North Korea

[SouthStandUpperTier]

27 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

Simply untrue. NK first tested a nuclear weapon in 2006, three years before Obama came to power, and had admitted having nuclear capabilities years previously. The most significant event that has happened since is the successful testing of a missile that can reach mainland USA which has happened on Trump's watch.

I never said NK first developed nuclear on Obama's watch. I said their leap in development happened on Obama's watch. Certainly didn't just magically happen in the last year and a bit since Trump came in. Anyway, this is all semantics. We were always going to end up at this point regardless of who was or is POTUSA because it was/is just too risky anyone trying to take on NK with China next door.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

I never said NK first developed nuclear on Obama's watch. I said their leap in development happened on Obama's watch. Certainly didn't just magically happen in the last year and a bit since Trump came in. Anyway, this is all semantics. We were always going to end up at this point regardless of who was or is POTUSA because it was/is just too risky anyone trying to take on NK with China next door.

Agree with the semantics part here, really. My own views on Trump and his administration are abundantly clear but I can't see how the NK development would have happened much differently with any other person in charge so I can't find fault on this one.

[Guest MattP]

41 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, that's right, the vast majority of the time it can't be proven. Therefore, if it can't be proven, then perhaps the consequences of war should be more carefully considered by everyone interested in keeping more people alive than not? That's a logical failing on their part, so I'm not sure those pointing that out are at fault here.

 

Of course, your classic murderous dictator probably isn't going to do the maths either but history hasn't tended to be kind to them when they've started wars as they've tended to lose everything in pretty short order as a result. What you describe here is a pretty clear example of valuing emotionalism over logic when it comes to war, which is pretty commonplace tbh.

 

In short, if you go to war based on no more than a guess of how things are going to turn out, expect to get fully and rightfully castigated by history if things go wrong.

 

Evil (and good) for that matter are storybook concepts and quite frankly everyone's definition of them differs, but personally off put choosing a course of action that likely results in more death than would have if you hadn't done it being pretty evil. Though that's just me with my standpoint that there is nothing worse than death and YMMV.

 

Do agree with the last paragraph, though - often the geopolitical situation can change very fast.

No one ever goes to war on a guess Mac, FFS. You use the information and make a judgement - history also judges those who don't go to war on that information. Think Neville Chamberlain. You often come across on here like pacifism is some sort of utopia, pacifists would have allowed the most evil people to run amok on this planet throughout history, they are in no way morally superior to anyone, if anything they are the opposite.

 

Evil is not storybook at all, some folk and acts are universally reknowned as evil, the deliberate act of murdering the innocent for nothing else than propping up one's own lifestyle and/or belief is evil.

 

Do you really think we were evil for entering World War Two as we would have saved more lives if we had just let Hitler get on with, gas the minorites and then do a deal with him? If so I think you are completely in the wrong.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

No one ever goes to war on a guess Mac, FFS. You use the information and make a judgement - history also judges those who don't go to war on that information. Think Neville Chamberlain. You often come across on here like pacifism is some sort of utopia, pacifists would have allowed the most evil people to run amok on this planet throughout history, they are in no way morally superior to anyone, if anything they are the opposite.

 

Evil is not storybook at all, some folk and acts are universally reknowned as evil, the deliberate act of murdering the innocent for nothing else than propping up one's own lifestyle and/or belief is evil.

 

Do you really think we were evil for entering World War Two as we would have saved more lives if we had just let Hitler get on with, gas the minorites and then do a deal with him? If so I think you are completely in the wrong.

Fair enough, put "educated" in front of "guess" if you will, it still means that those involved can't be sure about the way things will pan out in terms of lives lost.

 

WWII (as you keep referring to, are there many other examples of reasonably fully justified wars in terms of body count?) was an example ever the Allied powers did consider that leaving the Axis powers alone would cost more lives than jumping in to stop them...And hey, they were (probably) right once the full extent of the plans for the Holocaust were known. Justified war, carried out, well done. History judges them (rightfully) well, as it judges more harshly those who went to war and got it wrong.

 

I don't think pacifism is a utopian ideal at all (unachievable as it may be); my view on it is much more utilitarian, viz. the more humanity wars and the more we advance the tech used for it, the higher the probability of something catastrophic occurring. If someone offered a convincing argument that war actually lowered the chances of that occurring, then it be all for it. Morality doesn't come into it in any way; that's totally subjective.

 

IMO (and I know folks might disagree here) evil is just a name for what people do, not what they are. No one is born like it, for instance. Murdering in the name of your own self interest is certainly an evil act, but that's hardly unique to NK on the geopolitical field, is it?

