American Politics

[xi0]

It's not support and to suggest because there was no military action is fallacious. Most counties have given sactions to Syria and other barriers to show their disapproval of chemical weapons.

Russia doesn't support al-Asad? Are we getting the same information?

Yeah they have, and has he stopped dropping chlorine and sarin gas on his own citizens due to those sanctions? Has Russia been successful at doing this through their military and foreign aid relationship with the al-Asad regime? The answers to both of these questions is pretty clear. I'm not a strict interventionist or a warhawk or any of these things, but when diplomacy fails, what is the international community supposed to do? Refugee camps already exist in border states, in fact they're flooded with them after this latest chemical weapon attack.

 

[Reebi]

What you're referring to above is an entirely different topic in itself. The precision strikes over the last few days wasn't aimed at "stopping al-Assad". If the US and its allies wanted to do that, they would have sent in more than just a little over a hundred missiles. None of the cruise missiles fired were directed towards the capital city nor were they targeting the Syrian government.

Again, retaliation wasn't the intention in this operation. It was simply to deter the use of any chemical weapons in the future, nothing more and nothing less.


And as far as I'm aware, the speeches by May and Macron were backed up by aerial photographs of the damage dealt to the facilities. The evidence shows which sites were targeted and the precise location of the missile strikes.

I don't see any reason for me to assume that May and Macron's words are lies. After all, the military released details of the entire operation and provided evidence of the attack.


Whether I trust politicians or not is obviously going to be highly selective. It would be foolish for me to align myself with any particular politician or political party and blindly believe in every single word that they say.

As for politicians respecting Trump, it's their words and not mine. I just provided proof because I was asked to show a case in which a politician praised/commemorated Trump. I'm an ordinary civilian like you.

The truth is, nobody knows who respects Trump and who doesn't. It's impossible as a spectator. Anybody who claims to have the facts to that is either largely assuming things or simply dismissing everybody's words.





There are Syrians who have said the exact opposite, so I don't plan on taking sides any time soon regarding this matter.

(Such as Syrian chemical attack survivor, Kassem Eid -- I picked CNN as the source because I assume that you prefer that network over some other ones)

Though, I'm not defending the Western powers either. Every country has its own flaws and mistakes, but that wasn't really the subject of my discussion to begin with.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 15, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 15, 2018 ---

The idea is the same. Is providing shelter for every single victim in this world going to solve the problem or is enforcing laws the better solution?

If laws are meaningless and just a bunch of words on a piece of paper, then I'd argue that nobody on this planet is protected.


As for retaliation, France made it clear that it was not trying to provoke Russia or have any sort of confrontation. The US also similarly stated that it did not intend to interfere with Syria's civil war. The precision strikes were a one-time deal and served as a deterrent for any future chemical weapons users. The UK is likely on the same page with the US and France.

Syria did break international law but what are the consequences for breaking that law? It's not always bombing because so many factors have to be in account. I doubt this is a one time deal because the US did strikes last year and in 2013.

 

[Nemispelled]

Syria did break international law but what are the consequences for breaking that law? It's not always bombing because so many factors have to be in account. I doubt this is a one time deal because the US did strikes last year and in 2013.

The consequences for breaking international law should be pretty severe, whatever it may be. Especially if it is the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations.

Bombing the facilities that store these stockpile of chemical weapons is an equal and proportional punishment since it eliminates the use of these chemical agents in the future. Besides, Syria was supposed to "destroy" their chemical weapons years ago under the Obama administration.

The way I see it, the recent strikes are only forcing Syria to keep its own words.


"One-time deal" here means that there won't be any subsequent military strikes for the same chemical attack that happened a week ago. What has happened in Douma is done.

However, the US clearly stated that if more chemical weapons are used in the future, the military reserves the right to deal another set of strikes. I'm pretty sure any civilized country would join the US in additional military strikes in the future, if chemical weapons are used again.

If nations care about humanity, the would enforce the laws that protects innocent civilians.

 

[M3J]

Who should? Russia certainly doesn't do that.

https://borgenproject.org/how-many-refugees-does-the-united-states-accept/
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...as-welcomed-only-11-syrian-refugees-this-year

Trum set the cap to 50,000, and this year we've only accepted 11 refugees from Syria. In addition to that, Trump also temporarily banned Muslims from select country from coming into US. If these people really cared about the Syrians, then they wouldn't have caps on accepting refugees or only accepting few refugees. Plus, Trump himself tweeted few years ago that attacking Syria was not a good idea, so what changed?

