North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

[TexRex]

Not everyone’s opinions on subjects are equal.

They are when you don't like what they say...

 

[Joey D]

I'm guessing you won't find many South Koreans who are exactly thrilled with the resolution.

As a whole, the summit came across more like a PR stunt than anything else. I was sceptical of it but hoped some progress would be made.

Given that Obama won a peace prize for doing nothing, Trump should be a shoe-in now.

 

[Danoff]

I can't disagree much with any of the concerns raised about the flimsy, one-sided nature of the result of this (first) summit, but I think it is also necessary to bear in mind just how much of a sea-change it is for either Trump or Kim Jong-un to even agree to meet in the first place, and how a relationship between DPRK and the US of any description is going to affect all other relationships in the region in one way or another. The US are suspicious of closer ties between the North and South, the Chinese are suspicious of closer (or any) ties between the US and the DPRK etc. - but one thing that all can agree on is that the situation as it was just a few weeks ago was untenable - something had to give.

Everyone is going to have to make concessions in order to move away from the very real threat of a horrible conflict that would be unlike anything ever seen on the planet before, and while the suspicion remains that the North have no real desire for change, I think at this juncture it is the only sensible approach to start by giving them the benefit of the doubt and to at least welcome the start of face-to-face diplomacy at the highest level - but the Kim regime will have been left under no illusions about what the consequences are if the diplomatic route fails...

Well said.

I want to add to that that some have said that NK agreed to no more than they have in the past, and weren't living up to in the past. Ok, fine, would it have put you at ease if they agreed to more? If they're not going to actually do what they say, what difference does it make how much they agree to? If they ARE going to do what they say, what difference does it make how much has been agreed to and ignored in the past?

NK has shown a willingness to cope with any and all consequences thrown their way for ignoring their promises. So more sanctions, blockades, whatever are not particularly likely to work. It may be doomed to failure, but I think the strategy of making a big fanfare out of the latest negotiations, and patting each other on the back, and putting Kim in the world spotlight for a moment, and calling attention to how wonderful it is that he's finally getting with the program, has as much a shot as anything at getting something out of him. It lets him pretend that the suffering of the NK people for their nuclear program was actually worthwhile... instead of being a complete waste of time.

What's different this time? Well, NK has finally achieved some of the milestones they wanted out of their nuclear program and had a chance to say... ok now what...

 

[TenEightyOne]

So this Twitter user represents people who live, work and analyze in Korea? Bit of a stretch.

His children are certainly entertaining and he's well-known and well-respected in that field. It's not an "appeal to authority" as much as simply pointing out expert opinion, something that you yourself often rely on.

I'm pretty sure that an assessment of this agreement as soft (and thereby dove-ish) is obviously correct. Kim has agreed to work with other states to find peace - no surprises there as he did that the moment he arrived at the summit, no concessions gained by the US there. The only thing of note was the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula", but with zero detail.

Without that detail it's hard to see what the difference is between NK's 2018 denuclearisation promise and those in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016.

The only actual concession came from the US Military courtesy of Trump, something that the military seemed unaware of until it happened.

What's different this time? Well, NK has finally achieved some of the milestones they wanted out of their nuclear program and had a chance to say... ok now what...

NK feel they are now negotiating from a position of real power. Kim gets to show China and Russia that they aren't the only game in town as far as NK's future is concerned and he gets to show his people how important his work meetings are. Trump should (but won't) consider why other world leaders with the same stature of office have chosen not to legitimise NK's tactics with face-to-face meetings.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well respected experts opinion is worth more than just a single random persons opinion.

Not everyone’s opinions on subjects are equal.

Slice it any way you like, characterizing a single opinion as representing " those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living", is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

 

[baldgye]

Slice it any way you like, characterizing a single opinion as representing " those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living", is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

As far as I can tell, his opinion was used as a reference from an expert.

You seem to be very confused. Context is quite important, to dismiss it so flagrantly is foolish.

 

[Scaff]

It's a single person's opinion

I'm aware of that, however it representative of many, many, many more.

What about eleven analysts on Asian and Korean politics (including a former US negotiator with NK and career US diplomat)?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...to-the-trump-kim-jong-un-summit-in-singapore/

Lets throw in Klingner , a 20 year CIA and DIA vet, who was Korean Deputy section chief for the CIA?



