The action came two days after Mr. Trump backed away from his demand that Mr. Kim completely abandon his nuclear arsenal without any reciprocal American concessions.Does this mean that Kim did what Trump had publicly demanded after Trump made a public statement that he was not demanding it?
UPDATE: "President Trump has notified Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, that he has canceled their much-anticipated meeting, which was set for June 12" (NYT).
Posts
391 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 391 of 391n.n.: "Then there's our ambassador, who was sodomized and aborted when Obama deferred to terrorists."
Yeah, but as readering has argued, didn't obama look cool and relaxed when that was happening to our ambassador?
I mean, why get so dramatic about the sodomization and murder of our ambassador? After all, wasn't obama due to fill out his March Madness brackets around then?
consider the building of Chinese or Russian military bases in the region a highly provocative act.
China is buying up Central and South America. Who needs bases?
The control The Panama Canal and I think we’re accused of side drilling into our waters. Arent they helping Cuba?
And Russia is back around Cuba, aren’t they? Weren’t they think of docking or have docked in Cuba?
Face it Trumpists, Trump and his man Bolton and VP Pence fucked it up, so disappointing after all the hype and hope for those of you who actually believed it would happen.
Inga is sounding very very desperate.
It's unfortunate that the she and her dems didn't have an effective "insurance policy" in place for continuation of their appeasement policies.
And on top of that we've run out of pallets for hard cash transfers to our enemies!
And the Israeli's won't just all die and go away!
These are dark, dark times for the lefties....
LOL
A difference from what I’ve read is when we bought or lease, we’d hire local help. The Chicoms for the most part, use their people.
But were any Russian whores involved?
Russian "holes." Presumably, white holes, which are a mythical source of creative destruction and physically congruous ("="), but are more likely in reality to be gray holes.
Seeing Red: "The Chicoms for the most part, use their people."
Well, they do seem to have plenty of them.....
(Chuckling quietly)
readering: "(Chuckling quietly)"
What time is your next dose?
Trump now speaking. Already making threats to North Korea. What a complete fool. What an embarrassment in front of the world.
@Fabi:
J. Farmer -- 10-20 sounds like an "estimated stockpile" since it's not an absolute value. One more thing -- you were the one who originally mentioned missiles, hence my use of warheads.
Yep, estimated. It could be 10. It could be 20. Why isn't zero the low end of the range, though?
As for missiles, that is precisely the issue that has brought us to this point. North Korea first successfully tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. The most recent UN sanctions were related to ballistic missile technology, not the nuclear program per se, but everyone presumes that North Korea is working towards the ability to deliver nuclear weapons.
These will be valuable one day:
Commemorative coin issued by the White House ahead of the planned summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Inga: "Trump now speaking. Already making threats to North Korea."
Looks like Inga has a new boyfriend target in KJU.
He's so dreamy and he's in the #resistance too!
why do you want the US to look desperate, Inga? Or small?
After Ronnie met Gorby, my dad said if he was president, he would have let the commies have their way on the details. But after Gorby made his proposal, he would have gotten up, walked around the table to Gorby, leaned down and said “No.” then walked out.
Different strokes for different folks. It’s been going on for 70 years, it can go on longer. There’s a reason the Chicoms hired people to help them try and understand Trump. They should get their money back.
ARM: "These will be valuable one day:"
https://invest.usgoldbureau.com/news/coins_big_money/
"These Big Mistakes by the U.S. Mint Could be Worth Big Money"
Wow. Trump making coin collecting Great Again!
Amazing.
I was going to write that Drago. What does one do with 30 million single young men?
Seeing Red, remember, these very same lefties laughed at Reagan in just the same way as they lined up to support Gorbachev.
The left has never changed.
Re: J. Farmer:
I think that is a sensible outline for a deal. I think there are a few other looming issues, such as the US-ROK mutual defense treaty. Would ending that treaty be on the table? And do you think a withdraw of US forces from the peninsula is on the table? Also, timing seems very important to me. From a North Korean perspective, and given recent history, isn't unilaterally disarming before accruing any benefit a very reckless course to pursue?
Well, yes -- coordination of drawdown of US forces and destruction of North Korea's arsenal and fuel manufacturing facilities would be one of those important details. Probably staged reduction of forces (and withdrawal of forces further south down the peninsula, ending at Busan) in concert with stages of destruction. Obviously, we're saying right now that of course we're not going to reduce our military forces at all -- this is a negotiation and Trump is trying to set parameters as favourable as he can get them. But I think he's more likely than any other President in my lifetime to be willing to actually withdraw US forces from South Korea. And if the troops are actually withdrawn, and the bases returned to South Korean control (in some cases, for the first time since Empire of Japan built them during the Russo-Japanese war), then it would be very difficult for a subsequent President to undo that on a large scale (although sending a team of military advisors would be cheap).
Ending the US-ROK mutual defense treaty could be on the table, but honestly, it's just a piece of paper -- I don't think North Korea would draw much comfort from the fact that we formally abrogate a treaty, since we could still counterattack in defense of South Korea (and on the flip side, even if we had it in place, there's no guarantee that we'd actually do anything to defend South Korea -- that's the whole point of having a bunch of US troops on the frontline where they'll be killed by any North Korean invasion).
There are also probably some benefits that could accrue immediately, like medical aid for all those tapeworms. And food aid for their starving people. I think lifting of most of the sanctions would have to be coordinated as part of the staging for both destruction of nuclear weapons and drawdown of US forces.
And there's other items that North Korea would need from South Korea. Most likely, that would include verifiable dismantling of South Korean nuclear weapons research and probably their space program. That, or the space programs would have to be combined so that both sides have full visibility into what is being done (perhaps this is more likely, since both Koreas probably want to continue missile development as a guarantee against domination by China, Japan, or the US). South Korea has a bunch of nuclear reactors too, and something would have to be done with them. North Korea isn't going to sit by idly and let the South have nuclear power if they can't have it too. But these are all details -- if the big items are resolved, I think these can all be resolved too.
“why do you want the US to look desperate, Inga? Or small?”
The US is powerful and certainly not small, or desperate. That would be your President Trump. Trump isn’t the US. I have great faith in our country, it’s military and the fact that there are sane people who still have some control over Trump.
If there is one thing the lefties like Inga hate hate hate, it's their boyfriend commie totalitarian leaders being told what will happen to them if they continue to threaten the west.
The lefties don't like that at all. Not one bit.
I wonder if Trump could get more support from the lefties if he got himself tattooed and lopped off the heads of a few innocent US citizens with machetes. That would be one surefire way to get lefties to come out in support of him.
Inga: "I have great faith in our country, it’s military..."
The vast majority of active duty and reserve military voted for Trump.
You called them traitors.
My late dad used to say "sometimes its reasonable to be unreasonable". He also said you have to know when to stop. Kim and Trump are playing the unreasonable-reasonable game except Trump has the better hand.
J. Farmer -- I thank you for a polite discussion. I enjoy your comments and haven't had a chance to engage you as your expertise is in foreign policy, and that's not a topic for me to argue with any certainty. I spent the first five years of my career holding a TS/CNWDI clearance, so I am intimately familiar with the complexities of developing and maintaining nuclear weapons.
Given that, I remain open to the possibity that they have zero nuclear weapons. Or more.
Actually, if memory serves, Inga called the majority of active and reserve military who voted for Trump traitors AND nazi's.
But she respects them.
Greatly.
LOL
"Oh crap! The buyer walked out! Now I am never going to sell him a car!”
“Oh crap! The Dow dropped today! A recession probably already started!”
“Oh crap! A factory closed, unemployment must be a record highs!”
“Oh crap! Republicans are against ILLEGAL immigration, now wages are sure to drop!”
I could go on.
Actually, if memory serves, Inga called the majority of active and reserve military who voted for Trump traitors AND nazi's.
Nobody hated the Nazis more than their fraternal twin, the Stasi.
RE: tim in vermont:
“Oh crap! Republicans are against ILLEGAL immigration, now wages are sure to drop!”
Wait, what? Does supply and demand work like that?
“You called them traitors.”
Liar. It’s always a signal that Drago is flailing when he stops his manic commentary to outright lie. I called Flynn a traitor and I’m not stepping away from that. You can feel free to turn him into some cult hero if you wish.
But but only we can cancel the meeting! The US doesn’t do that!
I wonder what Trump will pencil in that day?
He should go to Singapore anyway.
Inga is ashamed of what she called military members so I don't blame her for trying to rewrite history.
After all, she is a leftist so history is supposed to have started anew this morning anyway.
But no Inga, every single name you have called Trump voters applies to those military members whom you claim to respect.
Baelfegor said: "United States withdraws troops from South Korea, promises to stop flying bombers right along the border to freak them out, and significantly reduces current sanctions. The rest is details (and there would have to be a lot of details to coordinate drawdown on both sides, arrange for verification, etc.). Also, North Korea promises to stop kidnapping people, and various countries pour in a bunch of reconstruction, development, food, and medical aid."
Basically this amounts to handing over South Korea to China and/or North Korea.
The only reason South Korea is an independent nation is American troops. North Korea would have invaded South Korea, for the second time, a long time ago if it weren't for that 30,000 troop tripwire.
I don't think there is any country in the world that devotes a higher proportion of its resources to its military than North Korea. Why?
It's not because of a fear of US invasion. It's not because of a fear of South Korean invasion.
Both of these scenarios are extremely improbable because of China. South Korea isn't going to immolate itself voluntarily. The United States is not going to go to war with China over North Korea.
So why does North Korea spend 30 percent of its GDP or 40 percent or whatever massive percentage we might estimate on its military? Because they intend to invade South Korea. This goal has been key to what North Korea has been all about for many years.
So what does it mean if the United States withdraws that 30,000 troop tripwire?
Well it becomes much more practical to plan to invade South Korea. Suddenly there is the significant risk that the United States will not fight a war to protect or revenge South Korea.
Everyone knows that the United States is not looking for a war with China.
“Actually, if memory serves, Inga called the majority of active and reserve military who voted for Trump traitors AND nazi's.
But she respects them.
Greatly.
LOL”
Keep flailing Drago, maybe you’ll accidentally hit yourself in the noggin, lol.
"You forgot Bush Clinton Bush. I see no real difference in the outcome with any of those people in charge.
Bush II didn’t say a word when Obama/Clinton betrayed Ghadafi. They all made it clear that any tinpot who denuclearized was stupid to trust the US with the globalists in charge."
I agree. The Bushes listens to the deep staters at the State Department. Clinton had no ideas and let Jimmy Carter run the show for him. That was certainly pitiful.
The US is powerful and certainly not small, or desperate. That would be your President Trump. Trump isn’t the US. I have great faith in our country, it’s military and the fact that there are sane people who still have some control over Trump.