Irony here though is that US is willing to spend billions of dollars attacking Syria, but they won't spend fraction of that to help Flint with its water crisis.

 

[xi0]

https://borgenproject.org/how-many-refugees-does-the-united-states-accept/
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...as-welcomed-only-11-syrian-refugees-this-year

Trum set the cap to 50,000, and this year we've only accepted 11 refugees from Syria. In addition to that, Trump also temporarily banned Muslims from select country from coming into US. If these people really cared about the Syrians, then they wouldn't have caps on accepting refugees or only accepting few refugees. Plus, Trump himself tweeted few years ago that attacking Syria was not a good idea, so what changed?

Irony here though is that US is willing to spend billions of dollars attacking Syria, but they won't spend fraction of that to help Flint with its water crisis.

So basically you're saying that the US shouldn't do anything about the attack in Douma because of our government's current immigration policy?

I'm aware of all of this, and I'm not on-board with Trump's immigration policy at all, but that doesn't really have much to do with a direct and precise military response to countries gassing their own citizens.

I also don't see how Trump doubling back on a shitload of things is much of a talking point at all, that's just second nature for him. It doesn't make the airstrikes wrong on that basis though IMO.

 

[Reebi]

The consequences for breaking international law should be pretty severe, whatever it may be. Especially if it is the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations.

Bombing the facilities that store these stockpile of chemical weapons is an equal and proportional punishment since it eliminates the use of these chemical agents in the future. Besides, Syria was supposed to "destroy" their chemical weapons years ago under the Obama administration.

The way I see it, the recent strikes are only forcing Syria to keep its own words.


"One-time deal" here means that there won't be any subsequent military strikes for the same chemical attack that happened a week ago. What has happened in Douma is done.

However, the US clearly stated that if more chemical weapons are used in the future, the military reserves the right to deal another set of strikes. I'm pretty sure any civilized country would join the US in additional military strikes in the future, if chemical weapons are used again.

If nations care about humanity, the would enforce the laws that protects innocent civilians.

But bombing them for breaking the law also breaks international laws. The UK and France didn't vote on the strikes through their parliamentary systems.

 

[kkck]

That still won't stop innocent people from being killed, especially since the West doesn't care about these lives.

I am not sure this applies to the situation. From what has been reported at least, the bombings ended up being precision strikes to military related areas, presumably where the gas weapons were being made. In that specific regard, yeah, the bombings won't stop civilian casualties but... that's not relevant to an attack which targeted military facilities which produced weapons used against civilians.

The attack wasn't a "trump" thing. It was a coalition between USA, france and britain. It's not accurate nor honest to think of this simply in trump terms. And this has happened before, just last year syria was bombed by the US for something else (can't remember what, maybe civilian bombings or gas). Right now the only difference was that this time around trump was talking about backing off syria (iirc)... And of course there is always tension there because russia actively supports assad. But ultimately this sort of response could easily be expected from any US president, be it trump, obama or bush....

 

[Nemispelled]

But bombing them for breaking the law also breaks international laws. The UK and France didn't vote on the strikes through their parliamentary systems.

The U.S. gave Russia a chance on April 10th (last Tuesday) to agree with a proposition that would allow an independent body to investigate the use of chemical weapons in the area... which Russia blocked.

The US, UK, and France didn't really have a choice in this matter because waiting too long could mean giving Syria time to move the chemical weapons supply somewhere else. Since the rest of the world refused to do nothing about this situation, the 3 Western powers had no choice to break international law in order to ensure that chemical attacks will not be normalized.

While it's a shame that it had to happen, the use of chemical weapons is a far more serious breach of international law. The military strikes carried out did no harm except destroy chemical weapons research facilities and command posts. The chemical weapons, on the other hand, killed dozens of civilians.

That argument would kind of be like expecting a police officer to follow the speed limit in order to catch the guy speeding on the highway. It's unrealistic.



The U.N. Security Council recently voted on whether the missile strikes were justified. 8 nations supported the strikes while only 3 were against it.

In addition, NATO also admitted to "fully supporting" the strikes carried out by the 3 Western countries.

