Example: The way he is doing his best to make a mess of the multinational treaty with Iran.
Nixon used ping pong diplomacy to thaw relations with the Chinese.
Why not use basketball diplomacy with the North Koreans? Debrief Dennis Rodman. Get some other NBA stars to visit North Korea's fearless leader. Schedule an NBA game between Golden State and the Lakers in Pyongyang.
Naive? Farfetched? Humble pie? Perhaps. But a nuclear blast in the Pacific would bring an economic catastrophe in its wake, even if it hit no land mass. That's really dumb - Tillerson at his slack-jawed worst.
When there is a comity of nations, there is basketball and trade. That's the message. Would not Tillerson and NBA stars reaching out be more a more prudent tact than an action that would lead to radioactivity in the atmosphere?
Though the writers’ opinion is formed in a pro-diplomatic tone, its main policy-recommendation is a precondition sure to be a negotiations’ killer: “An essential first step is an immediate moratorium on North Korea’s nuclear and missile testing, which aggravate tensions.” And in exchange for such a move -- which certainly, and with established reasons, will be viewed in Pyongyang as a maneuver to neuter NK’s nuclear and missile program -- all that is offered is that “the United States and South Korea could meet North Korean concerns by adjusting the scale of their joint military exercises or perhaps offer some relief from economic sanctions.”
Notwithstanding Trump’s sudden panache’ to “make a deal” with the Rocket Man, practically all the NK regime is “offered” are harsher sanctions and the looming threat of, calibrated or total, military strike – all sticks.
The only rational approach towards abating the crisis and opening a path for stable agreement is that while in the Pacific sails a formidable three-carriers’ armada, the U.S. should go ahead and offer a mixture of substantial economic and diplomatic carrots (from economic aid through diplomatic assurances all the way to “light-water” reactors). The aim should be to test whether faced whit such a positive approach Pyongyang may accept a deal involving a freeze of its nuclear program and limits on its missiles’ program. To demand denuclearization and full stop of missiles’ development is to ask for escalation.
9
Meir:
Jimmy Carter gave them the reactors already. That is how we came to the present impasse.
The cupboard is empty, and we got absolutely nothing in return. The Kim regime just learned from that fiasco that building nuclear weapons can pay big-time.
Paying ransom to thugs just encourages more ransom demands from thugs. When will you ever learn?
To Ian Maitland,
The truth-value of the assertion, “Jimmy Carter gave them the reactors already. That is how we came to the present impasse.” is lower than any American and Israeli clear and present warning on the existential threat of Saddam’s nuclear weapons.
Trump should talk to North Korea through the secretary of state Tillerson or special envoy like Jimmy Carter. The talks can take place in Iceland to break the ice between the US and North Korea just like Reagan and Gorbachev did or in neighboring China. The talks have to be in a give and take spirit without one or the other side bullying the other. Each country has to ease the insecurity of the other country. It should be made very clear that the USA is not looking for a regime change in North Korea and North Korea should provide clarity on what it wants to see happen for it to end its nuclear and missile program. If it wants to use atoms for peace and use its missile program to launch commercial satellites then that could be tolerated. In South Korea Trump did not rule out talks and has tempered his rhetoric and that is a new beginning that he could build on.
2
There should be talks between the US and North Korea, of course, instead of bellicose exchanges. This crisis is very much a product of the US as well as North Korea in the first place.
The real problem lies in the power struggle among China, Russia and the US in the Far East. The present situation shows that the US cannot keep a complete dominance on South Korea and Japan any more. But I do not think Trump realizes this fact. (Trump's recent visit on Japan and South Korea was through back doors like visiting a war-ravaged Afghanistan.)
the article, in a nutshell, suggests that we lay down more pavement so that the 'can' can be kicked further down the road (while overlooking that the road may already end on a cliff).
in the process, the article makes some interesting observations, but the conclusions inferred ignore or do not always match what is written. To wit, the authors state that NK wants nukes at all costs, then they write about diplomacy to get rid of nukes and say its "an approach the North Koreans have hinted they would accept." They will accept right now because it delays and stalls things further, and this helps them to achieve the first priority of which you wrote -- to get nukes. The 'essential first step' can never be achieved, the authors already clarified this. in addition, the authors never mention that NK has rarely followed previous deals as negotiated. what a conundrum. this article doesn't help.
2
It still blows my mind that people continue to write these reasoned suggestions for trump. What about him makes you even consider this could happen?