No actually you don’t.
You seem to have a problem with this voting thingy. And that the FBI should not be spying on campaigns thingy. Those go to the core of who we are. But you’re confused on that, too.
Have Supreme Leader coins hit ebay yet.
I called Flynn a traitor and I’m not stepping away from that. You can feel free to turn him into some cult hero if you wish.
Any possibility that you might reconsider after he is exonerated and Sally Yates and Strzok got to prison ?
Do you remember Ted Stevens?
Seeing Red, remember, these very same lefties laughed at Reagan in just the same way as they lined up to support Gorbachev.
The left has never changed.
I swear, when I read the Russians were on the move again in our waters during Obama’s admin, I thought oh, crap, we’re back to my childhood. But Obama and his prog ilk loved the 70s.
“Have Supreme Leader coins hit ebay yet.”
LOL!
Inga said...
“why do you want the US to look desperate, Inga? Or small?”
The US is powerful and certainly not small, or desperate. That would be your President Trump. Trump isn’t the US. I have great faith in our country, it’s military and the fact that there are sane people who still have some control over Trump.
I snorted.
The military members know that democrats hate them. Obama clearly wanted more of us dead. He made that very clear.
People who want gun control are immediately enemies of 90% of current/ex-mil.
Don't even pretend you are viewed as a decent person by the vast majority of us.
Gah. Just don’t have the Clinton Foundation run reconstruction and North Lorea might have a chance.
We should let Europe handle reconstruction.
Who knew international diplomacy with rogue nuclear nations could be so difficult?
Achilles: "The military members know that democrats hate them."
Yep.
When someone calls you a traitor and a nazi but then tries to sell you on the lie that they respect you, it tends to fall flat.
LOL
Watching Inga now claiming she didn't call Trump voters nazi's and traitors and deplorables is funny.
Hard to argue with this:
"The administration could not have set expectations for this meeting higher, with the president boasting about deserving the Nobel Peace Prize and the White House issuing a widely ridiculed commemorative coin for the summit referring to Kim as the “supreme leader.” Trump’s opponents might be tempted to crow about this, but the fact is that the world is significantly more dangerous when Kim and Trump are lobbing threats at each other than it is when they are talking."
And we’re in the 90s retread of impeachment! But that would be OVERTURNING THE ELECTION and we can’t have that now, can we?
Who knew my life journey would be a retread of my youth? 2nd time farce is correct. At least I got my 80s mini stock boom.
Inga said...
“Actually, if memory serves, Inga called the majority of active and reserve military who voted for Trump traitors AND nazi's.
But she respects them.
Greatly.
LOL”
Keep flailing Drago, maybe you’ll accidentally hit yourself in the noggin, lol.
We remember who flogged Abu Ghraib.
We remember who nominated and supported the Winter Soldier.
We remember Obama taking credit for Osama.
We remember democrats "Grim Milestones."
We remember service members going to jail for a couple pictures while democrats supported Hillary Clinton's criminality.
This list could go on and on.
We know that you support spying on political opponents.
We know you are despicable.
Kim as the “supreme leader.
Isn’t that what he is?
@Fabi:
I spent the first five years of my career holding a TS/CNWDI clearance, so I am intimately familiar with the complexities of developing and maintaining nuclear weapons.
Given that, I remain open to the possibity that they have zero nuclear weapons. Or more.
I am certain open to the possibility as well. I just have not read credible sources that have made that argument. Of course, I am not saying that such sources are not out there, only that I have not encountered them.
Re: mandrewa:
Well it becomes much more practical to plan to invade South Korea. Suddenly there is the significant risk that the United States will not fight a war to protect or revenge South Korea.
Well, yes. We're not going to get a denuclearised North Korea for nothing. Unless Kim Jong-un is a lot more desperate for food aid than he looks, it would be bizarre for him to give up his nuclear weapons for less. The whole point of the nukes is to deter US intervention in the peninsula. If he gives them up and leaves an army of US troops right there across the border people will be laughing at him in the streets.
I also think your fears that South Korea will immediately collapse if North Korea invades are way overblown. South Korea is one of the most militaristic nations on Earth. All men have to serve in the military, and they have to continue to train periodically as members of the reserve up into their 40's. The country is actively pursuing naval expansion and is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world (although obviously not in the same class as the US or Russia). They're not what they were in 1950. Not at all.
Very good, J. Farmer.
Lolololol HOW can they have not learned the coverup is worse than the crime by now?
Via insty:Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who was fired for lying under oath, spent $70,000 in taxpayer dollars on a conference table. The FBI also redacted the conference table’s steep price tag from documents that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested, in an apparent attempt to hide it from Congress.
In a letter sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed that the FBI had redacted the cost of the table from a document he and his fellow members of the committee requested to see. Grassley said many of the redactions within the documents made no sense, nor were they made to protect national security secrets.
“Who knew international diplomacy with rogue nuclear nations could be so difficult?”
Just like health care.
@mandrewa:
So why does North Korea spend 30 percent of its GDP or 40 percent or whatever massive percentage we might estimate on its military? Because they intend to invade South Korea. This goal has been key to what North Korea has been all about for many years.
The figure usually given is a little less than 25%, and that's mostly a function of their Leninist economic policies. North Korea is quite weak in military terms, though obviously even rudimentary military weapons can cause great havoc given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ. But remember, too, that a lot of the North Korean regime's legitimacy stems from their constantly overhyping and exaggerating the extent and nature of foreign threats. That is, North Korea's massive military (mostly in numbers only) is likely as much for domestic reasons as it is international ones.
Also, even if the North had the goal of invading South Korea, the ROK has more than enough resources to deter such action. If the North could somehow spend 100% of its GDP on its military, it still would spend less than half what the South Koreans spend.
What people are also missing in all of this is the South Korean leader was here while that letter was drafted.
This is clearly coordinated with our allies.
Obama would have shipped several more pallets of cash to North Korea by now.
Achilles
I remember when Gore de-enfranchised overseas military voters, just to add to the list
Inga said...
“Who knew international diplomacy with rogue nuclear nations could be so difficult?”
Just like health care.
Obama could not have been more incompetent on either health care or foreign policy.
Obama was a complete disgrace and clearly a moron.
By any comparison Trump is better in every respect than Obama.
"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." - Robert Frost
Frost was far too polite
This summit will be on and off again more than once- count on it.
As for the nuclear site, there is good evidence that the North Koreans destroyed it by accident a few months ago, so yesterday was just a show piece.
sparrow: "Achilles I remember when Gore de-enfranchised overseas military voters, just to add to the list"
Indeed they did.
Specific instructions were given to the dem lawyers in Florida in 2000 to exploit the fact that so many military voters were republican and in combat zones and so lots of things could be used to disenfranchise military voters.
Joe Lieberman had to apologize publicly for that little democrat anti-military ploy.
But remember, democrats "respect" the military members....LOL
No one is fooled.
Summit coins are being offered at a discount in the White House gift shop.
sparrow said...
Achilles
I remember when Gore de-enfranchised overseas military voters, just to add to the list
Thank you for reminding me of that particular action. Al Gore trying to eliminate as many deployed/overseas soldier votes as possible was indeed a soulless and completely amoral act which all of the leftists here clearly supported.
I was a mere civilian at that time so it slipped my mind. If I was deployed and Gore had moved to strike my ballot I would indeed have been upset.
Fortunately veterans have a way of collectivizing our grudges.
85-95% of veterans don't just vote against democrats. We hate them.
Achilles speaks for all vets with one voice. Very Stalinist
I loved it that we have such wonderful Democratic military veterans running for Congress this year.
@Achilles:
This is clearly coordinated with our allies.
“I am very perplexed and it is very regrettable that the North Korea-US summit will not be held on June 12 when it was scheduled to be held."
-Moon Jae-in, 'Perplexed' South Korea President Moon Jae In says deeply regrets Trump-Kim summit cancellation
Inga said...
Summit coins are being offered at a discount in the White House gift shop.
We notice your snark and disingenuous attitude toward good faith efforts to bring piece.
The biggest reason veterans hate democrats is because you constantly root for our failure.
You are awful people.
Howard said...
Achilles speaks for all vets with one voice. Very Stalinist
Brilliant riposte! Or not.
I am just pointing out that democrats obvious and repeated hatred of the armed forces has led to the natural and equal hatred back.
Stalinist would be sending the IRS after people that disagreed with me or spying on political opponents and then investigating a lawfully elected president forever until a crime was found.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
This is clearly coordinated with our allies.
“I am very perplexed and it is very regrettable that the North Korea-US summit will not be held on June 12 when it was scheduled to be held."
-Moon Jae-in, 'Perplexed' South Korea President Moon Jae In says deeply regrets Trump-Kim summit cancellation
What part of that disputes what I said?
I am incredulous that you think Moon was here for a few days with Trump right before this letter was sent and you think it wasn't discussed.
You would have to be a stupid as Inga or ARM to not notice the timing here.
As for the nuclear site, there is good evidence that the North Koreans destroyed it by accident a few months ago, so yesterday was just a show piece.
America destroyed that site.
Does hatred mean opposing endless war with undefined goals? Opposing selling arms to Iran after they blow up Marine Barracks?
You are like a battered wife who always goes back to suck the withered cock of your abuser.
“I am just pointing out that democrats obvious and repeated hatred of the armed forces has led to the natural and equal hatred back.”
Amy MCGRATH. Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret) for Congress
Democrat
Not Democratic
@Achilles:
What part of that disputes what I said?
The part where you said this was "clearly coordinated with our allies."
I am incredulous that you think Moon was here for a few days with Trump right before this letter was sent and you think it wasn't discussed.
How do you know the decision was made or when the letter was drafted? Moon was out of the country this morning. There was also scrambling in Seoul, including an emergency meeting of the president's staff at Blue House. All the evidence points to Moon being caught off guard. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to consider it.
Inga: "I loved it that we have such wonderful Democratic military veterans running for Congress this year."
Other military veterans will love voting against them.
Of the 80 members of congress and the senate who are military veterans, 61 are republicans.
Naturally.
North Korea isn't going to sit by idly and let the South have nuclear power if they can't have it too. But these are all details -- if the big items are resolved, I think these can all be resolved too.
Who needs nuclear power? Germany shut theirs down. And fusion is being tested. Give them wind and solar. A wonderful ecoexperiment
Inga loves the few military vets that run as Democrats.
The rest, not so much.
Dick Durbin calls them Nazis. Kerry invented atrocities.
These Veterans are running for Congress as Democrats
Of course Achilles will say they’re baaaaaaad people.
Give them wind and solar. A wonderful ecoexperiment
I think they already use it. That's why NK is so dark at night.