 

[Reebi]

The U.S. gave Russia a chance on April 10th (last Tuesday) to agree with a proposition that would allow an independent body to investigate the use of chemical weapons in the area... which Russia blocked.

The US, UK, and France didn't really have a choice in this matter because waiting too long could mean giving Syria time to move the chemical weapons supply somewhere else. Since the rest of the world refused to do nothing about this situation, the 3 Western powers had no choice to break international law in order to ensure that chemical attacks will not be normalized.

While it's a shame that it had to happen, the use of chemical weapons is a far more serious breach of international law. The military strikes carried out did no harm except destroy chemical weapons research facilities and command posts. The chemical weapons, on the other hand, killed dozens of civilians.

That argument would kind of be like expecting a police officer to follow the speed limit in order to catch the guy speeding on the highway. It's unrealistic.



The U.N. Security Council recently voted on whether the missile strikes were justified. 8 nations supported the strikes while only 3 were against it.

In addition, NATO also admitted to "fully supporting" the strikes carried out by the 3 Western countries.

The US, UK and France are not the police of the world. Even so, there are laws in place for international conflicts. These attacks may not have casualties but it's still a declaration of military presence, thus war.

 

[Nemispelled]

The US, UK and France are not the police of the world. Even so, there are laws in place for international conflicts. These attacks may not have casualties but it's still a declaration of military presence, thus war.

Well, technically, the US, UK, France, Russia, and China are all the "police" of the world. They make up the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which is responsible for peacekeeping efforts and sorting out any military conflict.

But that's besides the point because, in my opinion, every country should be the "police" of the world... that is, if they care about the world.

Somebody has to take responsibility for maintaining world order, and that is practically the purpose of the UN Security Council.


I understand that there are laws in place for international conflicts, but at the same time, there are laws that have to be upheld. It is in the vital interest of the entire world to make sure that those who don't follow the rules are punished.

And besides, the recent military intervention in Syria was quite limited and had specific targets. The term "war" is a bit over-exaggerated in my personal opinion.

 

[Reebi]

Well, technically, the US, UK, France, Russia, and China are all the "police" of the world. They make up the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which is responsible for peacekeeping efforts and sorting out any military conflict.

But that's besides the point because, in my opinion, every country should be the "police" of the world... that is, if they care about the world.

Somebody has to take responsibility for maintaining world order, and that is practically the purpose of the UN Security Council.


I understand that there are laws in place for international conflicts, but at the same time, there are laws that have to be upheld. It is in the vital interest of the entire world to make sure that those who don't follow the rules are punished.

And besides, the recent military intervention in Syria was quite limited and had specific targets. The term "war" is a bit over-exaggerated in my personal opinion.

If every country tries to police the world you would have more conflict because x country believes they are right to attack y country. They make up half of the Security Coucil, meaning they still can't legally attack. If they break international law, no matter the intention, that opens up the door for others to break international law.

 

[Nemispelled]

If every country tries to police the world you would have more conflict because x country believes they are right to attack y country. They make up half of the Security Coucil, meaning they still can't legally attack. If they break international law, no matter the intention, that opens up the door for others to break international law.

Every country should police the world by punishing those who break international law. It's a collective effort. I'm not advocating for the invasion of every country just because another country disagrees with their political structure.

The US, UK, France, Russia, and China are permanent members of the Security Council, so they technically have greater responsibility & power to ensure peace because the other 10 countries are all temporary and in rotation.

Not to mention, those 5 countries possess the greatest influence and strength to achieve a goal like global peace -- having been the victors of WWII.

Since they're the most powerful, they should step up and take the responsibility. It'd be quite unfair to ask somebody like Lithuania to protect the world...


Besides, the 5 countries mentioned above have ridiculously strong economies and militaries compared to the rest of the world.

They can afford to spend the money and resources for defense and other peacekeeping efforts.

 

[Reebi]

Every country should police the world by punishing those who break international law. It's a collective effort. I'm not advocating for the invasion of every country just because another country disagrees with their political structure.

The US, UK, France, Russia, and China are permanent members of the Security Council, so they technically have greater responsibility & power to ensure peace because the other 10 countries are all temporary and in rotation.

Not to mention, those 5 countries possess the greatest influence and strength to achieve a goal like global peace -- having been the victors of WWII.

Since they're the most powerful, they should step up and take the responsibility. It'd be quite unfair to ask somebody like Lithuania to protect the world...


