Politics Thread: Edge of Seventeen

[Drowsy Emperor]

Kim is playing this whole thing like a boss, I never thought him this politically savvy. 

[Gfted1]

I loved the meatshields he had running next to his armored limo.

[Zoraptor]

Kim is playing this whole thing like a boss, I never thought him this politically savvy. 

 

Difficult to see how he could have played it better. Everything he's conceded is trivial while he's made lots of cosmetic gestures so most of the world will reflexively blame Trump if their talks fail. Only thing he's been a bit lucky with was Park being a corrupt cultist so the far more amenable Moon was elected in her stead.

 

If he actually gives up nuclear weapons I'd be very surprised, verging on vowing to eat my keyboard if it actually happens surprised.

[Drowsy Emperor]

It would be downright stupid to give up nuclear weapons - the U.S. would attack within months or perhaps even weeks, of such a decision.

 

The question is really, how much freedom South Korea has in deciding it's own policies. They could literally push for de-facto unification now, and then slowly integrate over a long period of time to avoid turbulence. But that would take major balls.

[Hurlshort]

The US is not going to attack Noth Korea if they give up nukes. I am pretty sure China would have something to say about that. Plus MASH has held up pretty well so we don't need a reboot.

 

Ugh, I just realized we are rebooting everything. Boo is right, Netflix will attack North Korea and reboot MASH.

[Guard Dog]

Is this politics or humor? Ah screw it, I'll post it here. The political thread can use a good laugh:

 

[smjjames]

Except that the socialist one isn't applied equally, unless you're gonna put the second waffle on top. I get that it's supposed to be joking though, what with the overboard on liberal (applying the dictionary definition) and what with 'conservatively' seemingly way too close to anarchic. I'm probably overanalyzing the joke though, heh.

 

I think a funnier way for anarchic is for it to be applied chaotically, all over the waffle, plate, knife, even the camera lens. At least by one definition of anarchy anyways.

 

Also, if it's going to use libertarians and constitutionalists, it's missing the green party, though I'm not sure how those would be represented on the waffles with butter.

Edited April 29, 2018 by smjjames

[Blarghagh]

Clearly they'd be organic, vegan and gluten-free. No butter, because those are expensive enough.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The US is not going to attack Noth Korea if they give up nukes. I am pretty sure China would have something to say about that. Plus MASH has held up pretty well so we don't need a reboot.

 

Ugh, I just realized we are rebooting everything. Boo is right, Netflix will attack North Korea and reboot MASH.

 

Invade, probably not. Bomb, yes. What is China going to do, take down U.S. planes that are not bombing it's territory?

[Guard Dog]

 

The US is not going to attack Noth Korea if they give up nukes. I am pretty sure China would have something to say about that. Plus MASH has held up pretty well so we don't need a reboot.

 

Ugh, I just realized we are rebooting everything. Boo is right, Netflix will attack North Korea and reboot MASH.

 

Invade, probably not. Bomb, yes. What is China going to do, take down U.S. planes that are not bombing it's territory?

 

No, that will not happen. The situation on the ground will only be made worse if the US launched a "preemptive" strike. Wait... we HAVE been making things worse by military strikes haven't we? Bah, who the hell even knows. You are assuming a US administration will alt rationally and with temperance. It's been a HELL of a long time since we had one like that. Small chance of that with the elephants and donkeys running the show. 

[Guard Dog]

 I'm probably overanalyzing the joke though, heh.

 

 

Um... yeah 

[smjjames]

Clearly they'd be organic, vegan and gluten-free. No butter, because those are expensive enough.

 

Or maybe the butter would just be green in color, hopefully not a moldy green though, lol.

 

 

 

The US is not going to attack Noth Korea if they give up nukes. I am pretty sure China would have something to say about that. Plus MASH has held up pretty well so we don't need a reboot.

 

Ugh, I just realized we are rebooting everything. Boo is right, Netflix will attack North Korea and reboot MASH.

 

Invade, probably not. Bomb, yes. What is China going to do, take down U.S. planes that are not bombing it's territory?

 

 

It would also seriously piss off South Korea if North Korea really is being genuine in their moves.

 

I can't help but wonder what sort of epiphany Kim Jong-Un had that led to the sudden turnabout. Likely it's a whole host of factors and unless he writes a memoir in his old age, we probably will never know.

 

Besides, we wouldn't attack them for the same reason that we didn't attack them before they had nukes, they're still backed by a powerful ally that could easily strike back militarily, if not economically.