 

I guess this all comes down to how we view the world: correct me if I'm wrong, but for you there must always be "sides", polarisation, good and evil etc, as there will always be those looking to abuse their power in various ways as that's just human nature. I think that's true now, but it doesn't have to be for all time, and if it is...well, we've failed as a species.

[Wymsey]

Food for thoughts over the upcoming meetings..

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/world/asia/japan-north-korea-talks.html

[Guest]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, put "educated" in front of "guess" if you will, it still means that those involved can't be sure about the way things will pan out in terms of lives lost.

 

WWII (as you keep referring to, are there many other examples of reasonably fully justified wars in terms of body count?) was an example ever the Allied powers did consider that leaving the Axis powers alone would cost more lives than jumping in to stop them...And hey, they were (probably) right once the full extent of the plans for the Holocaust were known. Justified war, carried out, well done. History judges them (rightfully) well, as it judges more harshly those who went to war and got it wrong.

 

I don't think pacifism is a utopian ideal at all (unachievable as it may be); my view on it is much more utilitarian, viz. the more humanity wars and the more we advance the tech used for it, the higher the probability of something catastrophic occurring. If someone offered a convincing argument that war actually lowered the chances of that occurring, then it be all for it. Morality doesn't come into it in any way; that's totally subjective.

 

IMO (and I know folks might disagree here) evil is just a name for what people do, not what they are. No one is born like it, for instance. Murdering in the name of your own self interest is certainly an evil act, but that's hardly unique to NK on the geopolitical field, is it?

 

I guess this all comes down to how we view the world: correct me if I'm wrong, but for you there must always be "sides", polarisation, good and evil etc, as there will always be those looking to abuse their power in various ways as that's just human nature. I think that's true now, but it doesn't have to be for all time, and if it is...well, we've failed as a species.

Leicsmac is beginning one of my favorite posters with his clear logic. 

[Guest MattP]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, put "educated" in front of "guess" if you will, it still means that those involved can't be sure about the way things will pan out in terms of lives lost.

 

WWII (as you keep referring to, are there many other examples of reasonably fully justified wars in terms of body count?) was an example ever the Allied powers did consider that leaving the Axis powers alone would cost more lives than jumping in to stop them...And hey, they were (probably) right once the full extent of the plans for the Holocaust were known. Justified war, carried out, well done. History judges them (rightfully) well, as it judges more harshly those who went to war and got it wrong.

 

I don't think pacifism is a utopian ideal at all (unachievable as it may be); my view on it is much more utilitarian, viz. the more humanity wars and the more we advance the tech used for it, the higher the probability of something catastrophic occurring. If someone offered a convincing argument that war actually lowered the chances of that occurring, then it be all for it. Morality doesn't come into it in any way; that's totally subjective.

 

IMO (and I know folks might disagree here) evil is just a name for what people do, not what they are. No one is born like it, for instance. Murdering in the name of your own self interest is certainly an evil act, but that's hardly unique to NK on the geopolitical field, is it?

 

I guess this all comes down to how we view the world: correct me if I'm wrong, but for you there must always be "sides", polarisation, good and evil etc, as there will always be those looking to abuse their power in various ways as that's just human nature. I think that's true now, but it doesn't have to be for all time, and if it is...well, we've failed as a species.

Bit baffled as to how you come to the mathematics there on WW2 - the holocaust left only 3.5million Jews alive, 80 million were killed fighting in World War 2 - the allies at no point took the decision this was done to save more lives, the decision was taken to stop the spread of fascism and in the belief that we were in the right and they were in the wrong. We didn't sit there and try to philosophise about polarisation of whether Hitler might just be a different definition of good or bad, we took our position and backed it, as did those who went and fought.

 

Kim Jong-Un is evil, that is unequivocal, there is no argument at all to suggest he isn;t, he tortures his own people, he starves his own people, he threatens anybody who dares to question him and he's runs a regime that doesn't even offer the most basic of human rights to anybody he controls - the fact this is happening in 2018 shows some of us have failed as a species.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Bit baffled as to how you come to the mathematics there on WW2 - the holocaust left only 3.5million Jews alive, 80 million were killed fighting in World War 2 - the allies at no point took the decision this was done to save more lives, the decision was taken to stop the spread of fascism and in the belief that we were in the right and they were in the wrong. We didn't sit there and try to philosophise about polarisation of whether Hitler might just be a different definition of good or bad, we took our position and backed it, as did those who went and fought.

 

Kim Jong-Un is evil, that is unequivocal, there is no argument at all to suggest he isn;t, he tortures his own people, he starves his own people, he threatens anybody who dares to question him and he's runs a regime that doesn't even offer the most basic of human rights to anybody he controls - the fact this is happening in 2018 shows some of us have failed as a species.