Besides, the 5 countries mentioned above have ridiculously strong economies and militaries compared to the rest of the world.

They can afford to spend the money and resources for defense and other peacekeeping efforts.

They still have to vote on decisions and there are 15 members of the council in total.
http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
Being a permanent member is irrelevant if not all of the council agrees to strike.

 

[Nemispelled]

They still have to vote on decisions and there are 15 members of the council in total.
http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
Being a permanent member is irrelevant if not all of the council agrees to strike.

As I said in a previous post, out of the 15 members, 8 of them refused to condemn the US, UK, and France for their missile strikes. Only 3 countries voted to punish the Western powers, they were: Russia, China, and Bolivia. 4 abstained from the vote.

That means the majority of the U.N. Security Council saw no problem with the strikes on the chemical weapons facilities. NATO even stated that they fully supported the military strikes in Syria.


Being a permanent member means being more responsible for "policing" the world. They are part of an organization that is meant to uphold international law and security.

Who's going to have the most responsibility if Syria conducts a chemical attack on random countries?

Surely not Nigeria or Congo. Everybody's going to look to the US, Russia, China, UK, and France to solve the problem. And that's just the way things are because those 5 countries have the greatest potential to enforce the laws.


Though, again, if you ask me, everybody is responsible for "policing" the world.

They are being protected under international law created by security institutions... so the least they can do is help enforce these laws (whether that be simply denouncing countries who break the law or being involved in political course of actions).

 

[kkck]

Ok, I think I have finally gone insane. I keep reading the good news about NK ending their nuclear testing but.... Why is this good news? Isn't it insane, if not stupid, to frame this around trump? Didn't NK end their testing and whatnot because they already have nukes capable of reaching the US and thus became a nuclear state? And then the news that this is somehow a victory for trump.... How? Of course, it would be asinine to blame trump for NK now having nukes, they have been working at this for decades, but trump didn't really do anything here.

Now the NK negotiations make sense to me.... NK offers to end a program that is already completed. And the US isn't going to meet NK in terms of NK surrendering or anything of the sort... But rather as a fellow nuclear state.

Or am I completely misunderstanding this?

 

[Nemispelled]

Ok, I think I have finally gone insane. I keep reading the good news about NK ending their nuclear testing but.... Why is this good news? Isn't it insane, if not stupid, to frame this around trump? Didn't NK end their testing and whatnot because they already have nukes capable of reaching the US and thus became a nuclear state? And then the news that this is somehow a victory for trump.... How? Of course, it would be asinine to blame trump for NK now having nukes, they have been working at this for decades, but trump didn't really do anything here.

Now the NK negotiations make sense to me.... NK offers to end a program that is already completed. And the US isn't going to meet NK in terms of NK surrendering or anything of the sort... But rather as a fellow nuclear state.

Or am I completely misunderstanding this?

Not sure if you are misunderstanding this, but the nuclear conflict between the US and NK is a lot more complicated than just somebody's political victory.

Before I highlight a few important points, I do want to mention that we still have no clue what will come out of Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un. It's far too early to tell; therefore, I really have no opinion about its outcome.


Anyways, on to my statements:

While North Korea did somewhat establish itself to be a "nuclear state" among global powers, its nuclear technology is still far behind that of modern ICBMs created by countries like the US and Russia.

Let's take the Hwasong-15 as an example. It is one of NK's latest and best ICBM, yet it can only carry half the payload of what the US was capable of 50-60 years ago. And it is still highly questionable whether North Korea can successfully deliver a missile that will survive re-entry into the atmosphere.

Sure, they hit a significant milestone in their nuclear developments, but progress and improvements can always be made if they're allowed to conduct additional missile tests.



Second, NK stopping its missile tests is a great relief for countries in the region who are uncomfortable with their ICBM tests. For people who live on the other side of the world, it may not seem like a big deal... but for countries who neighbor North Korea, it is a lot of pressure that gets lifted off their shoulders.

Think about the civilians in Japan or Hawaii who receive false missile warnings/alerts about a North Korean ICBM approaching... It's not something that families want to hear or experience.

And Japan certainly doesn't like it when a North Korean missile lands in the waters of the Sea of Japan. It certainly interferes with their daily activities and environment.

To put it quite simply, the US' allies will benefit a lot if North Korea agrees to stop its nuclear missile tests, especially since the Korean war never formally ended.