Trust me I can keep going all day with this if you want.

that you seem to think represents something more than a single person's opinion.

It does, and I invited you to rebut it

Bit of a stretch like I said. I believe it's called the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Which I invited you to provide a source to rebut and you have failed to do so.

He's also an acknowledged expert in the area, one that governments have called up numerous times in the past for exactly this kind of analysis, as such it does carry more weight behind it. Its not after all just some random dude on twitter, its quite literally the majority of professional analysts on the region who know exactly what they are talking about.

Slice it any way you like, characterizing a single opinion as representing " those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living", is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

I hope you have enough authorities now, still awaiting that sourced rebuttal

 

[Danoff]

NK feel they are now negotiating from a position of real power. Kim gets to show China and Russia that they aren't the only game in town as far as NK's future is concerned and he gets to show his people how important his work meetings are. Trump should (but won't) consider why other world leaders with the same stature of office have chosen not to legitimise NK's tactics with face-to-face meetings.

I think that depends on how seriously you take the NK threat. If you think NK is full of bluster, maybe we should ignore them and go back to staring at Russia and China over some nonsense. But I think it's actually pretty easy to make an argument that NK is more of a threat than Russia or China or any other nuclear power, because they have nothing to lose. If the US and the USSR didn't nuke each other during the cold war, I'm not sure why Russia and the US would nuke each other now that we're connected economically more than ever. China is very similar, the US and China have major economic ties (which we're stupidly threatening). NK is the most irrational, unpredictable nuclear power on the planet right now, and that's actually saying something.

So maybe it's the threat we take most seriously. Kim has shown a strong love of fanfare too.

 

[baldgye]

Well said.

I want to add to that that some have said that NK agreed to no more than they have in the past, and weren't living up to in the past. Ok, fine, would it have put you at ease if they agreed to more? If they're not going to actually do what they say, what difference does it make how much they agree to? If they ARE going to do what they say, what difference does it make how much has been agreed to and ignored in the past?

NK has shown a willingness to cope with any and all consequences thrown their way for ignoring their promises. So more sanctions, blockades, whatever are not particularly likely to work. It may be doomed to failure, but I think the strategy of making a big fanfare out of the latest negotiations, and patting each other on the back, and putting Kim in the world spotlight for a moment, and calling attention to how wonderful it is that he's finally getting with the program, has as much a shot as anything at getting something out of him. It lets him pretend that the suffering of the NK people for their nuclear program was actually worthwhile... instead of being a complete waste of time.

What's different this time? Well, NK has finally achieved some of the milestones they wanted out of their nuclear program and had a chance to say... ok now what...

Don’t you think, that this is just the start of another cycle (of hate and fained aggression towards the US)?
With Nuclear weapons NK poses a serious threat to the world and it’s neigbours, but realistically it can’t carry out a war. It seems striklying smimilar to the ‘war’ in ‘1984’.
The NK ‘war’ with America has to be ever lasting so they can mantain there totalitarian dictatorship, only now they have nukes. They’ve grown too technically advanced. Maybe now they have to create a situation where they can ‘start over’ or at least be seen too, while getting what they can. As to keep their population enslaved and busy while having a constant enemy...

Maybe I’ve been taking in too much sun, but I can’t see a real need for NK to drastically change?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that depends on how seriously you take the NK threat.

Absolutely - and I agree with you that they're a major threat given their volatility.

Their pattern is to make treaties for short-term self-gain (the second is a given in all treaties of course) and to then renege on them. Nonetheless I think it's foolish of Trump to allow himself to be drawn into that particularly as he seems to feel he's the one in control. I feel that with Kim being able to demonstrate to China and Russia that he has other allies the amount of control that they could exercise (and seemingly have done in the past) is seriously diminished. With the treaty bringing almost zero in enforceable content I'm not sure what good it's done but I fear it may have given things an opportunity to get worse.

That's also presuming that The Don doesn't have a bad burger and go ape on NK at 3am via Twitter.

 

[Scaff]

I think that depends on how seriously you take the NK threat. If you think NK is full of bluster, maybe we should ignore them and go back to staring at Russia and China over some nonsense. But I think it's actually pretty easy to make an argument that NK is more of a threat than Russia or China or any other nuclear power, because they have nothing to lose. If the US and the USSR didn't nuke each other during the cold war, I'm not sure why Russia and the US would nuke each other now that we're connected economically more than ever. China is very similar, the US and China have major economic ties (which we're stupidly threatening). NK is the most irrational, unpredictable nuclear power on the planet right now, and that's actually saying something.