That's why I said I wasn't sure and I'd have to do some number crunching in the topic. It may be that stopping Nazi Germany when the Allies did saved more lives than it cost in the long term, but who knows?

 

Again, for me the whole argument of right and wrong, good and evil, whatever - comes down to preserving as many lives as you can. Evidently your view on the matter differs.

 

Honestly, at this point I think we're going round in circles/ talking past each other as our world views differ so much. The NK leadership does evil acts and that's not in debate, but if you can't see that such black and white objectivism isn't always a good thing, is often dangerous for the future and there has to be a sea change in the way humanity views each other (maybe we're not capable of it at all and there will always be sides and we should just enjoy stuff before the inevitable occurs) then that's fine and we'll just have to leave it at that.

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Again, for me the whole argument of right and wrong, good and evil, whatever - comes down to preserving as many lives as you can. Evidently your view on the matter differs.

We'll have to agree to disagree, for me it should always be about right or wrong, not numbers. 

 

If Trump decided to exterminate a minority group I'd happily see us go to war and fight it even if more lives were lost in the process of doing that.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43914208

 

Guess we shall see where things go from here!

[Jattdogg]

48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43914208

 

Guess we shall see where things go from here!

Excellent to see this happening. It may not go anywhere but i sure hope it leads to more meaningful dialogue and clear path to peace and normalcy. Im a dreamer i know.

[Merging Cultures]

Exciting times.

 

My guess the motivation is that they don't trust Trump not to start a war with them. Plus with their nuclear test facility collapsed they are not able to continue to develop their nuclear deterrent. So, while I think this is good for the people of North Korea, I also think it's a survival tactic for the regime. As long as peace reigns, I am not concerned about the motives behind it.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

Exciting times.

 

My guess the motivation is that they don't trust Trump not to start a war with them. Plus with their nuclear test facility collapsed they are not able to continue to develop their nuclear deterrent. So, while I think this is good for the people of North Korea, I also think it's a survival tactic for the regime. As long as peace reigns, I am not concerned about the motives behind it.

Perhaps. Though the testing site potentially collapsing just leaves me thinking that surely they'd just build another one if they wanted to? Maybe it isn't that simple. Hopefully Kim gets a taste for diplomacy - he seems quite smiley meeting Moon.

[thebartonfox]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Perhaps. Though the testing site potentially collapsing just leaves me thinking that surely they'd just build another one if they wanted to? Maybe it isn't that simple. Hopefully Kim gets a taste for diplomacy - he seems quite smiley meeting Moon.

I've read a report that said a lot of their nuclear scientists were killed in the test site collapse, so it's more than just the infrastructure that was damaged, the entire program was crushed.

[les-tah]

Kim Jong-un is a very smart man. Basically made himself public enemy number one like Dr Evil  and now he is going to be a hero that brings peace to the region after all these years. 

 

 

 

Kill Bill 3

Edited 27 April 2018 by les-tah

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

Perhaps. Though the testing site potentially collapsing just leaves me thinking that surely they'd just build another one if they wanted to? Maybe it isn't that simple. Hopefully Kim gets a taste for diplomacy - he seems quite smiley meeting Moon.

You were saying the other day he had completed his programme and had ran rings around Trump?

 

Good start to the integration obviously, full credit to Kim for realising what's to do, to Trump for pursuing much needed more aggressive policy and to all those in between making it happen.

 

Still a long way from an acceptable outcome though. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

You were saying the other day he had completed his programme and had ran rings around Trump?

 

Good start to the integration obviously, full credit to Kim for realising what's to do, to Trump for pursuing much needed more aggressive policy and to all those in between making it happen.

 

Still a long way from an acceptable outcome though. 

The NK plan here seems obvious to me and is no different to what I suggested a couple of months back.

 

Start diplomatic efforts with the south, promise no more testing and start talking about a proper peace treaty asap. 

 

Next moves are get the south Koreans up north for a second meeting and start building good relations with the individuals at the top of the south's political class.

 

Meet with the us. Have a cordial meeting and do everything to show willing to be friends and no longer a threat. Continue talking about peace on Korea and efforts to secure the peace treaty. Make it clear that you will no longer test but that you won't unilaterally disarm.

 

In these circumstances, with growing ties between North and South and budding personal relationships how long will south Korea refuse to sign a peace agreement that is in their interests just to keep the us happy?

 

If the north and south sign a peace treaty and the north agree to not test anymore what reason does the us have to attack?