Mar-A-Lago Chocolate cake, Golden Arches 1/2 pounders, cheese, extra ketchup and Coke for the comfort food summit. Diplomacy by calories can be a take out winner! .
Both players have a hearty and hearty appetite for fast food. Drop in some Waffle House ‘smothered and covered’ hash browns and let the talks begin.
Most of us would probably agree that this opinion piece is reasoned and on balance sensible.
The problem is, NK leadership is neither. And of course neither is trump. So a lot of what is stated is admirable from a sensible point of view, but wishful thinking in reality.
One of the hardest things in negotiating, or trying to change someone else's views or opinions even slightly, is understanding that not everyone thinks like you do. Nor of course can be believed, whatever they say.
The US has tried through negotiations and futile attempts at sanctions to influence NK policy for decades. Nothing's worked, because they don't think like us or share our values (and China has always protected them). Yet they are a real danger to all the countries around them, and now the world.
I don't have a solution. Yes, keep trying to negotiate, that's probably the best, but it is also naive to believe that NK views things as stated in this opinion piece.
They don't care about what is true, right, fair or just....just staying in power and keeping their people enslaved is their only priority. I think we have to keep that in mind at all times too.
1
Uniting the Korean Peninsula under its rule has been the goal of the Kim family for the better part of a century. How the author managed to ignore that elephant in the room is beyond me.
What this piece ignores is the versatility of even a small nuclear arsenal in North Korea's hands, even putting aside the notion of them selling ready-made weapons or designs.
Use #1 Regime Survival by having enough of them
Use #2 Stopping US, South Korean joint exercises by promising to give some of them up.
Use #3 Getting US Forces out of South Korea altogether by promising to give more of them up.
Use #4 Threatening retaliation against US Cities with its remaining weapons, if the US tries to intervene in a North Korean invasion of South Korea.
1
The assumption here is that the US will be able to approach the PDRK with a well thought out strategy that they can keep to. It is very clear that our current "shoot from the hip" president is incapable of that, and hence even with an experienced state dept, such an assumption is not warranted. If this situation does calm down and improve, it will be in spite of the Trump admin. , not because of it.
In case one has forgotten what it takes to create Nuclear Winter, its 'only'
50 nuclear explosions that will inject massive amounts of dust into the atmosphere.
This will block out the sun and cause temps to drop worldwide and soon, end life as we know it.
Then there is the radiation that will not confine itself to the blast sites, but will be carried worldwide by winds. Trumps' antics could easily wipe out life on this beautiful planet; despite all its flaws it is the best place to live!
1
The idea expressed here is very relevant and a mile stone for the establishment of a peaceful civilized world. This is a way the administration also should think and go into the action.
But this does not happen in politics. The big war fought so far were the outcomes of vested interests, ego, cruelty and other negative aspects.
This machinery always seems to be working actively in every administration one way or the other.
The best example is the Iraq war. Now also we often hear comments like in the event of war, many people will die only in Korean Peninsula not here in US. or The is the best time to go into the war because they have not got ability to strike back so far etc
Such kind of thinking makes situation more complicated. Because underestimation of enemy ( overestimation as well ), miscalculation etc are the root cause of failure.
Overall sounds like a reasonable approach to ratcheting back the current brinkmanship, a condition in which one inadvertency has the grave potential to move from belligerent posturing to open military conflict.
“The North Koreans are bewildered by the lack of coherence in American policy. President Trump’s threatening tweets and personal attacks on Kim Jong-un have only added to the risks of misinterpretation.”
I find this assertion absurd.
It simply does not track with Kim’s cumulative actions or his demeanor.
Much of the problem finding some mutual accommodation has to do with the intensely manic and long standing hyper-demonization of the US by the entire succession of Kim regimes over many decades.
This is the dominent propaganda tool of this brutally totalitarian, highly oppressive rogue state. This makes genuine NK-US negotiation a very risky proposition for Kin Jun un, especially after his run of nuclear weapons and ICBM development for the express purpose of checkmating America’s perceived military intrusion on the Korean Peninsula.
1
President George W. Bush carries some serious blame here for when he first placed North Korea in his ridiculous 'axis of evil', something Obama could not undo.
The worry is that Trump will make a similar lasting mistake, complicating a future resolution to this conflict. More worrying still is that this now seems a best case scenario, with many experts fearing a far worse turn of events.
