North Korea Launches Missile Through Japanese Airspace

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › North Korea Launches Missile Through Japanese Airspace

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 26

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856945 1-Sep-2017 20:52

gzt: Ah well. That's enough of that. As I posted previously talks were very effective at halting nuclear development for a long time and reducing tension. That is what produced results.

I agree, and it did. But each time they reneged. In my timeline they often used or tested weapons that they supposedly didn't have, literally days later. If the talks worked then failed a few times, that's fine, but it's all that has happened.

If we want to continue down that track each time that's also fine, we will get peace for periods then when they are sanctioned yet again for breaking an agreement that's an act of war, rinse and repeat.

Let them be nuclear, it's their right, it's their deterrent, then no need to have talks as they have their deterrent. At least that option is a new option as every other has failed.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1856947 1-Sep-2017 20:59

tdgeek:Let them be nuclear, it's their right, it's their deterrent, then no need to have talks as they have their deterrent. At least that option is a new option as every other has failed.

Disagree. There is every need for talks. At the very least agreements are needed to limit the number and type and agreements are needed to prevent technology transfer to other states. None of that will be easy, but that's the road to take. These agreements were very successful for a number of years and we need to return to those if we genuinely want to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and reduce the possibilities for technology transfer.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1856990 1-Sep-2017 21:25

Looks like there is a difference of opinion on this elsewhere:

Bloomberg: Trump says: The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!” Trump said in a Twitter post.

But Defense Secretary Jim Mattis answered “No,” when asked Wednesday whether Trump’s comments mean the U.S. and its allies have taken diplomacy as far as it can go.

“We’re never out of diplomatic solutions,” Mattis told reporters as he met with South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo at the Pentagon.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857044 2-Sep-2017 08:14

Clearly talks are better than war, but Trumps right, what were agreements that were always broken, have turned the rewards into extortion. Was it Obama that ceased these rewards for that reason. I have zero faith that NK will honour an agreement, much less disarm and allow inspections.

The only talks I could see having an impact is that USA and China talk, the basis is that the US declare they will not attack, and agree that China has the right to attack back on behalf of NK, and vice versa. Given that the US and China have no desire to attack anyway, that insures NK. NK can disarm the DMZ and use basic patrols, as can SK.

As to nuclear disarmament, only China can make that happen. Or the same talks, the same agreement, the same aid/rewards, and ultimately the same reneging. That will give peace for a period. Had NK's nuclear capability still be in its infancy, they can gain rewards based on their bad behaviour being rewarded, but now that their capability is very real, its hard to see them relinquishing that. They would want to agree to keep it, we want use it, its our right to defend ourselves, so we are little better off, apart from a peace period that the West pays for, for a while.

KJU has his hold on the people by way of severe autocratic control. He cant lose the weaponry, he cant lose the fact the he is protecting his people from imminent attack. He's not a leader who genuinely is trying to hold off the US. If he was, multi lateral negotiations would be very real options, but he's not.

Somehow China needs to be his insurance policy, and he needs the people still to fear attack from the US, so that they remain under his control.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1857112 2-Sep-2017 09:28

tdgeek:
Clearly talks are better than war, but Trumps right, what were agreements that were always broken, have turned the rewards into extortion. Was it Obama that ceased these rewards for that reason. I have zero faith that NK will honour an agreement, much less disarm and allow inspections.

Trump is wrong. The agreements were kept for a long time. Looks to me like the Obama administration stopped any vestigal cooperation after the US threatened punishment for a debatable breach related to a sattelite launch attempt. In retrospect it would have been far better to raise this as an issue in discussion and negotiation. It would have been far better to negotiate a situation with a disputed rocket type (ie; a non-nuclear issue) than the situation we have now which is a high risk of nuclear proliferation.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857123 2-Sep-2017 09:52

gzt:
tdgeek:

Clearly talks are better than war, but Trumps right, what were agreements that were always broken, have turned the rewards into extortion. Was it Obama that ceased these rewards for that reason. I have zero faith that NK will honour an agreement, much less disarm and allow inspections.

Trump is wrong. The agreements were kept for a long time. Looks to me like the Obama administration stopped any vestigal cooperation after the US threatened punishment for a debatable breach related to a sattelite launch attempt. In retrospect it would have been far better to raise this as an issue in discussion and negotiation. It would have been far better to negotiate a situation with a disputed rocket type (ie; a non-nuclear issue) than the situation we have now which is a high risk of nuclear proliferation.

