Running North Korea freakout thread

I don't think the esteemed senator from Arizona meant "this is clearly a treaty" quite that way.

 

Of course not. But the quote was too perfect to resist.

Now, you want to talk about abandoning a nuke treaty . . . .

Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake

 

So, the South doesn't somehow ally with China, or stop trading with us. They remain a democracy, achieve piece with a newly denuclearized North, and we get to bring our troops home from the DMZ?

And, this would be seen by you as some sort of failure on Trump's behalf?

Where do we sign up for this deal?

 

That assumes we ever WANT to bring our troops home. From anywhere.

We don't. We are the Sherwin-Williams military. Cover the Earth.

 

1. I don't think there's a chance in hell North Korea agrees to give up its nuclear arsenal. No country has ever agreed to give up its already-developed nukes.

2. You'll need to point where I said, "this is some sort of failure on Trump's behalf."

3. The North wins, because they've now eliminated the No. 1 external threat to the regime (a U.S.-backed invasion)

4. There are American jobs supported by Foreign Military Sales, including those to South Korea.

5. The American military is better able to project power overseas because of alliances and military cooperation, and there are consequences to pulling out of Korea beyond "our troops came home from the DMZ!"

 

How can you call it "abandoning" a treaty ... when its terms were entirely lived up to? Especially when the other party to the original treaty no longer existed?

 

Heh. By that line of logic, the reason for NATO's existence no longer exists, either.

I swear, your batting average on using the correct homonym must be hovering at about .084.

 

So, what peace agreement do you think the North & South are going to reach, where the South moves away from the US and we pull our troops out, but that doesn't result in denuclearization of the North?

I asked you to describe how this would work. Is it even conceivable that the South would agree to something like this?

 

Again: I'm not convinced the North is going to agree to give up its nukes. Nuclear countries are not attacked or invaded by other countries. We've seen this for nearly 70 years now. I can't imagine any world leader anywhere would agree to give up its stockpile of nuclear weapons. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

But it's a good question: Would South Korea agree to end the Korean War if that agreement didn't involve the North giving up its nuclear weapons? I can't say I know enough about South Korean politics to say. .... What's more unpopular in the South? Nuclear North Korea, or a 70-year-old civil war?

 

As far as I can tell (no expert, just a reader), South Korea is closely divided on the issue of North Korea. The current administration favors easing tension and better relations. A large percentage of the country, but not a majority, is much more suspicious. So its policies towards the North ebb and flow, too.

 

The next crevice in the American armor will be exploited in a year or two when Putin invades the Baltics and takes them back. And it'll be a mighty fearsome crack in the armor.

 

All three Baltic nations have been NATO members since 2004.

If Putin takes them back, uncontested, it would have the added benefit for him of not cracking America's armor, but of shattering the NATO alliance.