North Korea threatens to withdraw from summit with Trump

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 02:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because NK borders China.  We become a direct security threat if we prove that we are willing to invade countries that are not a threat to usand we are taking over a country that borders China.

And I said we BOTH have too much at risk.

North Korea has nuclear weapons and has stated they want to use them against us. They are developing missiles in order to reach the U.S. That is not a threat? Additionally, they supplied nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan and Iran and attempted to send it to Libya.

I don't recall Saddam Hussein ever doing that.

And aren't we threatening Iran with war right now just for the fear that they will do this same thing?

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 01:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: If that is true, then that supports moving on North Korea even more. Why would they risk getting involved if they have so much to lose?

They had something to lose in 1950, yet they still committed forces to the Korean War to keep US forces away from their border.

Flip this for a moment and think of China invading Mexico. With much to lose, we would still likely get involved. Imagine yourself as President B'zona; I doubt you would stand for that.

In the case of NK, a US invasion would mean millions of refugees pushed into China, many armed, and tremendous disruption. And why would they or Russia want a US "puppet" on their borders? 

Also, it is not clear that the US could win a conventional war in NK without at least tactical  nukes. The North is a system of underground fortresses. No one knows for sure what the NK Army would really be like in fight.  But I'm thinking pretty fanatical, disciplined.
It might be they crumble in two weeks for lack of food or, or it might be Iwo Jima X 500. I'm leaning towards the latter. After a devasting air war, US troops would eventually have to meet them on the ground and in tunnels.

Then there are the international ramifications. Even GB might have difficulty supporting us, especially if we went to nukes. UN resolutions? Boycotts? World wide condemnations as images of President B'zona would be hung and burned in Beijing, Buenos Aires, Paris and Karachi.  The internet would be flooded with memes of your face wearing a Hitler moustache.

And then there is the home front. If victory, real victory, is not secured in a month or so, people would be calling the debacle "B'zona's war," unnecessary as "Bush's War," and worse than Vietnam. Imagine the thousands of protestors awaiting planes filled with body bags, while people like me popped up on message boards insisting diplomacy should have continued (even if wrongly assuming NK would not have had a nuke so soon).

I would still have your back, of course, explaining to people that you were a good guy, but years as a Bengals fan had dulled your strategic sense.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2019, 02:42 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: North Korea has nuclear weapons and has stated they want to use them against us. They are developing missiles in order to reach the U.S. That is not a threat?

Not yet.  Not enough to justify an invasion.

We can't spend billions and kill a bunch of brave young men and women just because someone says they might do something someday in the future.

Didn't you learn ANYTHING from what happened in Iraq?

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 02:42 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:
North Korea has nuclear weapons and has stated they want to use them against us. They are developing missiles in order to reach the U.S. That is not a threat? Additionally, they supplied nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan and Iran and attempted to send it to Libya.

I don't recall Saddam Hussein ever doing that.

And aren't we threatening Iran with war right now just for the fear that they will do this same thing?

Not sure they "want" to use nukes in the sense their goal is war with the U.S.  They know a nuke duke out with the U.S. would wipe out Great Leader Kim Il Sung's total legacy.

Missiles that can reach the US are definitely a threat from THAT regime.  But I think their goal is to create an umbrella of protection for their country and perhaps eventually create opportunities to regain the South. And you are dead right about the danger they pose with a nuclear end around--transfering technology to places where it might fall into the hands of people with no territory to defend who like to see a nuke go off in NYC.

The Iran analogy is not good. I rate Trump and Bolton as similar dangers to world peace. 

I do share your sense of urgency about all this, though.  I just think the NK regime could be imploded by a serious sanctions regime. It was working before the Trump summits. The world would back on that--even China and Russia to some degree. Though you do make a great point above about how NK works for them as a thorn in our side. But it's a thorn in their side too.

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 03:05 PM)Dill Wrote: They had something to lose in 1950, yet they still committed forces to the Korean War to keep US forces away from their border.

And we should have fully commited at that time and kicked the Chinese back across the Yalu River.

Quote:Flip this for a moment and think of China invading Mexico. With much to lose, we would still likely get involved. Imagine yourself as President B'zona; I doubt you would stand for that.

Me, no. Our current admin, yes. Those Chinese commies could teach those Mexicans a thing or two about "proper" capitalism.

Quote:In the case of NK, a US invasion would mean millions of refugees pushed into China, many armed, and tremendous disruption. And why would they or Russia want a US "puppet" on their borders? 

You mean a puppet like Taiwan/Formosa? Or one like Afghanistan?