25 years of broken agreements and wasted payments isn't wrong. Look, I agree with pretty much all that you say, except trusting KJU to honour an agreement. The timeline I posted shows just that. I am unsure what has changed now, except that its serious, more bargaining power, as a I think regional commentator commented. Maybe that right or wrong, no way to know right now. Non nuclear is not on the table. So if KJU maintains that stance, the nuclear issue is here to stay. Talks that have been commented on refer to NK stopping its missile taunting, and US/SK stop the military exercises. I can certainly see those demands being agreed on, I assume for a fat reward. Nuclear I am very unsure. China has already stated through its unofficial media, that we might need to accept a nuclear NK. A nuclear NK, where they dont taunt and US/SK dont taunt, and the DMZ becomes patrolled but not a regular fire fight is certainly a doable option.

A long time is good, but my timeline doesnt from what I recall show a long time as being that long, I guess early days it probably was.

I just cannot see a non nuclear, or non ICBM capable NK at all now.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1857132 2-Sep-2017 10:41

Talks have been ongoing for many years in the background. UN, China and USA are in background talks with NK Officials constantly. NK doesnt want to listen and that is whats upsetting USA so much.

NK sees the only way it can secure its future is to be fully nuclear capable at any cost. It wont fire at land, but is going to be firing missiles at water targets within countries ownership.

NK has no regard for its own people and is happy to let them starve at the expense of its defense budgets. It also torments and tortures its own people and has no human rights what so ever.

Does the world let them be?

Or is the time becoming right to take action?

Putin has just said that NK and US are on the brink of war, yet Putin has been partly responsible for it getting this far by assisting NK with its weapons program.

Sadly, in my opinion it is time for the west to strike, before it is to late. The cost of not doing anything will ultimately be much greater.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857136 2-Sep-2017 10:58

Both sides agree for no taunting activities then see how that goes after 6 months. No rewards or aid needed for that. An equal set of measures.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1857140 2-Sep-2017 11:07

gzt: Looks like there is a difference of opinion on this elsewhere:

Bloomberg: Trump says: The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!” Trump said in a Twitter post.

But Defense Secretary Jim Mattis answered “No,” when asked Wednesday whether Trump’s comments mean the U.S. and its allies have taken diplomacy as far as it can go.

“We’re never out of diplomatic solutions,” Mattis told reporters as he met with South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo at the Pentagon.

Presumably Trump appointed "Mad Dog" Mattis based on his nickname. Must be quietly disappointed.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1857177 2-Sep-2017 14:02

Mainly because Flynn was definitely going to be rejected by the confirmation hearing process for various reasons if he had even got that far.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1857179 2-Sep-2017 14:05

tdgeek:
The only talks I could see having an impact is that USA and China talk, the basis is that the US declare they will not attack, and agree that China has the right to attack back on behalf of NK, and vice versa. Given that the US and China have no desire to attack anyway, that insures NK. NK can disarm the DMZ and use basic patrols, as can SK.

I agree that some progress is required.

The armistice agreement that paused the Korean war for 60 odd years is inherently unstable. It needs to be replaced by a much better situation for all parties.

Your suggested 'right to attack' formulation is not required at all by any party.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857330 2-Sep-2017 19:30

gzt:
tdgeek:

The only talks I could see having an impact is that USA and China talk, the basis is that the US declare they will not attack, and agree that China has the right to attack back on behalf of NK, and vice versa. Given that the US and China have no desire to attack anyway, that insures NK. NK can disarm the DMZ and use basic patrols, as can SK.

I agree that some progress is required.

The armistice agreement that paused the Korean war for 60 odd years is inherently unstable. It needs to be replaced by a much better situation for all parties.

Your suggested 'right to attack' formulation is not required at all by any party.

Im not sure where my Right to Attack comes from?

Ive been out all day, my last post I recall is get both sides to drop the taunts, see what happens after 6 months

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1857334 2-Sep-2017 19:41

You stated that. I quoted it. It is also in your original post, on this page.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857342 2-Sep-2017 20:06

gzt:
tdgeek:

The only talks I could see having an impact is that USA and China talk, the basis is that the US declare they will not attack, and agree that China has the right to attack back on behalf of NK, and vice versa. Given that the US and China have no desire to attack anyway, that insures NK. NK can disarm the DMZ and use basic patrols, as can SK.

I agree that some progress is required.

The armistice agreement that paused the Korean war for 60 odd years is inherently unstable. It needs to be replaced by a much better situation for all parties.

Your suggested 'right to attack' formulation is not required at all by any party.

OK, I see now.

My basis is, USA has no interest to attack, China has no interest to attack, so thats a null result. To cater to KJU who is an idiot, despite being UK educated, so he is not an idiot but plays these games for himself and gives no interest in his people, is to give him insurance. Dont worry about the US as China will protect you.

Interesting read

https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/96365604/north-korean-students-arriving-in-australia-learn-about-the-internet

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1857343 2-Sep-2017 20:07

gzt: You stated that. I quoted it. It is also in your original post, on this page.

Yes, realised that soon after, responded to

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 26