North Korea displays rationality by banking on the notion that America would find the loss of 2 or 3 of its major cities too high a price to pay for the overthrow of the Kim regime. That's good. We can work with rationality.
Or at least a good president could.
What is sad is that Trump, at 71, has to have daily history, political, and cultural lessons in order to govern. You would think his business background in numerous countries would have enlightened him how to conduct himself. Instead, he wants everything yesterday and blasts, bullies, insults everyone around him for not complying with his wishes. If that's how he ran his businesses, which went bankrupt 5 times, then negotiations with N Korea are doomed. It is also sad that Stephen Miller has this thirst for writing history lessons for each country Trump visits. It's almost like neither of them paid attention in school and are only now doing the research for the essays they were supposed to write in college.
The young leader obviously is psychologically unstable. He lives in a world that he controls. We are subject to his feelings of despair and insecurities. He may very well be schizophrenic and depressive. He appears too bravado to accept medical treatment. He can't control his own physical state (weight). He has tasted murder as an immediate solution to his problems. His behavior is not that different from a mass shooter. If he decides he must die, for whatever reason, he will want to take many to the grave with him. Talking to him will probably be counter productive, and possibly dangerous. His auto kill apparatus hooked into nuclear devices is difficult to disarm. If he is left to his own devices his obsession with them will most likely result in his use of them. He should be addressed internally by his own people. He needs to be made irrelevant as soon as possible. This is the equivalent of a paranoid schizophrenic with hundreds of nuclear weapons on rockets. One acute episode of paranoia, depression or psychosis will most likely set him off. Military options may be our best choice to minimize the death toll.
1
We need to make peace with the fact that North Korea is going to be a nuclear state and that nothing we say or do will stop that from happening. Then we need to make peace with North Korea. Perhaps without the constant fear of persecution from the US things might settle down on the Korean peninsula. We need to give the North a chance to reintegrate with the rest of the world. They signed the Paris Climate agreement so clearly it's possible.
17
"They signed the Paris Climate agreement" .... to help shape international perceptions of a totalitarian regime that punishes its political criminals with anti-aircraft artillery, starves its people, and assassinates family members with VX nerve agent.
They signed the agreement ... to influence you. Its appeared to work.
1
"They signed the Paris Climate agreement..."
They'll sign anything you want. Remember that Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich with Adolf Hitler's signature. He announced to the jubilant crowd that greeted him in England: "Here is the paper which bears his name on it as well as mine." The rest is history. Will we never learn?
1
IMO we have gotten to this state because prior administrations believed NK would abide by negotiated agreements. They didn't. So, why believe they will do so going forward?
If we accept NK as a nuclear state what's to stop other rogue states from buying the technology. After all NK needs the $.
BTY I think China is more then happy to have NK remain as a thorn in the side of the US. It fits China's (obvious) global ambitions to a tee.
NK has no right holding the US civilian population as hostages. The only solution is tit-for-tat. NK is a country of 1/2 staved robots and as horrible as it sounds we need to make sure it continues that way. De-populate the country. Leave the blockading seventy fleet. Pick off targets opportunities.
As I read this I can only shake my head in disbelief. Here we have two well-mentioned "experts" who believe everything that the North Koreans tell them. Hook, line and sinker.
To the authors: the North Koreans have said the same things to American interlocutors for the last 20-something years. All the while, they have steadily enhanced and improved their nuclear capabilities.
We Americans are a naive, trusting lot -- surrounded east and west by two vast oceans, friends to the north and south. We are a people filled with goodwill.
Even when we encounter a venomous snake, we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
I would humbly submit that negotiations are a complete waste of time with the regime in Pyongyang because they already have made clear in public at the highest levels that they will never / never give up either their nuclear or missile programs.
The real threat of overwhelming force -- NOT negotiations -- is the only thing that will convince Pyongyang that we are serious.
But time is of the essence -- in less than one year, according to Defense Department estimates, North Korea will develop the technology to put a nuclear warhead atop an ICBM.
What will the authors say when that happens and North Korea can then terrorize US friends and allies (and quite possibly US citizens in the USA) with their apoplectic and hysterical threats?
We've kicked the can down the road long enough. And we are rapidly running out of road.
12
I appreciate the vision of sanity that this article presents in regard to a bellicose standoff where both sides have been making increasingly crazy provocations. Unfortunately, backing away from such terrifying craziness is likely to be very difficult. As a negotiating strategy, both sides have succeeded in projecting a mad-man fire-and-fury image on the assumption that this would force any adversary to give in to their demands. At this point, it would be very hard for either side to be very confident that the adversary is not absolutely crazy. But however difficult it may be to make the transition to sanity, I agree that we must try.