Third, it is kind of a big deal if Kim Jong-Un decided to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula.

His predecessors, Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il, took a hard-line stance on the nuclear advancement of the DPRK. Trump negotiating a deal that would denuclearize the Korean Peninsula would basically be a reversal of North Korean tradition.

This would ensure peace between the two Koreas and restore stability in the region.




Regardless, whether or not this counts as a "Trump Victory" is of very little importance to me. The more important matter here is being reassured that our allies, South Korea and Japan, are safe and well-protected.

Although, I will add that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In have credited Trump with North Korea's recent willingness to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

You can take that any way you want, though, many others seem to have also agreed with those assertions.

 

[kkck]

Not sure if you are misunderstanding this, but the nuclear conflict between the US and NK is a lot more complicated than just somebody's political victory.

Before I highlight a few important points, I do want to mention that we still have no clue what will come out of Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-Un. It's far too early to tell; therefore, I really have no opinion about its outcome.

Anyways, on to my statements:

While North Korea did somewhat establish itself to be a "nuclear state" among global powers, its nuclear technology is still far behind that of modern ICBMs created by countries like the US and Russia.

Let's take the Hwasong-15 as an example. It is one of NK's latest and best ICBM, yet it can only carry half the payload of what the US was capable of 50-60 years ago. And it is still highly questionable whether North Korea can successfully deliver a missile that will survive re-entry into the atmosphere.

Sure, they hit a significant milestone in their nuclear developments, but progress and improvements can always be made if they're allowed to conduct additional missile tests.

Second, NK stopping its missile tests is a great relief for countries in the region who are uncomfortable with their ICBM tests. For people who live on the other side of the world, it may not seem like a big deal... but for countries who neighbor North Korea, it is a lot of pressure that gets lifted off their shoulders.

Think about the civilians in Japan or Hawaii who receive false missile warnings/alerts about a North Korean ICBM approaching... It's not something that families want to hear or experience.

And Japan certainly doesn't like it when a North Korean missile lands in the waters of the Sea of Japan. It certainly interferes with their daily activities and environment.

To put it quite simply, the US' allies will benefit a lot if North Korea agrees to stop its nuclear missile tests, especially since the Korean war never formally ended.

Third, it is kind of a big deal if Kim Jong-Un decided to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula.

His predecessors, Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il, took a hard-line stance on the nuclear advancement of the DPRK. Trump negotiating a deal that would denuclearize the Korean Peninsula would basically be a reversal of North Korean tradition.

This would ensure peace between the two Koreas and restore stability in the region.

Regardless, whether or not this counts as a "Trump Victory" is of very little importance to me. The more important matter here is being reassured that our allies, South Korea and Japan, are safe and well-protected.

Although, I will add that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In have credited Trump with North Korea's recent willingness to negotiate denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

You can take that any way you want, though, many others seem to have also agreed with those assertions.

I am more or less aware of most you brought up here, I am just unsure of how it meshes up together.

Anyways, as far as NK denuclearizing.... Trump said that but I found no real reference to NK specifically saying that. If anything I haven't found anything about them even wanting to denuclearize. It would even be incoherent to them to do so as for them nukes are basically leverage and it would be inconsistent with several decades worth of their own policy. All I have found regarding what NK has said so far is basically "yep, testing is over. We got nukes which we can place in intercontinental ballistic missiles or w/e". In that sense, what I read so far into this is that basically NK ended its testing program because there is no more reason to test, they won, they got what they wanted. So this doesn't seem to be a result of trump or japan or SK pressure, it is simply a logical obvious next step for NK. Imagine if NK said "Yeah, we got nukes but we are going to continue testing.". The logical reply to that would be "SOOOOOOOO........ why are you still testing if you have nukes?".


So again, you have the secret meetings with mike pompeo could have gone for instance. Pompeo meets them and they go "yeah, we are willing to end testing.". Which... they were going to do anyways because it would be literally stupid to continue otherwise. Mike goes back, trump starts bragging about how his stances forced them to... do what they were going to do ANYWAYS. And they set up the meeting which doesn't make sense in the context presented by trump. Dunno, I just read all this stuff and it just seems that NK went ahead and played the trump administration like a fiddle.

 

[Nemispelled]

I am more or less aware of most you brought up here, I am just unsure of how it meshes up together.