[Guard Dog]

I think Hurlshot's analysis of a "come to jesus" moment with the Chinese is behind this. If it IS genuine. Nothing about NK's history suggests it is. They have pulled this stunt before. All you can do is hope for the best. Give them a guarantee not to invade or attack as long as they never attack SK and give up their nuclear weapons program and see what happens. It's a small enough price. If they break the deal we are no worse off and if they attack SK we'll be rid of them for good and all anyway.  

[smjjames]

Yeah, similar things have been tried before and fell through, a few of those were due to things on the US's part and others were on NK's part. So, it's up to both the US and NK to follow through on things and the real wildcard is going to be Trump.

 

Also, if Trump withdraws from the Iran deal, it'll make things harder for him in trying to negotiate with NK.

[Guard Dog]

The Iran deal was a mistake. Withdrawing from is is a bigger one. The agreements made by the US should not be binding only so long as the next election. 

 

As far as NK our previous "deals" were all carrot and no stick. The way to go might be a no carrot but no stick either. 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Zoraptor]

The Iran deal was a mistake. Withdrawing from is is a bigger one. The agreements made by the US should be binding only so long as the next election.

 

I presume that should be 'the agreements made by the US should --not-- be binding only so long as the next election'?

 

I think Hurlshot's analysis of a "come to jesus" moment with the Chinese is behind this. If it IS genuine. Nothing about NK's history suggests it is. They have pulled this stunt before. All you can do is hope for the best. Give them a guarantee not to invade or attack as long as they never attack SK and give up their nuclear weapons program and see what happens. It's a small enough price. If they break the deal we are no worse off and if they attack SK we'll be rid of them for good and all anyway.  

 

They haven't changed their heart, I don't think there's any chance of a genuine Road to Damascus moment. They have changed their behaviour because they've achieved what they wanted/ needed- they have nukes, and missiles able to hit basically anywhere in the world. That was their one strategic aim as it gives them security no matter what. All the stuff they're rolling back so far is cosmetic, or would have to happen anyway. The nuclear test facility they are shutting is by most reports either fundamentally ruined or nearly so already, for example, so there's no real concession in shutting it down when it cannot be used even if they wanted to. It does make a nice gesture though.

 

For all that Trump is patting himself on the back for his approach 'working' all he's done is make sure that North Korea relies more on China (and Russia) to selectively apply sanctions. While neither has any desire to see fighting in Korea, quite the opposite, neither has any desire to help the US and weaken North Korea either. If anything Trump's approach got the DPRK to full nuclear power status faster even if the underlying reasons date back to previous administrations, and his unpopularity overseas and tendency towards unreliability and intemperateness makes Kim's attempts to look reasonable far, far easier.

[HoonDing]

Just feed the stable genius' ego and he eats out of your hand.

 

[Guard Dog]

 

The Iran deal was a mistake. Withdrawing from is is a bigger one. The agreements made by the US should be binding only so long as the next election.

 

I presume that should be 'the agreements made by the US should --not-- be binding only so long as the next election'?

Hmmm... big difference isn't it? I could have left out any other word and not completely changed the meaning! You are correct of course. 

[smjjames]

The Iran deal was a mistake. Withdrawing from is is a bigger one. The agreements made by the US should not be binding only so long as the next election. 

 

As far as NK our previous "deals" were all carrot and no stick. The way to go might be a no carrot but no stick either. 

 

The current 'deal' (both with the US and SK) is also moving incredibly fast, these kinds of things usually take years to get to this kind of point. Instead of a train cruising into the station, you've got a train going at max speed towards the station.

 

 

 

The Iran deal was a mistake. Withdrawing from is is a bigger one. The agreements made by the US should be binding only so long as the next election.

 

I presume that should be 'the agreements made by the US should --not-- be binding only so long as the next election'?

 

I think Hurlshot's analysis of a "come to jesus" moment with the Chinese is behind this. If it IS genuine. Nothing about NK's history suggests it is. They have pulled this stunt before. All you can do is hope for the best. Give them a guarantee not to invade or attack as long as they never attack SK and give up their nuclear weapons program and see what happens. It's a small enough price. If they break the deal we are no worse off and if they attack SK we'll be rid of them for good and all anyway.  