So maybe it's the threat we take most seriously. Kim has shown a strong love of fanfare too.

I have to disagree that NK are irrational and unpredictable.

The have actually been quite the opposite and consistently so. Every step of the nuclear process has been used as a bargaining tool with the west to get sanction reductions, concessions, etc. They have done this and still managed to end up a nuclear state that has now managed to drive a wedge between the US and SK without giving up a single thing.

You could set your watch by NK threats following exercises, by the pattern of agreeing to disarm/stop the nuclear program and then baking out of it.

 

[Danoff]

Don’t you think, that this is just the start of another cycle (of hate and fained aggression towards the US)?
With Nuclear weapons NK poses a serious threat to the world and it’s neigbours, but realistically it can’t carry out a war. It seems striklying smimilar to the ‘war’ in ‘1984’.
The NK ‘war’ with America has to be ever lasting so they can mantain there totalitarian dictatorship, only now they have nukes. They’ve grown too technically advanced. Maybe now they have to create a situation where they can ‘start over’ or at least be seen too, while getting what they can. As to keep their population enslaved and busy while having a constant enemy...

Maybe I’ve been taking in too much sun, but I can’t see a real need for NK to drastically change?

Absolutely - and I agree with you that they're a major threat given their volatility.

Their pattern is to make treaties for short-term self-gain (the second is a given in all treaties of course) and to then renege on them. Nonetheless I think it's foolish of Trump to allow himself to be drawn into that particularly as he seems to feel he's the one in control. I feel that with Kim being able to demonstrate to China and Russia that he has other allies the amount of control that they could exercise (and seemingly have done in the past) is seriously diminished. With the treaty bringing almost zero in enforceable content I'm not sure what good it's done but I fear it may have given things an opportunity to get worse.

That's also presuming that The Don doesn't have a bad burger and go ape on NK at 3am via Twitter.

Yea I'd lay odds that NK hits the reset button and blows off all agreements and just arms themselves to the teeth. But... I'm not sure of anything that has a better shot of breaking that cycle than what's happening right now.

I have to disagree that NK are irrational and unpredictable.

The have actually been quite the opposite and consistently so. Every step of the nuclear process has been used as a bargaining tool with the west to get sanction reductions, concessions, etc. They have done this and still managed to end up a nuclear state that has now managed to drive a wedge between the US and SK without giving up a single thing.

You could set your watch by NK threats following exercises, by the pattern of agreeing to disarm/stop the nuclear program and then baking out of it.

Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, but I'm hoping that they'll have realized that there wasn't much they could do with their nuclear program. What they have right now is an opportunity to save face, worldwide and internally, and I'm (perhaps naively) hopeful that that will work.

 

[Joey D]

That's also presuming that The Don doesn't have a bad burger and go ape on NK at 3am via Twitter.

He likes his beef well-done, every burger he has is going to be bad.

Never trust anyone who likes well-done beef.

 

[TexRex]

Never trust anyone who likes well-done beef.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As far as I can tell, his opinion was used as a reference from an expert.

You seem to be very confused. Context is quite important, to dismiss it so flagrantly is foolish.

It was presented as representative of those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living. Hard to miss since I quoted it and it's in the post I quoted as well.

I'm aware of that, however it representative of many, many, many more.

What about eleven analysts on Asian and Korean politics (including a former US negotiator with NK and career US diplomat)?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...to-the-trump-kim-jong-un-summit-in-singapore/

Lets throw in Klingner , a 20 year CIA and DIA vet, who was Korean Deputy section chief for the CIA?



Trust me I can keep going all day with this if you want.



It does, and I invited you to rebut it

Rebut what? You quoting a single person and claiming it somehow represents anyone's opinion but his own?

He's also an acknowledged expert in the area, one that governments have called up numerous times in the past for exactly this kind of analysis, as such it does carry more weight behind it. Its not after all just some random dude on twitter, its quite literally the majority of professional analysts on the region who know exactly what they are talking about.