5
"At this point, it would be very hard for either side to be very confident that the adversary is not absolutely crazy."
Agreed... but only if one is a soft-headed imbecile with no understanding of politics or history.
1
North Korea has been nearly impervious to dialogue and mutual accommodation for over 25 years. The U.S. has little interest in North Korea except in assuring it does not destabilize South Korea or develop and distribute nuclear/chemical weapons.
The author states: "The United States should understand that growing talk of military options will only strengthen Pyongyang’s resolve, not undermine it."
Perhaps so, but the premise that the lack of U.S. willingness to dialogue with N. Korea has brought us to this point is wrong, I believe. It's N. Korea's unwillingness to dialogue in earnest and reach mutual accommodation.
We worry about the use of military pressure and the danger and uncertainty this entails. But I understand at least why it comes to this, if we assume that a nuclear armed North Korea is a grave international threat and that China has tacitly supported North Korea's economy as it seeks nuclear weapons.
Does anyone really believe that dialogue prior to 2016 would have worked to alter North Korea's quest for nuclear arms? North Korea was not an honest broker. Despite the grave dangers, dialogue could work now after the reality of the threat of military force takes hold in China and North Korea. This is no game, and dialogue is now the only method that assures safe passage for all.
4
Well reasoned and balanced essay. The problem with Mr. Trump (and there are many) in this area is that he always crafts life in terms of "winners" and "losers." The idea of negotiation and compromise, of getting half-a-loaf now and maybe more later is foreign to him. Likely he is periodically persuaded by saner voices around him to tone it down, but then the slightest provocation (and it doesn't seem to take much) sets him off again on one of his tough-guy blustering 'don't mess with me/us' twitter storms. No wonder N. Korea has a hard time deciphering the message.
27
Madam -- this is NOT about Mr. Trump. Its about the pathetic American tendency to attribute to others our generous mindset. The North Koreans are NOT at all like us. You should keep that in mind.
2
We need to deal with North Korea government as it is,not as we wish it to be. It took many years, but we were able through diplomatic negotiations to get the Soviet union to go along with us in reducing our nuclear arsenals. We have had fifty plus years to negotiate with North Korea only to have ended up with a nuclear armed North Korea.
14
You have to understand that any dialogue between the North and the US had been stopped since the first year of the Bush Administration. Yes, more than a decade the US pretty much ignored the North except making comments every now and then. A lot of people are confused that occasional comments as an official effort to deal with the North. Some Far Easterners believe the US often used the tension as their strategy to sell more expensive weapons to the South and Japan. Both nations already agreed to purchase costly F-35 and Japan already purchased two THAADs which costs USD 10 billion each. So, this is really the first time that the US is ever considering seriously to have a dialogue with the North in more than a decade.
10
That's because no one in the US wanted to make the difficult decisions to use military force. That is what it is going to take to convince North Korea to change course. Mark my words.
2
It's reassuring to read this and know that the experts in the room are continuing to pursue diplomatic conversations with North Korea. This sounds like a meaningful path that can yield results that satisfy both sides. Trump's bellicosity and threats aren't helpful. Congress needs to reign him in.
27
A very, very well written article. I truly hope that it has influence within the administration. I've always hoped that we could lay down our own weapons, at least to the point where others would not feel at such an obvious disadvantage.
11
You think that the North Koreans understand / accept the notion of political magnanimity?
Were the US to behave as you suggest, the North Koreans would say "mission accomplished!"
1
Well so much for THAT approach!
4
You seem to be suggesting that trump begin behaving like a responsible adult. While I agree with your suggestions, I believe that hell will freeze over 10 feet thick and the angels will be renting out ice skates before that happens.
18
Still, we need to be shown there is an adult solution.
Too much of the conversation has been framed by our national security freaks, declaiming there is no adult solution, just war, just crush them, make someone else crush them.
5
Adult solution? This is not sociology / marriage counseling / therapy.
A refusal to face facts -- that Pyongyang will never give up its nuclear arsenal under any conditions -- will get the US nowhere except facing a nuclear armed North Korea prepared to launch ICMBS against us and our allies.