Prior to the Pakis getting the Bomb (with North Korean aid), we could have buddied up with India. This would have been a far greater concern for China than North Korea (which is part of how the Pakis got the bomb, IMO).

Quote:Also, it is not clear that the US could win a conventional war in NK without at least tactical  nukes. The North is a system of underground fortresses. No one knows for sure what the NK Army would really be like in fight.  But I'm thinking pretty fanatical, disciplined.
It might be they crumble in two weeks for lack of food or, or it might be Iwo Jima X 500. I'm leaning towards the latter. After a devasting air war, US troops would eventually have to meet them on the ground and in tunnels.

Facing North Korea alone with conventional forces is do-able. Even facing North Korea amd China is do-able. And if the other side decided to use nukes, either scenario is even more do-able.

Not sure why we are so afraid of China.

Quote:Then there are the international ramifications. Even GB might have difficulty supporting us, especially if we went to nukes. UN resolutions? Boycotts? World wide condemnations as images of President B'zona would be hung and burned in Beijing, Buenos Aires, Paris and Karachi.  The internet would be flooded with memes of your face wearing a Hitler moustache.

And then there is the home front. If victory, real victory, is not secured in a month or so, people would be calling the debacle "B'zona's war," unnecessary as "Bush's War," and worse than Vietnam. Imagine the thousands of protestors awaiting planes filled with body bags, while people like me popped up on message boards insisting diplomacy should have continued (even if wrongly assuming NK would not have had a nuke so soon).

Overrated, as the current administration has proven. Do what we want, put a spin on it, and disregard any nay-sayers.

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 03:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not yet.  Not enough to justify an invasion.

We can't spend billions and kill a bunch of brave young men and women just because someone says they might do something someday in the future.

Didn't you learn ANYTHING from what happened in Iraq?

But that is my point. If we were willing to do that in Iraq, why not do it in North Korea instead (not 'in addition to')? We had much greater cause to go against North Korea in 2003-2004 than Iraq. And it was proven.

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 03:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure they "want" to use nukes in the sense their goal is war with the U.S.  They know a nuke duke out with the U.S. would wipe out Great Leader Kim Il Sung's total legacy.

Missiles that can reach the US are definitely a threat from THAT regime.  But I think their goal is to create an umbrella of protection for their country and perhaps eventually create opportunities to regain the South. And you are dead right about the danger they pose with a nuclear end around--transfering technology to places where it might fall into the hands of people with no territory to defend who like to see a nuke go off in NYC.

The Iran analogy is not good. I rate Trump and Bolton as similar dangers to world peace. 

I do share your sense of urgency about all this, though.  I just think the NK regime could be imploded by a serious sanctions regime. It was working before the Trump summits. The world would back on that--even China and Russia to some degree. Though you do make a great point above about how NK works for them as a thorn in our side. But it's a thorn in their side too.

My position is not "Let's war!". My position is "Lets shit or get off the pot": Either 'damn the torpedoes' go in and regime change OR lets vacate and let the Koreans work it out (i.e. the North rolls over the South).

The reason I take this stance is because North Korea is a constant knife in our back maintained by China and Russia just for that purpose. Eliminate the knife by either overrunning it or by abandoning our allies. I prefer the former, as tens of millions of South Koreans will die in the latter.

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 04:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But that is my point. If we were willing to do that in Iraq, why not do it in North Korea instead (not 'in addition to')? We had much greater cause to go against North Korea in 2003-2004 than Iraq. And it was proven.

If the Iraq War had worked out like the Gulf War, you might have an argument. But a debacle/quagmire is not the precedent you want.

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 04:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: My position is not "Let's war!". My position is "Lets shit or get off the pot": Either 'damn the torpedoes' go in and regime change OR lets vacate and let the Koreans work it out (i.e. the North rolls over the South).

The reason I take this stance is because North Korea is a constant knife in our back maintained by China and Russia just for that purpose. Eliminate the knife by either overrunning it or by abandoning our allies. I prefer the former, as tens of millions of South Koreans will die in the latter.

But B, why wouldn't a serious sanctions regime be preferable--and less risky?

Why do you think that couldn't work?

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 04:16 PM)Dill Wrote: If the Iraq War had worked out like the Gulf War, you might have an argument. But a debacle/quagmire is not the precedent you want.

Occupying any other country against their will is a always quagmire. Always has been. I just feel we should have chose our quagmires better.

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 04:18 PM)Dill Wrote: But B, why wouldn't a serious sanctions regime be preferable--and less risky?

Why do you think that couldn't work?

Because China. And Russia.