His credentials don't change the fact that he's a single person speaking for himself. You presenting him as somehow representative of the Korean people is more than just a stretch. Congratulations on finding some more people on Twitter that agree with you. There are millions on Twitter I'm sure you can find a few more if you keep looking

 

[TexRex]

 

[baldgye]

Yea I'd lay odds that NK hits the reset button and blows off all agreements and just arms themselves to the teeth. But... I'm not sure of anything that has a better shot of breaking that cycle than what's happening right now.

The only thing that can break that cycle is for ‘North Korea’ to be invaded with all that’s left of its government destroyed. For its lands to be reseeded and it to be brought up to the modern age.

They are using, or parading 70’s weaponry. They could use this as Kim trying to get peace and then have all their **** blown up (or some of it) blame the Americans and blame them for their Nuke test site being destroyed, and then slowly rearm themselves.

To be honest, I don’t see why they wouldn’t, if they can get some stuff here and there why not? Also by buddying up with the US dosnt that make China want to step in and be like, hey-friend!

Like what benefit would Kim ever have for making peace? He’s violated so many human rights and is responsible for horrific crimes against his own population, there is no happy ending for him in the outside world...

 

[TenEightyOne]

NK ... baking out of it.

Yup, they've definitely got form there!

 

[Scaff]

It was presented as representative of those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living. Hard to miss since I quoted it and it's in the post I quoted as well.

It was and has since been supported by many others.

Rebut what? You quoting a single person and claiming it somehow represents anyone's opinion but his own?

No, I'm now quoting numerous others with the same degree of credability

His credentials don't change the fact that he's a single person speaking for himself. You presenting him as somehow representative of the Korean people is more than just a stretch. Congratulations on finding some more people on Twitter that agree with you.

Some people?

Now you have managed your own logical fallacy, false equivalency.

Oh do you actually think I would be stupid enough to think he speaks for every Korean? That's absurd stretch and a distraction, but feel free to keep clutching.

There are millions on Twitter I'm sure you can find a few more if you keep looking

Really are those ones all analysts on the region with similar levels of experience?

I only ask as you seem to be having trouble finding even one, and have as a result headed deeply into false equivalency. I wonder when you need a doctors advice do you also get the opinion of some random passers by from the street and give it equal credence?

Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, but I'm hoping that they'll have realized that there wasn't much they could do with their nuclear program. What they have right now is an opportunity to save face, worldwide and internally, and I'm (perhaps naively) hopeful that that will work.

What they can do with the nuclear program is exactly what they have done in the past and have ramped up right now, which is use it as a negotiating position.

In the past the risk of a US lead invasion, while amazingly remote, was still a possibility. Now its utterly off the cards, 30 to 60 nuclear warheads will do that, for exactly the same reason it made the cold war cold, for the same reason Israel developed them, for exactly the same reason that has stopped India and Pakistan from engaging in a full blown hot war.

The motivation to actually disarm is pretty much zero, for exactly the same reason why only one country has done so in the entire history of nuclear standoffs.

 

[Danoff]

The only thing that can break that cycle is for ‘North Korea’ to be invaded with all that’s left of its government destroyed. For its lands to be reseeded and it to be brought up to the modern age.

They are using, or parading 70’s weaponry. They could use this as Kim trying to get peace and then have all their **** blown up (or some of it) blame the Americans and blame them for their Nuke test site being destroyed, and then slowly rearm themselves.

To be honest, I don’t see why they wouldn’t, if they can get some stuff here and there why not? Also by buddying up with the US dosnt that make China want to step in and be like, hey-friend!

Like what benefit would Kim ever have for making peace? He’s violated so many human rights and is responsible for horrific crimes against his own population, there is no happy ending for him in the outside world...

Given that we're not invading... what else you got?

What they can do with the nuclear program is exactly what they have done in the past and have ramped up right now, which is use it as a negotiating position.

I don't see that their negotiating position has changed even a little.

The motivation to actually disarm is pretty much zero, for exactly the same reason why only one country has done so in the entire history of nuclear standoffs.

The motivation to change is all over that weird cringy video... trade, infrastructure, prosperity. I don't actually care if they disarm. I don't actually care if any other country disarms their nukes either. What I care about is that they participate in the world economy, that's what brings peace.

 

[baldgye]

@Scaff you sir are a saint but @Johnnypenso stance is so nonsensical and meaningless that he can apply to everything.

