Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 26
10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1856945 1-Sep-2017 20:52
Send private message

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

9148 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1856947 1-Sep-2017 20:59
Send private message

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

9148 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1856990 1-Sep-2017 21:25
Send private message

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.

10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1857044 2-Sep-2017 08:14
Send private message

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

9148 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1857112 2-Sep-2017 09:28
Send private message

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.

10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1857123 2-Sep-2017 09:52
Send private message

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. 


1078 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 474


  Reply # 1857132 2-Sep-2017 10:41
Send private message

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.


10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1857136 2-Sep-2017 10:58
Send private message

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.

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2320


  Reply # 1857140 2-Sep-2017 11:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

9148 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1857177 2-Sep-2017 14:02
Send private message

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

9148 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1857179 2-Sep-2017 14:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1857330 2-Sep-2017 19:30
Send private message

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

9148 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1857334 2-Sep-2017 19:41
Send private message

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

10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1857342 2-Sep-2017 20:06
Send private message

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

 

 

 

 


10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Trusted

  Reply # 1857343 2-Sep-2017 20:07
Send private message

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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | ... | 26
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Phone prices rising as users move upmarket
Posted 24-Nov-2017 17:16


Talking net neutrality on RNZ Nine-to-Noon
Posted 24-Nov-2017 12:11


Air New Zealand experiments with blockchain technology
Posted 23-Nov-2017 15:39


Symantec selects Amazon Web Services to deliver cloud security
Posted 23-Nov-2017 10:40


New Zealand Ministry of Education chooses Unisys for cloud-based education resourcing management system
Posted 22-Nov-2017 22:00


Business analytics software powers profits for NZ wine producers
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:52


Pyrios strikes up alliance with Microsoft integrator UC Logiq
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:51


The New Zealand IT services ecosystem - it's all digital down here
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:49


Volvo to supply tens of thousands of autonomous drive compatible cars to Uber
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:46


From small to medium and beyond: Navigating the ERP battlefield
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:12


Business owners: ERP software selection starts (and finishes) with you
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:11


Why I'm not an early adopter
Posted 21-Nov-2017 10:39


Netatmo launches smart home products in New Zealand
Posted 20-Nov-2017 20:06


Huawei Mate 10: Punchy, long battery life, artificial intelligence
Posted 20-Nov-2017 16:30


Propel launch Disney Star Wars Laser Battle Drones
Posted 19-Nov-2017 21:26



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.