Michael K: "Dick Durbin calls them Nazis."
So did Inga.
But she knows that's not playing well with democrat support for Hamas and MS13 and KJU so prominent in the news, so it's time to engage the History Rewrite Machine!
That's going to look great next to "impeach!/give us your tax cuts back deplorables!/no borders!/everybody back into obamacare!"
LOL
Inga: "Of course Achilles will say they’re baaaaaaad people"
Did he call them nazi's like you called republican voting military members?
It doesn't matter what anyone says here.
The vast majority of military members will vote again for Trump.
In fact, Trump will undoubtedly increase his vote percentages from those groups in 2020 from 2016.
And Inga and the dems will almost certainly call those voters nazi's.
Again.
It is nice to see Inga and ARM and the usual suspects rolling out every talking point from the 2016 campaign.
You know, because those dastardly russians kept their "important" messaging from being heard last time around!
J. Farmer said, "The figure usually given is a little less than 25%, and that's mostly a function of their Leninist economic policies. North Korea is quite weak in military terms, though obviously even rudimentary military weapons can cause great havoc given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ. But remember, too, that a lot of the North Korean regime's legitimacy stems from their constantly overhyping and exaggerating the extent and nature of foreign threats. That is, North Korea's massive military (mostly in numbers only) is likely as much for domestic reasons as it is international ones."
Balfegor said, I also think your fears that South Korea will immediately collapse if North Korea invades are way overblown. South Korea is one of the most militaristic nations on Earth. All men have to serve in the military, and they have to continue to train periodically as members of the reserve up into their 40's.
You both make good points, and I agree that it is entirely possible that in a war where the combatants are only North Korea and South Korea, it is entirely possible that South Korea would win. (But as J. Farmer acknowledges, a South Korea victory would be a bit empty given that Seoul is almost on the border and given that North Korea might almost destroy Seoul, with massive casualties, in the initial phase of a conflict.) But neither of you mention China.
We are talking about pulling out the United States and replacing it's current tangible and believable commitment with a more tenuous and somewhat arguable commitment.
North Korea (with China's support) invading South Korea is a completely different story from North Korea invading by itself.
What North Korea clearly wants is to exchange it's current stock of nuclear weapons together with a promise to go no further in their development (something that can be reversed at any time) for a withdrawal of the American military tripwire from South Korea.
This dramatically reduces South Korea's latitude to act independently of China, and although a war between North Korea and South Korea would not immediately be on the table, it dramatically reduces the barriers to invasion by North Korea in a potential future somewhat down the road.
Face it Trumpists, Trump and his man Bolton and VP Pence fucked it up, so disappointing after all the hype and hope for those of you who actually believed it would happen. - Inga
You were screaming it was all-out nuclear war not six months ago.
Maybe you should shut the fuck up for a change.
How Veterans Are Powering the Democrats’ 2018. From Staten Island to San Diego suburbs, millennials with military résumés are making GOP districts competitive.
“It is not a coincidence that this wave of veterans is hitting at a moment when a five-time draft-deferring president occupies the White House and toxic partisanship has ground Capitol Hill to a virtual halt. The candidates are presenting themselves both as a moral rebuke to what they see as Donald Trump’s self-promoting divisiveness and also as a practical solution to the failure of the nation’s highest legislative body to get anything done. In short, the reputation of the national institution with by far the highest approval rating, the military, is being offered as an antidote to the woes of a schismatic president and a Congress whose approval ratings have never been worse.”
“Maybe you should shut the fuck up for a change.”
Maybe you should stop shitting on the fruit, you retarded gnat.
Pompeo says there’s no such thing as the Deep State and him a Veteran!
The worst part for veterans running as Democrats?
Getting thru Democrat primaries.
J. Farmer said...
How do you know the decision was made or when the letter was drafted? Moon was out of the country this morning. There was also scrambling in Seoul, including an emergency meeting of the president's staff at Blue House. All the evidence points to Moon being caught off guard. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to consider it.
The evidence is common sense.
But go ahead believing that everyone says exactly what they mean in the most straightforward way in diplomatic talks. This would be the first time in history it has happened.
At some point you will realize you have a lot of pre-conceived notions that inhibit you from being able to see what is actually going on. If you take out what you want to happen and approach a situation with a version of naivete that allows you to honestly assess what is going on you will be better at this.
Start with this:
What do the Chinese want?
What does the US want?
What does South Korea want?
What does North Korea want?
What do the other Pacific Rim countries want?
In that order as that mirrors the order of precedence in this situation.
Then look at who is actually in charge in those countries. The US and China are dominated by two powerful executives. South Korea is a mess. They keep tearing out their leadership over corruption. North Korea is a corruptocracy. Un has to keep the warlords payed off. Japan has a very(too) stable leadership that is deathly afraid of Chinese hegemony.
This is just a start. But you are so attached to your world view and what you think should happen you can't critically think about any of this.
Who said we're right back where we started?
No we're not and it should be obvious.
The two Koreas are talking to each other. N.Korea is talking to the United States.
N Korea, at least outwardly, has put its nuclear ambitions on hold.
A corner has been turned.
From Inga's own link
"Available data suggest that being a veteran in fact doesn’t help win elections. “If you think about it,” Teigen told me, “if that were true, we’d have 535 veterans on Capitol Hill. Parties would nominate no one else.” A comprehensive study of congressional races from 2000 to 2014 showed a military background has no “systematic, measurable effect,” Teigen notes in his book. Furthermore, he writes, “Democratic veterans actually do a little worse than comparable nonveteran Democrats”—a function, perhaps, of Democratic veterans seeming to run more in longer-shot districts."
LOL
What the article does clearly imply is that the current group of pelosi-led democrats are not viewed so favorably, even by dem voters:
"In California’s 50th District, made up mostly of San Diego suburbs and held by embattled GOP Representative Duncan Hunter, Josh Butner gets it when he introduces himself as a former Navy SEAL—who’s a Democrat. “That usually gets the conversation started,” he said. “They say something to the effect of, ‘Yeah, we need more Democrats like you.’ We need more people willing to put the country ahead of political parties. We need more folks willing to work with the other side.’”
Hear that Inga?
The dem base says they need more dems that are NOT like what they have now and the base wants folks willing to work with the other side!
LOL
It's like Inga has a reading comprehension problem.
Except that I didn’t make any assertion that Veterans are more likely to win. I merely stated that there were Veterans running as Democrats and to wait and see if Achilles will call them baaaaaad people.
It’s like Drago has a flailing problem today. I’m sorry your hero flubbed up the Summit, no need to be cranky.
Inga said...
How Veterans Are Powering the Democrats’ 2018. From Staten Island to San Diego suburbs, millennials with military résumés are making GOP districts competitive.
We have a term for veterans in the army who screw their buddies. These can be people who were/are democrats like John Kerry who serve and then get out and trash everything we did.
They are called Blue Falcons.
In the Army Field Manual for the definition of the term Blue Falcon there is a picture of John Kerry.
These douches will use their military service to trick a bunch of people into thinking they are something they are not then they will go to DC and fuck over the people they served with.
Blue Falcons.
@Achilles:
But you are so attached to your world view and what you think should happen you can't critically think about any of this.
Interesting; I think that's a far more apt description of yourself than me.
So your claim that this was "clearly coordinated with our allies" is based on your "common sense." In other words, you have zero evidence of, but you think it should've happened, therefore it did happen.
I, unlike you, cannot claim to know the mind of Moon Jae-in. So I have to go by what he says and how he acts. And both of those point to the South Koreans being caught off guard. Now you can claim it was all an orchestrated effort to give the impression that they were caught off guard without actually being caught off guard. But then again, you have zero evidence of that as well.
"Maybe you should stop shitting on the fruit, you retarded gnat."
Another example of the intellectual depth and insight that Inga brings to this forum.
@mandrewa:
North Korea (with China's support) invading South Korea is a completely different story from North Korea invading by itself.
What would China get out of that? And just because we did not have a treaty with South Korea does not mean we could not come to their defense if a hostile power attacked them. See Kuwait, for example.
This dramatically reduces South Korea's latitude to act independently of China, and although a war between North Korea and South Korea would not immediately be on the table, it dramatically reduces the barriers to invasion by North Korea in a potential future somewhat down the road.
By what measure does the removal of 25,000 troops "dramatically reduce the barriers to invasion?" That would imply that the North Koreans believe they can defeat the South Koreans in a conventional war. Why would they believe this, when South Korea outmatches them drastically all pretty much every conventional measure of military power?
“Another example of the intellectual depth and insight that Inga brings to this forum.”
When one is speaking to a retarded gnat and the feeble minded, one must make it simple. Is that simple enough for you?
At least no one on this forum has nuclear weapons.
Rusty said...
Who said we're right back where we started?
No we're not and it should be obvious.
The two Koreas are talking to each other. N.Korea is talking to the United States.
N Korea, at least outwardly, has put its nuclear ambitions on hold.
A corner has been turned.
This should be patently obvious. To deny this is simply stupid.
You will all see in the coming days exactly what the plan is.
There are still much better than even odds the meeting is on in June. I doubt they even stopped preparations. At worst it will be delayed a bit.
Nothing has changed in the underlying fundamentals of the situation.
Trump wont fork over a bunch of cash/oil like Clinton/Bush/Obama would.
There is still a nuclear volcano spewing radiation into Northern China that China wants help from the US to clean up.
There is still a trade war China cannot win with the US.
There is still a humanitarian catastrophe on the verge of exploding in North Korea that China would rather have South Korea clean up.
The North Korean nuclear program was set back a decade.
China doesn't want to foot the bill to get the program back up and running and since the US wont do it for them NK became a money sink.
Have fun with that.
“At least no one on this forum has nuclear weapons.”
Who knows what Achilles in building in his backyard shed.
Kidding of course...
When one is speaking to a retarded gnat and the feeble minded, one must make it simple. Is that simple enough for you? - Inga
Once again, your stupidity is surpassed only by your arrogance.
You used to be a somewhat decent poster ... back in the days of Alley Oop. You were left, of course. But you weren't as bad as some.
Now? You're just vicious, partisan hack who spends way too much time being wrong.
Get a fucking hobby. Or something.
@Achilles:
The North Korean nuclear program was set back a decade.
Source?
Shoo fly.
J. Farmer said...
I, unlike you, cannot claim to know the mind of Moon Jae-in. So I have to go by what he says and how he acts.
You are going off what he said.
I am going off how he is acting.
Did he say anything about Trump? That is your key. Moon is acting exactly like you would expect the good cop to act.
Drago said...
Perhaps the democrats should draft Kim Jong Un as their next candidate for President?
They'd have a hell of a time trying to come up with a Hawaiian birth certificate for Kim!