 

They haven't changed their heart, I don't think there's any chance of a genuine Road to Damascus moment. They have changed their behaviour because they've achieved what they wanted/ needed- they have nukes, and missiles able to hit basically anywhere in the world. That was their one strategic aim as it gives them security no matter what. All the stuff they're rolling back so far is cosmetic, or would have to happen anyway. The nuclear test facility they are shutting is by most reports either fundamentally ruined or nearly so already, for example, so there's no real concession in shutting it down when it cannot be used even if they wanted to. It does make a nice gesture though.

 

Yeah, it only really makes sense for them to willingly close a nuclear testing site if they can't physically use it anymore. It seems to have been their primary testing site, which is a big blow on it's own.

 

"For all that Trump is patting himself on the back for his approach 'working' all he's done is make sure that North Korea relies more on China (and Russia) to selectively apply sanctions. While neither has any desire to see fighting in Korea, quite the opposite, neither has any desire to help the US and weaken North Korea either. If anything Trump's approach got the DPRK to full nuclear power status faster even if the underlying reasons date back to previous administrations, and his unpopularity overseas and tendency towards unreliability and intemperateness makes Kim's attempts to look reasonable far, far easier."

 

His chronic tendency to shoot himself and anybody else around him in the foot is also going to be a problem.

[Mack]

It seems like the concrete goal is to seek US agreement to withdrawing forces from South Korea. The North Koreans will claim, with a veneer of justification, that if America is sincerely promising not to invade, then surely forces should be drawn down from the peninsula. 

 

Of course those forces are there not only to contain North Korea but to 'keep an eye' on China. If that is NK + China's play, I have to say kudos because it looks to me like a smart one. To be fair it is hard to see how they could lose at the negotiation table once they had their nukes and delivery system finalized.

 

With that in mind, it still looks like good agreement, assuming a real denuclearization. But I think the American counter-offer should include the opening of international trade with North Korea, so that as troops are withdrawn a trade relationship is created. Ideally that would wean them off China while gradually improving the plight of the average North Korean.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Mack

[smjjames]

Didn’t they recently take troop withdrawal off the table? Or maybe that was the military drills.

[Guard Dog]

Actually having boots on the ground in SK only marginally improves our defensive capability there. The Third Marine Division, 3rd Marine FSSG, and 1st Marine Air Wing, the entire USAF 18th Wing, 353d Special Operations Group, and a number of other AF units are all on Okinawa and can be there in less than 18 hours. There are two full carrier battle groups in the West Pac at any time. That is more military strength alone than the entirety of 95% of the nations on Earth. Air strikes from Japan, Carrier based, Guam, Hawaii, cruise missile strikes, and even bomber sorties from the US Mainland would begin immediately following any attack on SK. Giving up land based forces in SK would not be that big a deal since they would just be redeployed elsewhere in the Pacific. Probably Guam or Hawaii. Don't get me wrong, the movement of that kind of force is a heavy logistical burden but there is more than enough air power to buy the time to do it. 

[smjjames]

Aren't they there in part (or wholly) because South Korea wants them there? I suppose drawing them off of the DMZ but keeping them in South Korea would be more politically palatable while still being symbolic, not to mention lowering down the tensions related to the DMZ. Though it'd have to be paired with an equal drawdown by NK.

 

The difficulty here isn't logistical since as you say, troops could be deployed from nearby pretty much immediately, the difficulty is mainly political. Though I'm not sure how much of a strategic loss removing troops from SK would be since having them there has a deterrent effect, and you would have troops already there in case of an attack vs however many hours delay it would take to fast deploy troops.

[Mack]

South Korea does want them there, but if North Korea and China want them gone in order to denuclearize, tbh I'm not sure where that leaves things. If South Korea sees sufficient cause to hope in a certain normalization of relations with the North then their attitude might shift.

 

I doubt US strategists would consider it a trivial loss, because I doubt they consider losing any strategic foothold overseas to be trivial, and at the risk of posing a circular argument I don't think China and North Korea would be after it if any party considered it trivial. But maybe the former will consider it a worthwhile trade because, yes, they still have ample options for projection.

 

If they're smart I think they'll work in economic and diplomatic angles that could begin to introduce North Korea into the international community. Otoh this could all go up in smoke.

[smjjames]

A slow drawdown of forces from the DMZ area but staying in SK based on certain requirements being met and an equal and doubly verifiable drawdown by NK seems like a reasonable compromise to me. If anything, it'd help reduce tensions since you wouldn't have US troops right up against the border and is an incentive for NK to stick to the deal and have progress.

 

That said, it could still go up in flames and the fact that the State Department isn't even at full strength isn't going to help things, and Trump for all his mercurialness, could screw up.