Anyways, as far as NK denuclearizing.... Trump said that but I found no real reference to NK specifically saying that. If anything I haven't found anything about them even wanting to denuclearize. It would even be incoherent to them to do so as for them nukes are basically leverage and it would be inconsistent with several decades worth of their own policy. All I have found regarding what NK has said so far is basically "yep, testing is over. We got nukes which we can place in intercontinental ballistic missiles or w/e". In that sense, what I read so far into this is that basically NK ended its testing program because there is no more reason to test, they won, they got what they wanted. So this doesn't seem to be a result of trump or japan or SK pressure, it is simply a logical obvious next step for NK. Imagine if NK said "Yeah, we got nukes but we are going to continue testing.". The logical reply to that would be "SOOOOOOOO........ why are you still testing if you have nukes?".


So again, you have the secret meetings with mike pompeo could have gone for instance. Pompeo meets them and they go "yeah, we are willing to end testing.". Which... they were going to do anyways because it would be literally stupid to continue otherwise. Mike goes back, trump starts bragging about how his stances forced them to... do what they were going to do ANYWAYS. And they set up the meeting which doesn't make sense in the context presented by trump. Dunno, I just read all this stuff and it just seems that NK went ahead and played the trump administration like a fiddle.

I see. Well, whether North Korea is willing to denuclearize is still very much a large gamble, but I suppose that the subject will come up in the talks between Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Though, if I remember correctly, the idea of NK willing to denuclearize came from the South Korean government, who has held frequent meetings and dialogue with the North over the last several weeks/months. That information was then relayed to the U.S.

It is possible that the U.S. has also already started negotiating part of the deal behind close doors, but since that information is classified, there is no way to tell at this point.


Most of what I heard about NK's relaxed stance on its missile tests came from the South Korean and Japanese government. According to representatives from nearby countries in the region, North Korea has started to feel the economic pressure and will likely run out of funds by this October. The sanctions are making it substantially more difficult for North Korea to operate and sustain its resources.

Personally, I haven't heard anything about North Korea giving up nuclear tests because it has established itself as a "nuclear state".

They seem like the type to want to improve and surpass the United States' nuclear capability, but then again, it starts getting into a lot of speculation here.


As for North Korea playing other countries for a fool, it isn't the first time that something like this has come up. It has happened to several administrations in the past where NK pretended to abort its nuclear missile testing, but resumed it after some time.

Either way, there's nothing the US, South Korea, or Japan can do at this point... other than maintain the sanctions and maximum pressure on North Korea.

Kim Jong-Un can do whatever he wants (like flipping sides at the last minute), but he'd be a fool to think that the US, SK, and Japan couldn't do the same.

 

[kkck]

I see. Well, whether North Korea is willing to denuclearize is still very much a large gamble, but I suppose that the subject will come up in the talks between Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Though, if I remember correctly, the idea of NK willing to denuclearize came from the South Korean government, who has held frequent meetings and dialogue with the North over the last several weeks/months. That information was then relayed to the U.S.

It is possible that the U.S. has also already started negotiating part of the deal behind close doors, but since that information is classified, there is no way to tell at this point.


Most of what I heard about NK's relaxed stance on its missile tests came from the South Korean and Japanese government. According to representatives from nearby countries in the region, North Korea has started to feel the economic pressure and will likely run out of funds by this October. The sanctions are making it substantially more difficult for North Korea to operate and sustain its resources.

Personally, I haven't heard anything about North Korea giving up nuclear tests because it has established itself as a "nuclear state".

They seem like the type to want to improve and surpass the United States' nuclear capability, but then again, it starts getting into a lot of speculation here.


As for North Korea playing other countries for a fool, it isn't the first time that something like this has come up. It has happened to several administrations in the past where NK pretended to abort its nuclear missile testing, but resumed it after some time.

Either way, there's nothing the US, South Korea, or Japan can do at this point... other than maintain the sanctions and maximum pressure on North Korea.

Kim Jong-Un can do whatever he wants (like flipping sides at the last minute), but he'd be a fool to think that the US, SK, and Japan couldn't do the same.

This are excerpts from an ABC article that talk about what Kim said:

Kim announced his country would "no longer need any nuclear tests, mid and long and ICBM rocket tests," and therefore is suspending nuclear tests and launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles starting Saturday.