@Achilles:
You are going off what he said.
I am going off how he is acting.
Explain to us how he is acting. From the look of it not someone who was "clearly coordinated" with. Staff at Blue House were called for an emergency meeting. It was the president's own spokesperson who said that they were "trying to figure out what President Trump's intention is and the exact meaning of it."
Moon is acting exactly like you would expect the good cop to act.
How would he be acting differently if he was genuinely caught by surprise?
If they could get Kim to join MS-13 the Democrats could run him as a unity candidate.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
The North Korean nuclear program was set back a decade.
Source?
A giant collapsed mountain spewing radiation into Northern China.
2 summons to Beijing.
Immediate request for talks and massive movement towards denuclearization.
A trade war between the US and China.
C'mon man. It is all right there in front of you.
Un tried to get to the point where he had Hydrogen bombs capable of creating a large scale EMP effect when detonated in the ionosphere and small enough to fit on a missile. They tested a hydrogen bomb and didn't do the math. It collapsed their testing mountain. Now it is a radioactive nightmare on the Chinese border.
This was his only useful threat against the US. If they can't put a nuke on a missile capable of intercontinental flight they have nothing on the US and they wont until there is a massive infusion of cash and capital.
Unlike previous administrations Trump isn't giving them money and North Korea will be a dead weight for at least the next 6.5 years.
China wants out before NK collapses and they have to clean up the mess. If they can get Trump to pull troops out of SK and back off the trade war they will take it.
Avenetti mocking POTUS over pullout. Have to rethink my position.
Inga said...
Who knows what Achilles in building in his backyard shed.
Resentment.
J. Farmer said...
How would he be acting differently if he was genuinely caught by surprise?
You are answering your own questions.
What in the last 2 years gives you the impression that Trump doesn't operate in a coordinated manner? The idiots like Inga and the media?
Everything they have said has been wrong. Trump is more popular than Obama was by a large margin. The economy is booming and mostly for the working class which is unprecedented.
He has been 2 steps ahead of those idiots the whole time. You have to live in an unreality to miss this.
Another nice summary of the Mueller/Brennan/Clapper caper.
On 3 January, James Clapper and Loretta Lynch promulgated a quiet but significant revision to Executive Order 12333, which governs the internal handling of NSA surveillance data by federal agencies. The effect of their changes was to loosen the controls on what federal employees do with that data.
Most of the actual data-handling this revision would cover had already happened in 2016, or even before. This was (in part) a CYA move. It relates directly to every instance we’ve encountered of the Obama administration using NSA surveillance against the Trump team, and it clarifies that Lynch, as well as Clapper, knew what was going on.
On 5 January 2017, Obama was briefed on the IC’s Russia assessment and the dossier. With the recent focus on the FBI and the DOJ, we have tended to forget that others among the most senior national security officials were involved – and they were present at the brief to Obama.
Susan Rice left the information trail on that in her curious email for the record filed just after noon on Trump’s inauguration day, 20 January 2017. Here is what she recorded:
There will be more almost every day.
It is seeping out.
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Inga said...
Who knows what Achilles in building in his backyard shed.
Resentment.
Projection.
Actually at the moment I will be working on documentation for a project and I have to figure out how to find a number in a partially sorted matrix in O(n+m) running time.
Then I will be figuring out the algorithm for determining distance based on how much sooner an RF signal is received when sent from the same position as an ultrasonic signal.
I take breaks here. The success of the US right now despite the best efforts of the traitors who are trying to pull off a coup is energizing.
Every day I am more optimistic our countries enemies will be peacefully defeated and sent to prison for their crimes.
Drago: "MS13, Hamas, Kim Jong Un...The lefty support Trifecta!"
Damn, Drago beat me to it. I blame Pence, who keeps egging Trump with his dares, and holding Trump's Diet Coke.
readering said...
Avenetti mocking POTUS over pullout. Have to rethink my position.
readering inadvertently brings up the fundamental issue before our country.
On one side you have Avenetti, MS-13, Hamas, Illegal Immigrants, Open Borders, Spying on political opponents, higher taxes, open cheering for chaos and war, endless investigations of non-crimes combined with clear criminality that goes unpunished.
The other side has Americans first, one set of rules, higher wages, and a big beautiful border wall.
Over/Under on how fast democrats cave on funding the wall in September: 3 days.
Diplomacy by tweeter is such a bitch.
J. Farmer said, "What would China get out of that? And just because we did not have a treaty with South Korea does not mean we could not come to their defense if a hostile power attacked them. See Kuwait, for example."
You already said further up thread that, paraphrasing, South Korea is in China's backyard, and therefore it is natural that China should dominate South Korea. Now regardless of your acceptance of this idea or not, this is exactly what most people in China think. In fact it goes further than that.
China has conquered Korea in the past, and there's a belief in China that any part of the world that was once part of China, belongs to China.
The relationship between China and the United States is possibly the most important in the world. If these two countries have a war, it will probably become World War III, and the consequences are potentially immensely horrible. Now my goal would be to avoid that, but that doesn't mean just giving in. It doesn't mean appeasement will help the situation. My instinct is that appeasement will just make things worse.
It seems a bit absurd to me to compare Iraq with China and assert the situation is similar and to assert that the United States declaring war on Iraq is the same sort of thing as the United States declaring war on China. Do you really believe that?
Frankly, I doubt you believe any such thing. So why would you say that? What is driving you to make such an assertion?
By simply having American soldiers in South Korea we are defying China. But the level of conflict is fairly low because this has been the status quo for generations.
Your last question implied that American troops in South Korean are not a deterrence because North Korea would never dream of invading South Korea. I am puzzled. This makes sense if think there's no chance that China would back a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Why you have such this faith I don't understand.
Second, there's the clear implication that you think the North Korean dictator is rational and sees the world something like you do. To the contrary, I think there's a deal of evidence to doubt that.
@Achilles:
You are answering your own questions.
Before you go off on another world salad, try keeping to the subject at hand.
You said: "I am going off how he [Moon Jae-in] is acting."
So please explain how he was acting that led you to know he was "clearly coordinated" with.
I'm going to assume here that North Korea is not insane. Given that, they are not going to invade the South because, as J. Farmer says, the South Korean military would easily defeat the invaders. And the Chinese are not going to participate as they did in 1950, because then we would get involved and the Chinese can not beat us.
So there's not going to be a war unless somebody horribly miscalculates. The eventual outcome depends on who the real players are.
If Kim is an independent player not under Chinese control, then no deal is possible. Killing Gaddafi insured that. So the outcome here is pretty much continuation of the status quo, with Kim trying to offset the cost of maintaining his nukes by selling expertise to terrorists.
If you believe as I do that North Korea survives at the sufferance of the Chinese, Kim is not an independent actor here and the real players are the US, China and South Korea. The Chinese can force the North Koreans to denuclearize any time they want to, so the question is why they haven't.
I think China is hoping to get a deal that lessens the regional influence of America. Withdrawing our troops from South Korea would change perceptions about who the leading power is in that part of the world. Taiwan would feel very threatened. India would know who they have to deal with. Japan would be forced more into the Chinese orbit.
What Trump has to do is push back hard using the same currency of strategic power. Quietly start the processes which will lead to a nuclear-armed Japan and Taiwan. Shower the Indians with love. Get some kind of agreement to have US Navy ships occasionally dock in Vietnam. Ditto for the Phillipines. Get South Korean permission to base nuclear-armed American bombers in country. Maybe even cut some deals with Russia. And so on.
The Chinese are not going to reign in Kim unless the alternative hurts them worse than the humilation of backing down. Trade threats are not going to cut it. All they accomplish is redirecting trade via third parties at a slightly increased cost. Not a big deal.
If Kim is an independent player not under Chinese control, then no deal is possible. Killing Gaddafi insured that
Good observation and I agree with the rest of your comment.
I have read in the past that NK is a warlord society, with the Kim family on top but with restless warlords in the mix.
That, if true, might alter the scenario.
Inga: "When one is speaking to a retarded gnat and the feeble minded, one must make it simple. Is that simple enough for you?"
And I actually defended this idiot when PMJ used the c word to describe her.
@mandrewa:
You already said further up thread that, paraphrasing, South Korea is in China's backyard, and therefore it is natural that China should dominate South Korea. Now regardless of your acceptance of this idea or not, this is exactly what most people in China think. In fact it goes further than that.
I did not say they should, but it is to be expected that smaller powers will be dominated by larger powers. The form this domination takes, though, is important and it is mostly financial in nature.
China has conquered Korea in the past, and there's a belief in China that any part of the world that was once part of China, belongs to China.
There's a far more striking example that contradicts your point: Taiwan. There are no US troops stationed in Taiwan, and we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, and I don't think most people expect the US to go to war with China over Taiwan. And yet, Taiwan acts a de facto independent state, even though few countries (including the US) recognize it as one. China would gain little of value by making overtly hostile gestures towards Taiwan, because doing so would cause a backlash they are not prepared to deal with. And again, given what little such an invasion would achieve, the Chinese are not likely to risk it.
Your last question implied that American troops in South Korean are not a deterrence because North Korea would never dream of invading South Korea. I am puzzled. This makes sense if think there's no chance that China would back a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Why you have such this faith I don't understand.
For one thing, by backing a North Korean invasion, China would risk dragging in not just South Korea but Japan and the US as well. What does China imagine it would get from an invasion of the South by the North that would risk bringing it into conflict with Japan or the US?
Second, there's the clear implication that you think the North Korean dictator is rational and sees the world something like you do. To the contrary, I think there's a deal of evidence to doubt that.
I have no clue how he sees the world, but I highly doubt it is in the same way I do. However, I do believe he is rational, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary. And that Kim Jung-Un is a rational actor is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of nearly all the military and intelligence analysts working on the issue. I am of course open to the fact that they are wrong, but I have yet to see good evidence that Kim is irrational. Brutal and calculating, for sure. But not irrational.
Expect to see the face of pathetically and inadvertantly hilarious Dem Rep Eric Swalwell in many many commercials across the country pitching the democrat gun confiscation position!
LOl
All the dems had to do was simply not be bats*** insane for 6 months...and they couldn't do it.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
You are answering your own questions.
Before you go off on another world salad, try keeping to the subject at hand.
You said: "I am going off how he [Moon Jae-in] is acting."
So please explain how he was acting that led you to know he was "clearly coordinated" with.
I honestly think you are smart enough to figure this all out.
If you aren't you aren't.
You are trying to focus in on something small and unimportant in a way that makes no sense. If you follow your path of reasoning you will be just as lost in the sauce as Inga.
When this is all said and done NK will give up their nukes, the US will start moving troops off the peninsula, and there will be a "trade deal" between the US an China. We will have to do something to placate Japan. It will be trivial.