It’s not a discussion or a debate, it’s a fight. Show any weakness and you loose. Even if you are wrong you cannot admit that. Anything that goes against certain core principles or people is wrong, as a matter of fact. And now he’s intrenched he can’t change position or stance.

Facts and reality don’t matter.

Given that we're not invading... what else you got?

Nothing. There isn’t anything you can do. Kinda why these talks seem pointless.

Even if the people rose up and over threw the government, then what? You’d have millions of malnourished poverty stricken North Koreans moving south, which would then cause a huge problem for South’s economy...

 

[TexRex]

Facts and reality don’t matter.

 

[Scaff]

.
The motivation to change is all over that weird cringy video... trade, infrastructure, prosperity. I don't actually care if they disarm. I don't actually care if any other country disarms their nukes either. What I care about is that they participate in the world economy, that's what brings peace.

I agree, which is however most likely to come from China before it does from the US.

The US's best route to that would be SK, the country they just blindsided on defense and then threatened over trade.

The issue is however that the US's stall has been clearly and categorically set out for complete disarmament, which I think we both agree has almost zero chance of happening (short of an internal coup removing the Kim's and resulting in a mass political shift).

 

[huskeR32]

Slice it any way you like, characterizing a single opinion as representing " those who live, work and analyis Korea for a living", is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Any time a hippie at a tiny college somewhere does something a little too liberal for your tastes, you run back to the Political Correctness thread hollering about political correctness running amok and taking over the whole world. You'll have to forgive me if I find your sudden restraint when it comes to sample sizes a bit laughable.

 

[TexRex]

Any time a hippie at a tiny college somewhere does something a little too liberal for your tastes, you run back to the Political Correctness thread hollering about political correctness running amok and taking over the whole world.

There's a name for people like that:

keyboard warriors

 

[Johnnypenso]

Any time a hippie at a tiny college somewhere does something a little too liberal for your tastes, you run back to the Political Correctness thread hollering about political correctness running amok and taking over the whole world. You'll have to forgive me if I find your sudden restraint when it comes to sample sizes a bit laughable.

Feel free to point it out when I take a single opinion and try to pass it off as somehow representative of an entire nation as was done here. If I ever made that mistake I'd have no trouble owning up to my poor wording. I have no doubt were the roles reversed and I was taking a single "expert" opinion proclaiming something positive about anything you disagreed with you'd be all over it, just as you are now misrepresenting my posts in the PC thread with nonsense hyperbole and exaggeration. I'll continue to post in the PC thread at my leisure thank you very much, in spite of your attempt to shame me for it.

 

[TexRex]

His children are certainly entertaining

I knew he looked familiar!

I don't watch BBC News but that clip definitely made the rounds.



But yeah, he's totally just some random Twitter tweeter.

 

[huskeR32]

Feel free to point it out when I take a single opinion and try to pass it off as somehow representative of an entire nation as was done here.

@Scaff provided you with other sources, which makes it more than a "single opinion" at this point. I suppose you can just keep ignoring that if you wish, but don't expect the rest of us to play along.

I have no doubt were the roles reversed and I was taking a single "expert" opinion proclaiming something positive about anything you disagreed with you'd be all over it

Why is expert in quotes here? The man is a trained political analyst, lives and works in Korea, and is a widely-respected analyst of Korean affairs. He has a much better handle on the current situation than your or I do.

You've been invited to provide alternate analysis that counters his, and have failed to do so. As such, I see no reason why you should be doubting him, other than you don't like what he has to say.

In your hypothetical reversed situation, I'd "be all over" something that I could find credible counter information to. Lacking that, I'd be forced to change my viewpoint. I'm not going to join the appalling number of Americans who run around shouting down credible information just because they don't like it.

just as you are now misrepresenting my posts in the PC thread with nonsense hyperbole and exaggeration.

Tongue-in-cheek comments often are exaggerated. Not sure it was nonsense, though; that thread is filled with silly sky-is-falling scenarios...

I'll continue to post in the PC thread at my leisure thank you very much, in spite of your attempt to shame me for it.

Never crossed my mind that you would stop, and I certainly didn't ask you to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

More news on Kim's toilet.

 

[Joey D]

More news on Kim's toilet.

What language is that?

But wetin catch pipo eye na say oga Kim dey cari im toilet dey waka.