Running North Korea freakout thread

So you favor laissez-faire nuclear policy?

 

And the fucking Saudis.

 

I keep thinking of Trump sitting down with Kim much like Ellis sat down with Hans in Die Hard.

 

Who we are about to give nukes to. Sigh.

 

I didn't say that. Just pointing out the obvious problem with our position here. We're demanding that North Korea give up its nuclear program. Well, why would it agree to do that? That ain't happening without incentive.

Look at it from North Korea's perspective. The US has expressly declared NK to be its enemy. History shows the US attacks enemies that don't have nukes. But the US has never attacked an enemy with nukes. From their view, maintaining nukes would appear vital to the nation's survival.

I'm glad they're talking, but I don't see much hope for success unless we're willing to offer some mighty sweet inducements (and, even then, probably not). And, if we do that, Trump will look like a weak-kneed appeaser rewarding the enemy.

Or, I don't know, maybe this is like the "Mexico will pay for the wall" nonsense where Trump thinks, through sheer force of bluster, he can convince a country to do something it has no rational incentive to do.

 

I find myself increasingly agreeing with Vonnegut. All nations bigger than Denmark are crocks of doo-doo.

 

Rational. LOL. We're talking about a dictator that starves his own people -- when he's not killing them outright.

Rationally, the offer to denuclearize in exchange for helping the country out of the Stone Age (and no other country has the resources to do that like the U.S.) would be a pretty sweet carrot. Rationally.

 

Two problems with this perspective.

1) What's best for the people of North Korea, or even the country as a whole, is not what's best for the people making that decision.

2) You absolutely cannot trust the United States to keep that promise.

 

Awesome. You are worried about trusting the U.S. in this transaction. Never change, Rick.

Quick, someone say Kim isn't any worse than Trump!

 

Add in that we've been talking out loud about a preemptive "bloody nose" strike on NK. How is that an incentive to get rid of nukes, when having them is what prevents that sort of behavior?

 

We were talking about what's rational from their point of view. It would be nonsensical to discuss whether they are trustworthy from their own point of view.

If you want to talk about the trustworthiness of NK from the U.S.'s point of view, that's also a huge problem. We have no credible leverage over them to hold them to a deal.

 

I'm just saying that a country without nuclear weapons, or at least one that is actively seeking to reduce the number of nuclear warheads rather than increase them, would have greater moral authority to try to convince other countries that they don't need them. Maybe I have it backward and someone like Kim only listens to someone like Trump. It just seems hugely hypocritical from where I sit.