Trump and Xi are moving the pieces. Trump "pulling out" of the talks is textbook Trump. Moon will do what Trump tells him to do. Xi will tell fat boy what to do.
Xi will be closely following Trump's support in the US to look for weakness. Xi might at some point stall for time and hoping for an easier negotiating partner. One like Bush or Obama who will ship money and oil to NK and sell the US out to the globalists again. But he knows he has 6.5 years of this and NK wont make it 6.5 years. He wants South Korea to deal with it.
@Jeff:
If you believe as I do that North Korea survives at the sufferance of the Chinese, Kim is not an independent actor here and the real players are the US, China and South Korea. The Chinese can force the North Koreans to denuclearize any time they want to, so the question is why they haven't.
Well the most obvious answer is that China's power to control North Korea is overstated. It is in China's self-interest to keep North Korea afloat because (a) it wants a buffer against the American-aligned ROK and (b) it does not want to risk the instability that a collapse of the North Korean regime would likely engender. I think this article lays out the case in a fairly concise way.
I think China is hoping to get a deal that lessens the regional influence of America. Withdrawing our troops from South Korea would change perceptions about who the leading power is in that part of the world. Taiwan would feel very threatened. India would know who they have to deal with. Japan would be forced more into the Chinese orbit.
What does Japan being "forced more into the Chinese orbit" mean?
What Trump has to do is push back hard using the same currency of strategic power. Quietly start the processes which will lead to a nuclear-armed Japan and Taiwan. Shower the Indians with love. Get some kind of agreement to have US Navy ships occasionally dock in Vietnam. Ditto for the Phillipines. Get South Korean permission to base nuclear-armed American bombers in country. Maybe even cut some deals with Russia. And so on.
For one thing, there is a tremendous amount of ambivalence in Japan about possessing nuclear weapons, and it is not entirely sure that a Japanese government that made such a commitment could survive the electoral process. Second, Taiwan making moves to nuclearize is extraordiantly provocative and could in fact lead to a Chinese invasion of the island. What then? The US is obviously not going to risk nuclear war over Taiwan. US and India have already gotten much closer, as has the US and the ASEAN countries. This has been part of the hub and spoke strategy in East Asia for at least a decade. We have a mutual defense treaty with Philippines and with Japan.
@Achilles:
I honestly think you are smart enough to figure this all out.
If you aren't you aren't.
Oh please. The answer is so obvious you can't be bothered to explain it routine. In other words, it's something you pulled out of your ass and aren't prepared to back up. Okay, then, we'll move on.
When this is all said and done NK will give up their nukes, the US will start moving troops off the peninsula, and there will be a "trade deal" between the US an China. We will have to do something to placate Japan. It will be trivial.
Then let's make a bet of it. We'll each put a thousand dollars in an escrow account, and you pick the time frame (as long as it's less than 6.5 years). If what you say will come to pass does, you get the money. If it doesn't, I get it. Deal?
J. Farmer - long ago, in the late 70's, I worked in the oil business for a high-end EDP&C company as a project controls specialist (an adjunct to project management). The company offered its employees the opportunity to cross-train into other specialty fields. The cross-training was done professionally, with syllabi, workbooks, lectures, tests, Q's& A's and ultimately certifications. The company spent a lot of money on us. Our instructors were also company employees and generally experts in their fields. This entire effort was meant to ensure that the company would have perpetual access to younger talent, inculcated in the business philosophy of the company and trained in the latest, most modern techniques of the selected business area. Please remember that this company was basically an engineering and construction firm. We worked to design and business standards that were extremely conservative. There wasn't a lot of speculation about what we did or how we did it. We knew exactly what we were doing. We were called the "Cadillac of the industry" by both our competitors and our clients. Sorry for the long preamble but one thing we cross-trainees couldn't stand was the use by one of our instructors of the Socratic Questioning method. This person, though an experienced project controls specialist, could not help himself when lecturing us. He always asked questions. Kind of like you do in your statements and responses to questions. Finally, as a group, we told this particular instructor that we were not training to be lawyers or academics. Back and forth debate was not part of our "game". As we were designing and building complex machines and systems that 1) could blow-up or fall down killing hundreds of people and 2) were god-awful expensive, we were more interested in conversations (on both sides) that were not debates. We would make statements that our instructors would answer with statements. We'd listen to the instructors and vice versa. You'll have to believe me when I tell you that the same declarative approach was used in the military when I served. When one is performing a verbal post mortem on a engineering or military action/failure, there's not a lot of debate going on. Things seem amazingly clear. So now, I tend to pay close attention to someone who poses a question, answers it from their experience and perspective and then tasks another person to do the same. You'd be amazed at how quickly real, effective communications occur using this declarative method. So would you please consider minimizing your Socratic Questioning method (where you pose questions but make the other guy answer)and use more my declarative approach? I'm sure I'd enjoy your postings even more than I do now.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
I honestly think you are smart enough to figure this all out.
If you aren't you aren't.
Oh please. The answer is so obvious you can't be bothered to explain it routine. In other words, it's something you pulled out of your ass and aren't prepared to back up. Okay, then, we'll move on.
When this is all said and done NK will give up their nukes, the US will start moving troops off the peninsula, and there will be a "trade deal" between the US an China. We will have to do something to placate Japan. It will be trivial.
Then let's make a bet of it. We'll each put a thousand dollars in an escrow account, and you pick the time frame (as long as it's less than 6.5 years). If what you say will come to pass does, you get the money. If it doesn't, I get it. Deal?
You are acting like a child.
Have a nice day.
J Farmer: "...it's something you pulled out of your ass and aren't prepared to back up."
Whoa whoa whoa!
You wanna take a moment to reconfigure that sentence amigo?
@Sheridan:
You'd be amazed at how quickly real, effective communications occur using this declarative method. So would you please consider minimizing your Socratic Questioning method (where you pose questions but make the other guy answer)and use more my declarative approach? I'm sure I'd enjoy your postings even more than I do now.
I take your point about "Socratic questioning," but consider a few things. I do not see how the examples you cited have much to do with what I am trying to accomplish here. And even the word "accomplish" sounds too high minded in this context. I have a point of view, and I want to argue it with people who disagree with me. This helps me to be sure I understand the issue to the best of my ability and potentially exposes me to arguments I have not considered before.
I think the majority of what I write are declarative statements. When I do ask people questions, while I concede there is a rhetorical component to it, it is often so I can understand what the person means or is talking about.
So, for example, take my back and forth with Achilles. He claimed that the action was "clearly coordinated with our allies." When he backs this claim up with the statement, "I am going off how he is acting," I don't think it is Socratic questioning to ask someone what they mean by that. "How would he be acting differently if he was caught off guard?" is a useful question.
@Achilles:
You are acting like a child.
Have a nice day.
In other words, Achilles is certain that actions were "clearly coordinated with our allies." Just don't ask him to explain how he knows that.
Kim signaled he was not ready for any kind of deal two weeks ago. Trump gave him time to clarify/change his tune, made one conciliatory move re military exercises. Kim didn't change his position a bit. Like any good negotiator Trump walked away. For Inga's enlightenment that's what good deal makers do when they see that they will be wasting their time and leverage by continuing discussions.
Unlike Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama, Trump recognizes that no deal is better than a bad deal. Now it's Kim's turn. He can remain obdurate or he can move toward the demands Trump has made. Will the situation be any more dangerous than when he was launching missiles 6 months ago. No, and now his nuke test site is gone wth no other possibilities. Where's China in this? I sure don't know and I don't think anyone else here does.
For those who whine and cry about our inconsistent foreign policy look at the last few moves: we have told NORK we will not put up with their manipulations and BS; we have laid out detailed demands of the Iranians while re-implementing Obama's "snap-back" sanctions; we have shown the Europeans once more that our primary concern is the well being of the US and if they want to get on board good, if not good as well.
Without getting into the detail of stock piles etc. I ask one question: how is Kim going to move any of that material out of storage without having it discovered and destroyed? That's the important question. I suspect that if NORK tries to set up another missile test, it will be destroyed. What about China, you say. Beijing is a lot closer to NORK than Los Angeles. I can't imagine that the Chinese are really comfortable with Kim's missile program either.
@Drago:
Whoa whoa whoa!
You wanna take a moment to reconfigure that sentence amigo?
Haha. Nah, I like the symmetry.
@Khesanh 0802:
Kim signaled he was not ready for any kind of deal two weeks ago.
What did this entail?
I am sometimes really disappointed at how childish some of the exchanges get here. It's the kind of thing I expect from WaPo commenters, not Althouse commenters.
Smug and Crazy dominate a thread!
Neat.
@J. Farmer Come on. His lackeys have been calling us idiots and assholes for the last two weeks. That's a signal. And when not doing that they have stated very clearly that they are not really prepared to consider denuclearizing - the keystone of our negotiating position. The big ho-ha about the military exercises was a direct contradiction of their position several months ago that they would accept them.
J. Farmer: "There's a far more striking example that contradicts your point: Taiwan. There are no US troops stationed in Taiwan, and we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, and I don't think most people expect the US to go to war with China over Taiwan. And yet, Taiwan acts a de facto independent state, even though few countries (including the US) recognize it as one. China would gain little of value by making overtly hostile gestures towards Taiwan, because doing so would cause a backlash they are not prepared to deal with. And again, given what little such an invasion would achieve, the Chinese are not likely to risk it."
Taiwan was the price of normalization of relations between the United States and China back in the Nixon administration. But the United States didn't abandon Taiwan, not really, and that was part of the deal made with China. Although the United States no longer formally recognizes Taiwan as a separate country, the United States still backs Taiwan in many ways.
One of which is that when China seems to be threatening to invade Taiwan US carrier groups have a way of turning up near Taiwan. This is implicitly a threat to defend Taiwan in the event of an attempted invasion.
Further at the time that US troops were withdrawn from Taiwan, the hundred miles of ocean between China and Taiwan were much more of a barrier than they are today.
Still I agree it's a hopeful sign that China has not invaded Taiwan.
As a practical matter the level of conflict between Taiwan and China is not nearly what it used to be. Taiwan is in fact overrun with Chinese tourists.
The primary driver of trouble between Taiwan and China is the conflict between the natives and the Chinese. Most of the 20% of the population that came across the straits with Chaing Kai Shek see themselves as Chinese and therefore naturally part of China. The greater portion of remaining 80% are either truly native or are Ming dynasty descendants who fled from China almost 300 years ago and who don't want to be ruled by China.
China mainly threatens to invade when this latter group wins control of the Taiwanese government and asserts its independence.
It's a good sign for the world that China has not carried through with its threats. Lets hope it continues.