They like having North Korea around. And they aren't concerned about NK nukes. They won't let it fail. It serves a purpose for them. And they have no problem with the regime, so long as the regime does what they say.

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 03:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: And we should have fully commited at that time and kicked the Chinese back across the Yalu River.

LOL, Geez B, what is your attraction to massive land wars in Asia? 

Kicking the Chinese back turned out to be not very easy. MacArthur wanted to use nukes before we had ICBMs--and on a Soviet client state.

(05-10-2019, 03:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You mean a puppet like Taiwan/Formosa? Or one like Afghanistan?

Prior to the Pakis getting the Bomb (with North Korean aid), we could have buddied up with India. This would have been a far greater concern for China than North Korea (which is part of how the Pakis got the bomb, IMO).

We did buddy up with India. Sort of. They valued non-alignment for decades though, as did China. I think it makes good sense now to get and keep them in our camp, as China climbs to super power status.

(05-10-2019, 03:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Facing North Korea alone with conventional forces is do-able.

Maybe, but I guess our disagreement here is in estimation of the costs.

(05-10-2019, 03:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Even facing North Korea amd China is do-able. And if the other side decided to use nukes, either scenario is even more do-able.

Yow! No B'zona. You cannot mean we could somehow invade and defeat China with conventional forces. Or what do you mean by a "do-able," especially one leading to a likely nuclear exchange? Could one even engage without reinstating the draft--while still engaged in the war on Terror?

(05-10-2019, 03:52 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Not sure why we are so afraid of China.

Overrated, as the current administration has proven. Do what we want, put a spin on it, and disregard any nay-sayers.

It's not about being "afraid" of China. Their defense is to make the cost of invading them prohibitively high. 

I don't think we can keep pre-emptively striking countries and maintain an international system slanted in favor of the US and its allies, as we currently have.  The current administration is stretching that system to its limits, perhaps irreversibly damaging it, not proving we can get away with stuff.

Now we are trying to force 5 countries to bend to our will on Iran, against their national interests, and we just upped the stakes of our trade war with one.

But had we invaded NK back in 2003, I think that would have done more damage than the Iraq war and Trump diplomacy.  Also, you can't prove a negative in this case, so your arguments that we had prevented NK getting a nuke would not carry much weight. To the world we would be the international bully.  Would we still be occupying the North, as we remain in A-stan?

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 04:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Occupying any other country against their will is a always quagmire. Always has been. I just feel we should have chose our quagmires better.

Surely military history shows us a scale here, from Grenada and Panama up to the Soviet Union in WWII.

While invading NK would not be like invading the USSR, invading NK AND China would move us to that end of the spectrum.  The domestic pushback for something like that would prevent it from happening.

We should have chosen our quagmires better, certainly. But I think that is what Clinton and Bush were doing when they chose not to invade NK.

[jj22]

Read where Trump talked glowingly about Kim cutting off his brothers head and keeping it on a platter yesterday.

As he professed his love for him.

What else can you say if Americans are okay with this coming from the President?

In the mean time yesterday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/asia/north-korea-projectile-intl/index.html

I don't care for Trump, but the American president getting schooled by Kim is unprecedented. This after Trump (or some say the other way around) elevated him on the world stage.

Safe to say Trump hasn't gotten anything out of any of this. While Kim at least got America to turn on SK and quit joint military practice with them, as well as got the sanctions removed leading to billions of funds going in Kim's pockets (cause they aren't going to the citizens of NK).

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 04:43 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, Geez B, what is your attraction to massive land wars in Asia? 

Kicking the Chinese back turned out to be not very easy. MacArthur wanted to use nukes before we had ICBMs--and on a Soviet client state.


We did buddy up with India. Sort of. They valued non-alignment for decades though, as did China. I think it makes good sense now to get and keep them in our camp, as China climbs to super power status.



Maybe, but I guess our disagreement here is in estimation of the costs.



Yow! No B'zona. You cannot mean we could somehow invade and defeat China with conventional forces. Or what do you mean by a "do-able," especially one leading to a likely nuclear exchange? Could one even engage without reinstating the draft--while still engaged in the war on Terror?


It's not about being "afraid" of China. Their defense is to make the cost of invading them prohibitively high. 

I don't think we can keep pre-emptively striking countries and maintain an international system slanted in favor of the US and its allies, as we currently have.  The current administration is stretching that system to its limits, perhaps irreversibly damaging it, not proving we can get away with stuff.

Now we are trying to force 5 countries to bend to our will on Iran, against their national interests, and we just upped the stakes of our trade war with one.