5
I think this approach will only work if Trump can negotiate with North Korea and handle the situation maturely. If he fails to the this, nuclear war could follow. Trump previously said America would "totally destroy" North Korea and that they would see "fire and fury like the world has never seen." If we want to peacefully negotiate with North Korea t get them to stop nuclear testing, these comments need to stop. North Korea says "they are not striving to be a nuclear state with a big arsenal, but rather to have enough weapons to defend themselves." and Trump's comments give them a reason to feel the need to defend themselves from a world power as big as America.
17
"I think this approach will only work if Trump can negotiate with North Korea and handle the situation maturely. If he fails to the this, nuclear war could follow."
Why is the onus on the USA?
Handling the situation "maturely" to my mind means facing up to the fact that we are dealing with a regime that is / has for years been stringing us along.
When will enough be enough? When North Korean ICBMs can hit US cities with nuclear warheads?
1
I doubt that Trump has the necessary constraint to be diplomatic. Insults and grand speech comes natural to him. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
11
That would be a boar’s (boor’s?) ear.
Diplomacy is to be preferred to war mongering. Killing the oppressed people of North Korea is not much of a victory nor is putting South Korea and Japan at risk. It is the regime that is the problem. Diplomats deal with these situations armed with knowledge and expert experience.
Trump avoided fighting in Vietnam and has shown contempt for American POWs and vets. Yet overhead the last day or so and tonight I hear large military planes returning from missions abroad.
Only Congress can declare war. Trump's generals should not become confused. Very few Americans support Trump and even fewer would support a Trump war.
15
Only Congress can declare war, but history has shown that a president can take us to what is effectively a war without Congressional support.
Common sense:
With regard to Trump’s speech this evening from South Korea, Trump’s references to North Korea were highly, over the top, inflammatory.
Is Trump unaware that North Korea has a missile program?
And why on earth, really, is his unqualified, inexperienced son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a tagalong?
12
As of tonight, Twitter allows 280 character tweets for all. This marks an important breakthrough for Trump's ability to negotiate with foreign powers! Yeah, we should all be scared.....
6
When I heard this, I said to myself "now he can be twice as stupid".
1
I don’t know if the authors watched Donald Trumps speech to the South Korean parliament, but he was as insulting and bellicose to North Korea as he’s ever been.
Based on some reports in the early afternoon, it sure sounded like he’d dramatically lowered his tone, even revisiting the idea of diplomacy.
Whatever happened over the next two hours just channeled his inner Devil. The whole second part of the speech was a laundry list of NK atrocities, and terrorism, as well as backing out of promises to the west. The SK members looked as stunned as I felt. He also went back to his call for NK to give up their weapons. Diplomacy wasn’t mentioned once.
So with one speech, Trump reverted to form. And lessened the chance that a peaceful solution can be found as outlined n your otherwise well-meaning suggestions.
The best chance to reduce the chance of devastating conflict with NK is to get Trump out of office ASAP.
55
Wrong. The best chance to reduce the chance of devastating conflict with NK is to launch preemptive military strikes at North Korean leadership and military targets. Only by showing that we are serious will the regime in Pyongyang get the message.
Thank goodness you are not advising the government.
1
"In our talks, the North Koreans have maintained that they are not striving to be a nuclear state with a big arsenal, but rather to have enough weapons to defend themselves."
Now that is comforting. I'm that everyone can live with that.
"It (= denuclearization) must be framed as a long-term objective of any diplomacy, an approach the North Koreans have hinted they would accept."
How does that work with their "few weapons" or is a "long term objective" that remains forever long term?
3
How does that work? No regime change. We see nukes, they see regime change. One for the other.
3
Very moderate tone- long overdue. Excellent point CNN made--get NK to table without demanding terms that are ultimate culmination. In other words, do not scare off with harsh conditions that hopefully follow poised negotiations.
7
This is a realistic and plausible approach to defusing the crisis. Let's hope that Trump and his team have the necessary patience and strength of character to pursue it.
18
Emphasis on "hope" because Trump has been know to be an impatient man who can be quite moody. I hope he doesn't get America in hot water with North Korea because he can't keep his mouth shut.
7
The trouble is that, for Trump, beyond an initial good feeling about being praised for being responsible or presidential, he likely gets very anxious inside because his only bearable way of existing is to be the insulting bully and to paint the other with the bits of himself he can't bear - vulnerability and self loathing. So I have no hope that he will sustain an open, reasonable, thoughtful stance and we should all rightly be afraid of what might follow.
1