Khesanh 0802:
@J. Farmer Come on. His lackeys have been calling us idiots and assholes for the last two weeks. That's a signal. And when not doing that they have stated very clearly that they are not really prepared to consider denuclearizing - the keystone of our negotiating position. The big ho-ha about the military exercises was a direct contradiction of their position several months ago that they would accept them.
The statements that have come from the North began May 15th, last week, in regards to Bolton's and Pompeo's statements. Do you have any other statements you can point to?
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
You are acting like a child.
Have a nice day.
In other words, Achilles is certain that actions were "clearly coordinated with our allies." Just don't ask him to explain how he knows that.
So out of everything you know about what has happened over the last couple years and all of the principal actors in this particular arena you cannot figure this out?
I just explained exactly how I know that to you.
I think you are purposely shutting off your critical thinking capacity. I basically spelled it out with crayons. For as much reading and background information as you have this should not be difficult.
You can't just look at one phrase and make an assumption. It has to be taken in context and the farther you get from the event the more accurate will be your assessment. But I shouldn't have to explain that.
@mandrewa:
It's a good sign for the world that China has not carried through with its threats. Lets hope it continues.
But that still does not answer the question of why. Since we do not have troops in Taiwan or have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, I assume you believe they are other factors constraining Chinese behavior. Now if you say that Taiwan has an implicit (if not overt) security guarantee from the US and this is what deters China, why couldn't such an implicit agreement work with South Korea? And considering the forces that do constrain China with regard to Taiwan, why would these same forces not constrain them with regard to the ROK?
@J. Farmer,
I just now read the Foster Klug article you linked to. It maintains that Chinese power over North Korea is very limited. If that's true then as I said, no deal is possible because the killing of Gaddafi has convinced Kim that keeping his nukes is key to his survival.
But I think Klug is wrong. One point he makes is that between Kim's ascension to power in 2011 and October 2017 when Klug's article was published, Kim did not visit Beijing even once. But he's visited twice since then. Trump himself noted that Kim just became less dovish in the past few days after his second visit to Beijing. And if, as Klug says, the North Koreans don't desperately need Chinese oil and other imports, why has China increased those imports over the past few weeks?
Japan has very weak defenses. Everyone knows this. If the Japanese start to wonder just how strong America really is, or how strong the American commitment to the defense of Japan is, they will change their policies to toe the Chinese line.
The Chinese are currently aggressively building islands and putting airstrips on them in the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea. They are claiming territorial waters well beyond accepted international limits. It is very likely that within the next decade or two their interest in natural resources will collide with those of the Phillipines. China is also involved in trade and intellectual property disputes with many countries. In all of these areas, getting the backing of, or at least neutralizing the opposition of a major country like Japan would greatly advance Chinese interests.
The Japanese may not want nukes. But if the alternative is Chinese domination, they will change their minds.
Taiwan is an independent nation. Maybe we don't start with nukes there right away, but instead help them build up their invasion and air defenses. Make it really costly for the Chinese to invade.
Both Taiwan and Japan could build nuclear weapons in pretty short order if they wanted to. They haven't done so yet because they rely on the U.S. to defend them. Anything that makes them stronger militarily also makes them less dependent on the Americans and complicates the strategic problem for China, just as a nuclear North Korea creates headaches for us. It's time to give them a few headaches if they don't reign in Kim.
If I'm right and Kim is really under Chinese control, then Kim's nuclear program is actually a Chinese provocation. As such, it fits right in with the Chinese efforts in the South China Sea. They are pushing us and the rest of the world to see how much they can get away with.
@Achilles:
So out of everything you know about what has happened over the last couple years and all of the principal actors in this particular arena you cannot figure this out?
Nope; I cannot possibly know what someone does know or does not know at any given moment. You seem to have direct access to Moon Jae-in's mind. I do not possess such clairvoyance. I can only go by what people say and what they do. By that measure, Moon's statement and actions suggest someone caught off guard.
You obviously read the situation differently. It was you who said you were "going off how he is acting." All I asked was how his actions demonstrated coordination. You have thus far not answered the question. So what it looks like to me is that you believe (simply because you want to believe it) that there was "clear coordination" between the South and the US despite not a shred of evidence supporting that fact. And the fact that it seems like "common sense" to you is not evidence.
And again, given what little such an invasion would achieve, the Chinese are not likely to risk it.
That is an interesting question but I gave up on exchanges with Farmer.
The Chinese expansion seems to be a PLA gambit and Xi might not control them completely.
The level of corruption in China is astonishing and probably behind the substantial immigration to southern California I see.
@Jeff:
If I'm right and Kim is really under Chinese control, then Kim's nuclear program is actually a Chinese provocation. As such, it fits right in with the Chinese efforts in the South China Sea. They are pushing us and the rest of the world to see how much they can get away with.
You put a lot on the table, and I doubt I can address it all in time here. But I want to drill down to a narrower point.
What do you make of the larger point that the China-North Korea relationship is one of mutual dependence. That is, the Chinese support the North primarily to avoid regime collapse, which they consider a "nightmare scenario" given the refugee crisis and the prospect of American forces on their border.
We should presume that the North Koreans are aware of this calculus on the part of the Chinese. That is, the North has leverage over China because they can insinuate to the Chinese all the ill effects that could accrue to them in the event of a regime collapse. The leverage that China has to force North Korean behavior is not absolute and it could result in regime collapse, something the Chinese are not willing to risk. Also, if China stopped the flow of oil, it would certainly damage North Korea's military capacity but would not do much to dent energy production, which comes mostly from domestic coal mining.
The Chicoms have had ample time for logistics for 25 million because that’s a drop in their bucket. They have empty cities. The UN is salavating at overseeing those contracts. Contract for food and medical supplies. Those are distribution problems.
Is it humanitarian or they don’t want the world in in their corner of it?
They are pushing us and the rest of the world to see how much they can get away with.
This.
@Seeing Red:
The Chicoms have had ample time for logistics for 25 million because that’s a drop in their bucket. They have empty cities. The UN is salavating at overseeing those contracts. Contract for food and medical supplies. Those are distribution problems.
Is it humanitarian or they don’t want the world in in their corner of it?
By that rational, America shouldn't care if 4.5 million Mexicans decide to pour across the border this year and claim refugee status. It would be a comparable drop in our bucket. But it would still be a very bad thing that no US administration should tolerate.
The leverage that China has to force North Korean behavior is not absolute and it could result in regime collapse, something the Chinese are not willing to risk
I agree with this.
The northeast corner of China, which would be inundated with refugees, is a poor area.
J. Farmer said, "Now if you say that Taiwan has an implicit (if not overt) security guarantee from the US and this is what deters China, why couldn't such an implicit agreement work with South Korea?"
Well we have actually always implicitly promised to fight on Taiwan's side if China invaded. In fact I have the impression that the United States has explicitly said it would.
But you make a good argument, I'll admit. The continued informal independence of Taiwan does suggest that South Korea might be safe without US troops on the ground.
I do have the sense that the two are linked. That if for some reason one is conquered it wouldn't be too many years before the other is also.
But let's turn the question around. If American troops in Korea don't really matter, and if they don't in any significant sense help South Korea because it's implausible that North Korea or China would invade, then why are these American troops a big issue for the North Koreans or Chinese at all?
People tend to think that other people think like themselves. Now I'm trying to imagine these people, and the North Korean versus Chinese perspective is going to be quite different, and imagine having no desire to conquer South Korea and yet at the same time being hyper-concerned about 30,000 American troops in South Korea.
Something about that doesn't add up. Particularly in the North Korean case, where they are talking about giving up nuclear weapons for this alleged non-issue.
@J. Farmer,
If North Korea collapsed, the refugees would head South, not North. The only people fleeing to China would be regime henchmen fearful of the Ceausescu treatment.
And I don't know why the Chinese would fear South Korean troops on their border, even if they were accompanied by American troops. They surely don't fear we or the South Koreans would invade, and I don't think they're particularly worried that their own population will flee across the border to the now-unified Korea.
What you say about oil vs coal is true, but it's the military that Kim has to placate, not the population. If word got about that the military couldn't leave their barracks for a lack of fuel, how long do you think Kim would survive? In fact, if there were a really severe shortage of oil such that the military was grossly undersupplied, I think what would happen is that the most influential military commanders would hoard what oil there was for their own units, thereby rendering other units ineffective. And once word got around about that, maybe some of the most powerful commanders would look around and see that there was little effective opposition to a coup.
@ J Farmer Sorry. Will not play your game. Opting to walk out.
@Jeff:
If North Korea collapsed, the refugees would head South, not North. The only people fleeing to China would be regime henchmen fearful of the Ceausescu treatment.
The DMZ is about 150 miles long and is heavily fortified with personnel. If the regime collapsed, turmoil would certainly embroil the country but would likely be centered in Pyongyang, where factions would likely fight for power. It seems unlikely that a resident of say, Sinuiju, would choose to travel hundreds of miles to the DMZ when the North's 900-mile border with China was literally staring them in the face.
If word got about that the military couldn't leave their barracks for a lack of fuel, how long do you think Kim would survive?
In the event of a collapse, you also have to worry about some more intransigent force coming to power and also a collapsed regime with WMD's is a very dangerous thing, considering that you would have no way of accounting for or securing such stockpiles.
@Khesanh 0802:
@ J Farmer Sorry. Will not play your game. Opting to walk out.
Fair enough. Though I find it amusing that being asked to back up a claim you make is considered playing a game.
@mandrewa:
People tend to think that other people think like themselves. Now I'm trying to imagine these people, and the North Korean versus Chinese perspective is going to be quite different, and imagine having no desire to conquer South Korea and yet at the same time being hyper-concerned about 30,000 American troops in South Korea.
Something about that doesn't add up. Particularly in the North Korean case, where they are talking about giving up nuclear weapons for this alleged non-issue.
Usually members of the more realist camp of foreign policy readily admit that US troops in Japan and South Korea are intended to contain the Chinese. The same is true of US troops in Germany. But similarly, ask yourself this, if China or Russia built military bases in Mexico City, would we consider that highly provocative? I think so. But that does not mean we want to invade Mexico.
J. Farmer, it dawned on me about five minutes ago that you've already answered the question of what is the point of these 30,000 American troops stationed in South Korea. You've already said it without perhaps realizing it in your previous comments.
I could quote but I'll just paraphrase. You've said that we, that is Americans, wouldn't defend Taiwan if China invaded it. I'm sure many Americans agree with you. I wonder if we would also. I'm sure many people from Taiwan worry that we wouldn't.
Because after all it would be a big deal, a horrible nightmare probably, to fight a war with China.
How is the situation any different if we pull those troops out of Korea? Then the situation becomes very similar. It becomes a question of whether we would defend South Korea and I would imagine that by the same logic that you don't think we would defend Taiwan, we also wouldn't defend South Korea. And many people would share your priorities.