The communist country also says it is also shutting down the Poongye-ri nuclear test site where six underground tests have taken place.

North Korea has "verified the completion of nuclear weapons" and now "the Party and our nation will focus all its efforts towards socialist economic development," Kim was quoted saying at a meeting of the central committee of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea convened Friday. The state TV stressed the meeting discussed policy issues related to a "new stage" in an "historic period."

If you take just the first bit it kinda sounds like what has been reported so far. But the second bit is basically telling the world, "yep, program completed, NK GOT THEM NUKES BITCHES!!!1!!! Well, that or he is telling the world one thing and his party another. NK could continue to make new nukes as fast as they can and they wouldn't need any testing.

As for shutting down the test site... Weren't there reports a few months ago that there were concerns the place, supposedly a mountain with tunnels or something, could collapse due to the testing and release a bunch of tests worth of radiation if they continued tests? Shutting down a a nuclear test site that risks releasing shit ton of radiation to the environment does not seem like much of a compromise.

IIRC the bit about NK being willing to denuclearize came from the US government, allegedly from their secret talks. But NK has not made any public statements on that issue. Maybe, hopefully, they will soon but until then it kinda seems like the US government got ahead of itself. I would argue this should at least have been framed a bit more conservatively, if you see white house staments on this it almost sounds like a done deal.

When it comes to nukes I don't think it's an issue of having better nukes than the other guy TBH. A single nuke can already vaporize a city. How do you improve from that? A nuke that can vaporize a whole state or province? You could do that simply with more nukes anyways.

 

[Nemispelled]

This are excerpts from an ABC article that talk about what Kim said:

If you take just the first bit it kinda sounds like what has been reported so far. But the second bit is basically telling the world, "yep, program completed, NK GOT THEM NUKES BITCHES!!!1!!! Well, that or he is telling the world one thing and his party another. NK could continue to make new nukes as fast as they can and they wouldn't need any testing.

As for shutting down the test site... Weren't there reports a few months ago that there were concerns the place, supposedly a mountain with tunnels or something, could collapse due to the testing and release a bunch of tests worth of radiation if they continued tests? Shutting down a a nuclear test site that risks releasing shit ton of radiation to the environment does not seem like much of a compromise.

IIRC the bit about NK being willing to denuclearize came from the US government, allegedly from their secret talks. But NK has not made any public statements on that issue. Maybe, hopefully, they will soon but until then it kinda seems like the US government got ahead of itself. I would argue this should at least have been framed a bit more conservatively, if you see white house staments on this it almost sounds like a done deal.

When it comes to nukes I don't think it's an issue of having better nukes than the other guy TBH. A single nuke can already vaporize a city. How do you improve from that? A nuke that can vaporize a whole state or province? You could do that simply with more nukes anyways.

Well, to me, it sounds like Kim Jong-Un was given a way out of this mess by proclaiming that it has "mastered" the art of creating nuclear weapons, while being unchallenged by the US (obviously, the US could make this situation worse by saying their technology is still decades inferior to modern ICBMs).

His choices are either accepting a loophole to avoid further embarrassment, or digging yourself into a hole that is too deep to get out later.

The US knows, and everybody else in the world knows, that NK has barely been successful in creating nuclear ICBMs, but of course, the United States just wants to get this whole "North Korea conflict" over with. So they will obviously agree to keep quiet and just let Kim Jong-Un announce to his country that they have reached a "historic-changing period in time".

The real question is whether Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il actually intended "nuclear success" to be defined as North Korea's current state.



And yeah, there were reports that North Korea's past nuclear tests caused a series of earthquakes, which reduced the stability of the mountains and tunnel networks that make up the testing site.

Maybe Kim Jong-Un feared that the radiation would be harmful to the environment; though, I have doubts about that since I don't remember a time where he actually cared about his own people and the state of his country.



Having better nukes than the US may not have been a big deal, but clearly, it's nuclear arsenal had to be formidable enough to counter an attack from the United States.

It's still questionable whether the Hwasong-15 could survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, let alone be able to escape all of the US' defense mechanisms.

The model of North Korea's ICBMs are still outdated and it's reliability is pretty low. Any leader would have little confidence in their nuclear capability if they were given North Korea's missiles.

Compared to the United States, North Korea knows that it is still no more of a threat than it was years ago. In other words, I'm not sure if there has been any real success or advancement in their nuclear technology.