But had we invaded NK back in 2003, I think that would have done more damage than the Iraq war and Trump diplomacy.  Also, you can't prove a negative in this case, so your arguments that we had prevented NK getting a nuke would not carry much weight. To the world we would be the international bully.  Would we still be occupying the North, as we remain in A-stan?

(05-10-2019, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Surely military history shows us a scale here, from Grenada and Panama up to the Soviet Union in WWII.

While invading NK would not be like invading the USSR, invading NK AND China would move us to that end of the spectrum.  The domestic pushback for something like that would prevent it from happening.

We should have chosen our quagmires better, certainly. But I think that is what Clinton and Bush were doing when they chose not to invade NK.

Dude! Did I say "INVADE" China? No. I may be a warhawk, but I ain't crazy!!!

Just kick them across the Yalu. We are capable of doing that. Kick them off the islands in the South China Sea, etc. also. That would bring quite a few other nations to the cause.

Yeah, there may be some initial blowback. But once the Koreas are unified, we can skidaddle out of there and let South Korea do the occupying/unifying. Far easier for them to do it as fellow Koreans than us as outsiders. The fact that South Korea is advanced and stable makes it a far different situation than, say, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Also, when they bring capitalism and Christ to those poor suffering godless commies in the North, they will welcome the South Koreans and their KIA's in droves. "Dear Leader Who?"!

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 06:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Dude! Did I say "INVADE" China? No. I may be a warhawk, but I ain't crazy!!!

Just kick them across the Yalu. We are capable of doing that. Kick them off the islands in the South China Sea, etc. also. That would bring quite a few other nations to the cause.

Yeah, there may be some initial blowback. But once the Koreas are unified, we can skidaddle out of there and let South Korea do the occupying/unifying. Far easier for them to do it as fellow Koreans than us as outsiders. The fact that South Korea is advanced and stable makes it a far different situation than, say, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Also, when they bring capitalism and Christ to those poor suffering godless commies in the North, they will welcome the South Koreans and their KIA's in droves. "Dear Leader Who?"!

LOL sorry bro!  Guess I am getting carried away.

I see your point about SKoreans occupying.

 

[Dill]

(05-10-2019, 05:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: Read where Trump talked glowingly about Kim cutting off his brothers head and keeping it on a platter yesterday.

As he professed his love for him.

What else can you say if Americans are okay with this coming from the President?

In the mean time yesterday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/asia/north-korea-projectile-intl/index.html

I don't care for Trump, but the American president getting schooled by Kim is unprecedented. This after Trump (or some say the other way around) elevated him on the world stage.

Safe to say Trump hasn't gotten anything out of any of this. While Kim at least got America to turn on SK and quit  joint military practice with them, as well as got the sanctions removed leading to billions of funds going in Kim's pockets (cause they aren't going to the citizens of NK).

Er, sanctions weren't removed, were they?

The big issue for me is that the summit connected Kim up with six other countries.

[Vas Deferens]

Why doesn’t daddy call his buddy rocketman and tell him to stop it? I thought he was the greatest ....

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2019, 10:46 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL sorry bro!  Guess I am getting carried away.

I see your point about SKoreans occupying.

 

It's all good, MAS brother!

[GMDino]

https://thehill.com/policy/international/asia-pacific/445638-trump-personally-thinks-lots-of-good-things-will-come-from

Quote:Trump 'personally thinks lots of good things will come' from North Korea

President Trump on Monday morning said he “personally thinks lots of good things will come" from North Korea following a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.


“I personally think lots of good things will come with North Korea. I may be right. I may be wrong,” Trump told reporters after he and Abe spoke for about 17 minutes with translators in Tokyo. “There’s good respect built between the U.S. and North Korea. We’ll see what happens.”

Trump also said he welcomed Abe trying to negotiate with Iran amid increasing tensions between Tehran and Washington, including the recent recall by the State Department of all non-emergency personnel in Iraq amid what the department said were unspecified threats from Iran-backed militants. Abe added that he wanted a “very candid and productive discussion.”


Earlier in Trump’s four-day visit to Japan, Trump tweeted that he was unconcerned about North Korean missile testing, tweeting Saturday, “I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me” about not getting the weapons, and saying he “smiled” at Kim’s characterization of former Vice President Joe Biden as “low IQ.”


Trump’s comments contradicted his national security adviser, John Bolton, who told reporters in Tokyo, “U.N. Security Council resolutions prohibit North Korea from firing any ballistic missiles … in terms of violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, there is no doubt about that.”

Earlier in the day, Trump became the first world leader to meet with Japan’s new emperor, Naruhito, who assumed office on May 1.

The "Stable Genius" is at it again.