But if 30,000 American troops are in South Korea, then an aggressor invading South Korea finds itself fighting American troops within the first hour. And America finds itself at war without having a chance to have second thoughts. It is almost inevitable. As it is now you can't attack South Korea without effectively declaring war on the United States. And that of course is the reason no one has in the last 65 years.
It's a completely different dynamic if there are no American troops stationed in South Korea. It becomes a lot like Taiwan. And it's your belief that we wouldn't fight to defend Taiwan.
Did the lunatics not get the newsflash that the vaunted meeting is cancelled? Doesn't that take precedence?
So funny the way the gullible fascists thought their emotionally challenged president Trump would resolve the whole thing. SUCKERS!
'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake News NBC just stated that we have given up so much in our negotiations with North Korea, and they have given up nothing. Wow, we haven’t given up anything & they have agreed to denuclearization (so great for World), site closure, & no more testing!" DJT 4/22/18
Anyone know what Sleepy Eyes has to say now?
Usually members of the more realist camp of foreign policy readily admit that US troops in Japan and South Korea are intended to contain the Chinese. The same is true of US troops in Germany.
US troops in Germany are primarily intended to deter Russian aggression. The number of troops stationed there has been drastically reduced since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's also a significant part of the US contribution to the NATO alliance.
But similarly, ask yourself this, if China or Russia built military bases in Mexico City, would we consider that highly provocative? I think so. But that does not mean we want to invade Mexico.
I have two responses to this. First you're asking me to imagine that I was Russian or Chinese and see things from their perspective. I actually do try to imagine myself as such sometimes to better understand things. But this is always a difficult exercise because I am not Russian or Chinese and if I were Russian or Chinese I would be a different person. I'm inescapably American and some of the ways I think are, I suspect, improbable anywhere else or at any other time in history.
Irregardless of whether from some higher standard than I actually know, someone else might be in some sense better, I don't have that perspective. I am unapologetic about trying to defend Americans and American civilization even though I'm fairly dissatisfied and unhappy about many parts of it.
Second, the situation you describe isn't actually parallel. As an actual matter, US troops were put in South Korea to defend from first Soviet and then Chinese invasion. Now if we were to imagine a Russian or Chinese invasion of Mexico, and it would be such an invasion because it's hard to imagine Mexico inviting them in, then it wouldn't be because they were defending Mexico against the United States, because obviously the United States doesn't want to do this, as if we did we already would have.
So in the scenario you've imagined the only likely reason for a Russian or Chinese invasion of Mexico would be that wished to conquer Mexico and/or they wished to conquer the United States. And so of course that would be provocative.
Notice that none of this parallels what has gone on in South Korea. The only reason that US troops reached South Korea in the first place is that we defeated Japan and as a side effect freed Korea from Japan. The only reason American troops were ever in North Korea is that North Korea attacked South Korea and at the same time us. And the only reason we found ourselves fighting China is because China attacked us and not the other way around.
@mandrewa:
How is the situation any different if we pull those troops out of Korea? Then the situation becomes very similar. It becomes a question of whether we would defend South Korea and I would imagine that by the same logic that you don't think we would defend Taiwan, we also wouldn't defend South Korea. And many people would share your priorities.
Because I think the same forces that constrain China in Taiwan would constrain them in South Korea. I don't see any particular reason why their strategic calculus would change. Take Thailand, for example. No significant US military presence in Thailand and no mutual defense treaty. And yet, I do not know any Thais who are worried about a Chinese invasion.
Since World War II, China has attacked the United States, India, Russia, and Vietnam. All of this was under Mao. Since Deng Xiaoping, China has been much less aggressive, but on the other hand China is now much, much more powerful militarily. If there is a war now it won't be like those earlier wars.
Within China, China is making war on two cultures: the Tibetans and the Muslims. They aren't trying to kill these people, or at least not mostly, but they are trying, and in fact they are doing it, to turn them into culturally Chinese people.
All, or virtually all, of China's neighbors are afraid of China's power. Partly this is because of history but partly it's just because China is so powerful. The United States is even more powerful but most of China's neighbors aren't afraid of the United States, they are afraid of China.
It's great that there hasn't been another war. Long may this continue.
If you think about it, why would China want those American troops removed from South Korea? One would have to be an idiot to think those troops are a threat to China. So why wouldn't China want those troops to stay? Because after all, as I gather you believe, and think the Chinese might know, China has less than perfect control of North Korea. If American troops were inhibiting North Korea from launching an invasion, then why in the world would China want them removed?
The American tripwire in South Korea may not be necessary, but if anyone is pushing strongly to have it removed, then you have to ask why, because the most probably answer is not a good one.
PPPT: "President Pee-Pee Tape said...
Did the lunatics not get the newsflash that the vaunted meeting is cancelled? Doesn't that take precedence?
So funny the way the gullible fascists thought their emotionally challenged president Trump would resolve the whole thing. SUCKERS!"
That sounds so familiar. So very very familiar....
Oh, yeah, now I remember...
"Reagan Flubs Reykjavik Summit
At his big meeting, the President's obsession with Star Wars allowed Gorbachev to outmaneuver him on arms control"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-chill-19861204
Some things never change.
"To Ronald Reagan and his entourage, the summit meeting in Iceland looked like the perfect photo opportunity. Three weeks before the midterm elections, Reagan would be pictured shaking hands with the smiling Russian in his Fifties fedora. The president would be portrayed in the media as an earnest peacemaker, diligently searching for ways to end the nuclear-arms race.
This time, though, the photos turned out badly. When he emerged from his bargaining sessions with Mikhail Gorbachev, the president looked stung, like a small boy who had burned his fingers playing with a light socket. Reagan came home empty-handed from Iceland, and for once he was wearing the black hat — the man who said no to a historic opportunity. Confronted by the chance to become a genuine peacemaker, the president retreated in confusion. His image-makers had been overwhelmed by reality."
LOL
We have so much to learn from the obama crew.......not.
@mandrewa:
The American tripwire in South Korea may not be necessary, but if anyone is pushing strongly to have it removed, then you have to ask why, because the most probably answer is not a good one.
I will return to my original analogy. 30,000 Chinese troops pose no significant threat to the US, and I don't believe China would invade the US. But if China stationed troops in Mexico as part of a mutual defense treaty with that country, it would be considered a highly provocative act. And not because we want to invade Mexico.
A good piece on the Deep State and its members.
The man who introduced Halper to the intelligence community was his former father-in-law, a CIA analyst and high-ranking official named Ray Cline, who remains to this day something of a legend at the Agency. As the head of the Directorate of Intelligence, Cline was intimately involved in both the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis during the Kennedy administration; although he left Langley in 1969, he continued in the intelligence business both at the State Department and as an academic at Georgetown; but once an Agency man, always an Agency man.
It also explains why Porter Goss got nowhere with the CIA.
But if China stationed troops in Mexico as part of a mutual defense treaty with that country, it would be considered a highly provocative act.
How about Venezuela ?
But if China stationed troops in Mexico as part of a mutual defense treaty with that country, it would be considered a highly provocative act.
Not nearly as provocative as a hot war on the Korean peninsula. Let's posit a complete withdrawal of US forces from South Korea, something China has not suggested to my knowledge. Sometime thereafter the Norks attack and overwhelm the South. Japan would probably consider an ascendant and nuclear-armed Korea ruled by the juche Kim dynasty as a grave threat, and would likely go nuclear themselves, having seen that US solemn mutual defense agreements are worthless. China would not like this. China would be tempted to throw their protection over Korea to prevent a Japanese preventive attack... and so on.
Farmer is clever enough to know that reasoning by analogy is both facile and dangerous. In almost any field of study, analogy as a tool of policy is limited and often misleading.
J. Farmer said...
@mandrewa:
The American tripwire in South Korea may not be necessary, but if anyone is pushing strongly to have it removed, then you have to ask why, because the most probably answer is not a good one.
I will return to my original analogy. 30,000 Chinese troops pose no significant threat to the US, and I don't believe China would invade the US. But if China stationed troops in Mexico as part of a mutual defense treaty with that country, it would be considered a highly provocative act. And not because we want to invade Mexico.
In order for this comparison to work we would have had to have invaded Mexico recently with the intent of conquering it and China would have had to have intervened to save Mexico and left troops there after defeating our forces.
But don't let reality get in the way.
You obviously have decided what you want to believe and you know too much to actually see.
Have fun with that.
Drago said...
"Reagan came home empty-handed from Iceland, and for once he was wearing the black hat — the man who said no to a historic opportunity. Confronted by the chance to become a genuine peacemaker, the president retreated in confusion. His image-makers had been overwhelmed by reality."
History has taught us that the only way the US can survive in the world is shipping our enemies free oil and pallets of cash.
If only Reagan had learned this lesson sooner we wouldn't be in the dire straights we are now. It took Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama 30 years of stupid wars and shipping pallets of cash to our enemies to straighten the world out. Now Trump is messing everything up again.
Oh the humanity.
@Quaestor:
Farmer is clever enough to know that reasoning by analogy is both facile and dangerous. In almost any field of study, analogy as a tool of policy is limited and often misleading.
The point of the analogy had nothing to do with policy. Another commenter made the point that since 25,000 US troops do not really pose a significant problem to China, why should China care about them? My point is that if 30,000 Chinese troops were stationed in Mexico, that would be considered highly provocative, even if those same troops posed no real significant threat to the US. And you don't have to feel that way because you want to invade Mexico.
For what it's worth, I don't think we get much of strategic value from our relationship with the ROK, and I would be more than willing to put troop withdraws and an abrogation of our mutual defense treaty.
Sometime thereafter the Norks attack and overwhelm the South.
North Korea has half the population of South Korea. The South's total economy is eighty times that of the south. In terms of GDP per capita, South Korea is nearly forty times wealthier than the south. By Global Fire Power rankings, South Korea is rated 7th. North Korea is 18th. You might as well worry about Belgium overpowering Germany.
Fabi said...
I spent the first five years of my career holding a TS/CNWDI clearance, so I am intimately familiar with the complexities of developing and maintaining nuclear weapons.
Given that, I remain open to the possibity that they have zero nuclear weapons. Or more.
5/24/18, 11:06 AM
I agree. If they have been in the testing stages, it seems unlikely they have settled on a final design, especially as the test series was interrupted by earthquake. As such, if they have the plutonium for 10-20 warheads, they have already used a large fraction of that in testing, most of which, IIRC, was fizzles.