 

Game, set and match Kim. 

 

 

[breadandcheese]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

The NK plan here seems obvious to me and is no different to what I suggested a couple of months back.

 

Start diplomatic efforts with the south, promise no more testing and start talking about a proper peace treaty asap. 

 

Next moves are get the south Koreans up north for a second meeting and start building good relations with the individuals at the top of the south's political class.

 

Meet with the us. Have a cordial meeting and do everything to show willing to be friends and no longer a threat. Continue talking about peace on Korea and efforts to secure the peace treaty. Make it clear that you will no longer test but that you won't unilaterally disarm.

 

In these circumstances, with growing ties between North and South and budding personal relationships how long will south Korea refuse to sign a peace agreement that is in their interests just to keep the us happy?

 

If the north and south sign a peace treaty and the north agree to not test anymore what reason does the us have to attack?

 

Game, set and match Kim. 

 

 

The only thing I'd add to that is a non-proliferation aspect, as we've seen that NK was helping Syria to build a nuclear weapons programme (until Israel bombed it and destroyed it).  There's suspicions that NK is working with Iran too.

 

I'd also want provision in a treaty to help NK citizens (maybe allowing them to leave freely)

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The NK plan here seems obvious to me and is no different to what I suggested a couple of months back.

 

Start diplomatic efforts with the south, promise no more testing and start talking about a proper peace treaty asap. 

 

Next moves are get the south Koreans up north for a second meeting and start building good relations with the individuals at the top of the south's political class.

 

Meet with the us. Have a cordial meeting and do everything to show willing to be friends and no longer a threat. Continue talking about peace on Korea and efforts to secure the peace treaty. Make it clear that you will no longer test but that you won't unilaterally disarm.

 

In these circumstances, with growing ties between North and South and budding personal relationships how long will south Korea refuse to sign a peace agreement that is in their interests just to keep the us happy?

 

If the north and south sign a peace treaty and the north agree to not test anymore what reason does the us have to attack?

 

Game, set and match Kim. 

If the North agree not to test anymore they have failed to do what he intended, build nuclear capability that can bring the US to its knees. Something Donald said isn't going to happen. 

 

So how is Trump achieving what he set out to do game, set and match Kim?

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I'd also want provision in a treaty to help NK citizens (maybe allowing them to leave freely)

As wonderful as that would be, just not going to happen.

 

Would be barely anyone left in the country after a few years.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

If the North agree not to test anymore they have failed to do what he intended, build nuclear capability that can bring the US to its knees. Something Donald said isn't going to happen. 

 

So how is Trump achieving what he set out to do game, set and match Kim?

He'd be keeping nukes and the means of delivery to the us mainland. You think that's a win for Trump?

 

As I've read today:

 

“It’s high on symbolism and definitely exciting, but you have to ask yourself what does the symbolism amount to?” said Van Jackson, a former policy adviser to the US secretary of defence who focuses on Asia. “Both men have a strong desire to make this look good, but I don’t see anything coming out of this except building momentum for a Kim-Trump meeting.”

Kim wants to be a normal, upstanding and respected member of the international community, but wants to do that while having nuclear weapons, Jackson said, adding any meeting with Trump would aid in furthering that goal.

[breadandcheese]

Just now, MattP said:

As wonderful as that would be, just not going to happen.

 

Would be barely anyone left in the country after a few years.

My hope would be, and it's a naive hope, that as people started to leave, Kim would have to open up the country, a la China in the 1980s, so not to be left in a wilderness with no-one to run his country.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

My hope would be, and it's a naive hope, that as people started to leave, Kim would have to open up the country, a la China in the 1980s, so not to be left in a wilderness with no-one to run his country.

Tbh I agree with Matt on the chances of this. The whole thing is about keeping Kim in charge.

It would be wonderful if we were all wrong though and Kim just woke up one day and decided he wanted a fair and open country but I can't see it. 

[breadandcheese]

Just now, toddybad said:

Tbh I agree with Matt on the chances of this. The whole thing is about keeping Kim in charge.

It would be wonderful if we were all wrong though and Kim just woke up one day and decided he wanted a fair and open country but I can't see it. 

I do agree, it just sits uncomfortably that we are abandoning millions of North Koreans to effective imprisonment.  

 

Maybe China can persuade Kim of the advantages of opening up his country a bit.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

He'd be keeping nukes and the means of delivery to the us mainland. You think that's a win for Trump?

No, I think it's a moderate victory for both, but as I say - I still Kim is trying to buy time until the next election.

 

I'm baffled anyone can declare it "game, set match" for either. But I think you only see that because of your hatred for Trump.