I'm not sure that they can support a diversity of deployed nuclear designs. If they only have 10 "physics packages," they're all going to be the Mark VIII Bulgogi, and the Bulgogi Bomb is going to be the one that works best. They will fit that into ICBMs, SLBMs, gravity bombs, SADMs, whatever. Look at what it's going to cost the US to develop these two (low yield!) nukes they just voted on.
They may be able to assemble 10 or 20 weapons in short order according to the best design they have yet achieved, but given that level of effort, I'd think they would be wiser to have the metal on hand in slugs ready to be fabricated. Or possibly already cast into pits, if they have confidence in a standard pit design, but not yet adorned in Baratol and beryllium and polonium and PhDs. Much, much safer that way. And no less useful as they are not yet ready to be deployed.
They may have some test articles built or building. They may have a sample weapon built just for the sake of having one. But I doubt that everything has gone according to plan. And I suspect they are unready, and are not fools enough to proceed when they are unready.
Balfegor said... A lot about DPRK wants and needs. Well, another ROK want, no, need, has got to be the removal of the entrenched "10,000 tubes" of artillery poised to burn Seoul at the word of command. They've faced that threat for much longer than the nuclear threat, in fact the former is obviously the shield behind which the latter was constructed.
J. Farmer said... The US and Taiwan have no defense treaties in place (not verbatim, apologies made to whoever pleases). Allow me to quote from the Heritage Foundation as regards the Taiwan Relations Act:
https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/executive-summary-the-taiwan-relations-act-after-20-years-keys-past-and-future-success
The Heritage Foundation
Open Navigation Open Search
REPORT Asia
Executive Summary: The Taiwan Relations Act After 20 Years: Keys to Past and Future Success
April 16, 1999 4 min read Download Report
Stephen Yates
Senior Associate Fellow in African Affairs
Copied
Select a Section 1/0
Toggle open close
Signed into law on April 10, 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA, Public Law 96-8) was born of the need of the United States to protect its significant security and commercial interests in the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan in the wake of President Jimmy Carter's termination of diplomatic relations and a mutual defense treaty of 25 years. Provoked by the lack of prior consultation and the inadequacy of the Carter Administration's proposed legislation, lawmakers from both parties in Congress worked together to craft a bill that truly tackled the challenge of allowing for diplomatic relations with mainland China while maintaining all substantive relations with Taiwan.
...
Faithful Implementation of the TRA
To honor American commitments made under the Taiwan Relations Act, Congress and the Clinton Administration together should strive to enhance Taiwan's freedom and security. For 20 years, the TRA has provided a security umbrella that has facilitated Taiwan's impressive economic expansion and democratization.
So, it ain't NATO, but it ain't hay.
Meanwhile, Kim still wants the meeting
From Bloomberg:
North Korea said it was surprised by President Donald Trump’s decision to cancel a June 12 summit with Kim Jong Un and that the country remains willing to meet with the U.S. at any time.
In a statement Friday by state-run KCNA that cited Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea vowed to continue to pursue peace and signaled it would give Washington more time to reconsider talks.
“Our goal and will to do everything for peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and mankind remains unchanged, and we are always willing to give time and opportunity to the US side with a big and open mind,” according to the statement. “We express our intent that there is a willingness to sit at any time, in any way to resolve issues.”
@Bad Lieutenant:
So, it ain't NATO, but it ain't hay.
It is not that special, either. The Taiwan Relations Act was passed because of the peculiarities of withdrawing diplomatic recognition of the ROC in favor of the One China Policy. It was essentially meant to allow for continued relations though not in a formally diplomatic sense. It is not a mutual defense treaty. The US already has at least a dozen such arrangements under the major non-NATO ally designation.
Lolololol those coins might get used after all.
I didn't think fat boy would grovel this fast.
This deal has already been made.
The deal was cut a while ago. The hoopla and barbs are a charade for the benefit of Iran
So, North Korea is begging for Trunp to come back within 24 hours.
Which SHOULD make our resident lefties feel like complete idiots for not even waiting that long to tear down Trump as a miserable failure. But they won't. Because the more you actually are an idiot, the less capable you are of ever recognizing yourself as one, as our lefties prove Every. Single. Day.
Trump did lie to us about one thing though.
He said we'd get tired of all the winning.
Let us have a little tour of humiliation of the pieces of shit leading the democrat party:
=D
---
Soon to be ex-Senator Bill Nelson
"✔ @SenBillNelson
The cancellation of this summit reveals the lack of preparation on the part of President Trump in dealing with a totalitarian dictator like Kim Jong Un. We’ve seen similar lack of preparation by the president in dealing with the leaders of China and Russia."
---
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the cancellation of the summit "was the necessary result of a poor negotiating strategy in which the President made it all too clear to North Korea that he needed the summit more than the North Korea dictator."
"This put the United States in a weak bargaining position in which the President was offering to protect Kim Jong Un, make him ‘very, very happy’ and otherwise undermine the U.S. position before the two parties even met," Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said. "Hopefully, the Administration can coalesce around a better strategy and negotiations can resume in the future. Having created an increased nuclear threat from Iran with his abandonment of that deal, the last thing the United States needs is two nuclear problems at the same time."
---
Nancy Pelosi has a giggle fit demostrating she is not only a piece of shit, but the best thing Republicans have going for them in 2018.
---
Senator Reed of Rhode Island is an idiot.
---
Senator Bob Melendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr Trump had “weakened and further isolated the United States” by “hastily” agreeing to talks and then walking away.
“The art of diplomacy is a lot harder than the art of the deal”, Mr Menendez said in a statement, adding that “mercurial diplomacy will only damage U.S. partnerships in the region and jeopardize our national security”.
---
Rep Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat, invoked an infamous Twitter typo by Mr Trump in mocking the pullout.
“N Korea summit cancelled”, Mr Conolloy wrote on Twitter. “I guess that Nobel Peace Prize will have to wait. Covfefe”!
---
WASHINGTON, DC - House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today on President Trump's letter to Kim Jong-Un canceling the summit in Singapore:
"This letter is a sad example of the petulance and shallowness of the foreign policy being pursued by this President. It is another demonstration of President Trump’s treating of critical negotiations as if they were just another real estate deal. From the beginning to the present, the dealings with North Korea have been sophomoric and without strategic or tactical merit. While North Korea’s history has shown them to be untrustworthy and duplicitous, this Administration’s actions have heightened the danger posed by North Korea’s reckless behavior."
We are all laughing at you.
I was going to make this post anyways but fatboy caved before I got home. This is all gold:
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
I am sure Trump is playing three dimensional chess with those dummies in N. Korea.
These will be valuable one day:
Commemorative coin issued by the White House ahead of the planned summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
This farce illustrates perfectly why Trump is unsuited to be president. He has no respect for the office of the presidency. He was perfectly happy to throw away the prestige of the office for some positive publicity, when a retarded squirrel could have told you that it would end badly. This is how he has lived his life. He has no respect for anything other than publicity and ratings and he is not going to change at 70.
Inga said...
Face it Trumpists, Trump and his man Bolton and VP Pence fucked it up, so disappointing after all the hype and hope for those of you who actually believed it would happen.
When one is speaking to a retarded gnat and the feeble minded, one must make it simple. Is that simple enough for you?
Ha. I never believed for a minute Trump would go through with it. Bolton and Pence may have played a part too. Kim will likely win the Nobel.
Trump now speaking. Already making threats to North Korea. What a complete fool. What an embarrassment in front of the world.
President Pee-Pee Tape said...
Did the lunatics not get the newsflash that the vaunted meeting is cancelled? Doesn't that take precedence?
So funny the way the gullible fascists thought their emotionally challenged president Trump would resolve the whole thing. SUCKERS!
Chuck said...
Well, this is going to put a dent in Trump's Nobel Peace Prize.
And the best one:
readering said...
(Chuckling quietly)
We are all chuckling quietly it seems.
J. Farmer said...
Here's a novel idea. What have I said that is incorrect?
What you have said that is correct would be a much shorter list.
Inga, Ritmo, Farmer, ARM,...are all sucking face with KJU.
I mean sucking face through a straw with a man whose face could feed millions.
Save face...don’t suck..and don’t swallow.
Re: Achilles:
I didn't think fat boy would grovel this fast.
Yeah, that was surprising. You'd think they'd be better prepared for it, since Trump is just using their game against them, but I guess not. The boot is on the other foot this time.
(Scratching head) how is it groveling to reiterate you want a summit after other side abruptly cancels?
Re: Achilles:
I didn't think fat boy would grovel this fast.
What did you think would happen? Kim has no place left to go. The Chinese don't want him. He's an embarassment. They have their own third world problems. Besides they have a world class navy they need to build.
Nope. Kim is ours.
Some desperate attempts at face saving here. It is revelatory that neither Drudge nor the Daily Caller, the Pravda of the right, see things quite the same way. When you get out in front of those two organs of spin you might want to reconsider your position.
@Achilles:
What you have said that is correct would be a much shorter list.
And yet you cannot put to a single factually incorrect statement. Interesting.
@chickelit:
Inga, Ritmo, Farmer, ARM,...are all sucking face with KJU.
I mean sucking face through a straw with a man whose face could feed millions.
Save face...don’t suck..and don’t swallow.
Oh yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Thank you for grasping the point of what I was saying.
@Achilles:
This is clearly coordinated with our allies.
Reporting today:
But it was a second round of calls early Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., according to senior White House officials, that convinced Trump to walk away from the summit. His letter went to the North Koreans at 9:43 a.m.
The decision occurred so abruptly that the administration was unable to give congressional leaders and key allies advance notice and the letter went out while more than two dozen foreign journalists, including several U.S. citizens, were inside North Korea where they had gone to witness a promised dismantling of a nuclear test site. At 8:20 a.m., the State Department sent a note to reporters touting the positive discussions that Pompeo was having with Asian counterparts in preparation for the summit.
Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"Some desperate attempts at face saving here. It is revelatory that neither Drudge nor the Daily Caller, the Pravda of the right, see things quite the same way. When you get out in front of those two organs of spin you might want to reconsider your position."
Shhhh. Pay attention. Kim just asked Trump to talk.
Or, Kim just made himself look reasonable while making Trump look unreasonable in the eyes of the rest of the world. Admittedly not a high bar, but still.
J. Farmer:
It is not a mutual defense treaty.
The Heritage Foundation:
"For 20 years, the TRA has provided a security umbrella"
NATO means that the US will defend Belgium, and Belgium will defend the US. You put a lot of value on words on paper. The paper thickness of the North Atlantic Treaty would probably provide more actual defense to the United States than the military might of Belgium.
TRA is a big bone in China's throat, don't kid yourself.
the letter went out while more than two dozen foreign journalists, including several U.S. citizens, were inside North Korea
You mean DPRK might have seized them and messed them up like Otto Warmbier? As, man, don't be such a tease!
Post a Comment