If I were the CIA director (and who is saying that I'm not...) I'd be pushing for one of SpaceX's new internet sats above Pyongyang and then dropping cellphones.
So the position here is....... what? I'm sorry, trying to juggle multiple convos and I feel like I'm going in circles. Help me understand what your positions are.
Open fill-in-the-blank: The first ever summit between DPRK and US presidency is _________ because _____________.
Bonus: The US should _______________, rather than ____________.
I believe it was former President Jimmy Carter that met with President Kim Il Sung in June of 1994
Oh, yeah, FORMER presidents have met with the DPRK like a bunch. Bill Clinton went over there in like.... 2010? 2011? During Obama's administration. This is the first time we've had current-leader-to-current-leader. I think it's a significant development.
If they sit back and wait for the North Korean people to set up a new government, they can potentially end the Kim Dynasty, prevent dignitaries from being assassinated, and let China deal with the refugees and geopolitical fallout that was ultimately caused by their support of the North Korean government for so long.
For my money, the only reason China supported the DPRK for so long was to prevent exactly this outcome. I don't think they're gonna be on board -- in fact I know they aren't. For all their roaring economic success, they don't have the natural resources (most pressingly, drinkable water) to support the extra population. We could probably make a great friend out of China if we can navigate out of this without demolishing their last 30 years of progress (and, FWIW, that probably would also result in a lot less suffering in the long run -- China doesn't have the best human rights record).
The desired outcome is the significant improvement of living conditions for North Koreans, because denuclearization is not practical to pursue or guarantee. Whether this is achieved through economic strong arming or revolution depends on how much backlash the pro-sanctions nations are willing to endure, because a revolution will produce thousands of refugees and millions of deaths. As the power of the citizens increases, the power of suicidally aggressive governments decreases, thanks to the collective actions of tens of millions of sufficiently equipped North Koreans trying to prevent their living conditions from degrading.
My primary objective/desired outcome is security. Riddle me this, because at the moment I can't think of an example -- have we ever successfully induced a revolution against a totalitarian government, without (or, shoot, even with) sending in the troops, which resulted in improvement of living conditions for the people?
Anyway if we ARE truly holding all the cards, denuclearization is a reasonable goal, one that already has China, Russia, ROK, Japan, and basically all of Asia on board. I think it's worth running with that for a while. Probably not going to solve the next 50 years in one sit-down, but it's potentially a start.
It's a new approach, but it's incredibly risky and doesn't provide many novel benefits.
Well not yet. We haven't started.
I know China doesn't want North Korea to experience a revolution, and it's obvious that Xi is trying to get Kim and Trump to play nice to help facilitate that goal. However, the US can sit back and let China deal with the situation, and I doubt China's stupid enough to damage their international credibility by backing out of their sanctions enforcement role.
sure they are. I mean it's not so much "stupidity" as conflicting interests -- DPRK cannot fail, therefore China is willing to skirt some rules. Almost all the recent progress we've made, we've made by strong-arming China into playing along. Most of the banks, vessels, overland routes (somewhat obviously), etc. which have been keeping Kim afloat have gone through China. We take our foot off the throat, they'll go right back, or at least there's no reason to expect they wouldn't.
Drop in the proverbial bucket. If we have to wait for China to meet its long-term water goals before anything happens with the DPRK, we're going to be waiting an awful long time.
Many former member republics of the USSR come to mind. Either way, I'll state that I favor economic strong arming as the way to incentivize North Korea to improve its citizens' living standards, because war and recovery are expensive.
Fair enough. Bear in mind, any effort to reconcile North Korea with the modern world is gonna be expensive, on the order of post-war recoveries. They're that poorly off.
I honestly don't see how anyone can guarantee that North Korea will fully comply with denuclearization. While North Korea's not a big country, it's still going to be difficult for any country or NGO to scour its entirety in search of anything remotely related to the production of nuclear weapons. Even if that was reasonable to achieve, it's not impossible for North Korea to outfit submarines with ICBMs.
All things we should bring up when talking with the boss. The wariness is healthy though. Shit, I wish we were this careful when we signed that Iran agreement.
I sincerely hope the current plan is dropped, and the situation is approached with the living conditions of the North Korean people being the unquestionable concern of everyone that's involved.
Eh. I mean don't get me wrong, I hope their lives get better, but I don't wanna have to flex my nuclear muscles every time a goatherd in the third world stubs their toe. If we're doing this for the sake of suffering people, then North Korea is gonna wind up being the cheapest thing we do for the next fifty years. I'm okay with approaching this from a position of rational self-interest. Enough people can find enough common ground to make that work.
China knows that defying the past few UN Security Council resolutions regarding North Korea would be a very bad move for both countries, and that the risks of such behavior far outweigh any hypothetical benefits.
lol, what's the UN gonna do about it? China has a veto on the security council. If by some miracle the UN got off its ass without the US whipping it into motion, China has the irrevocable power to make the entire UN sit back down. And again -- they've let it happen before. In plausibly-deniable ways, but they've let it happen.
I remember reading that, when they found it! Neat stuff. Well, if we're counting speculative advancement, I totally believe China is up to the task of maintaining itself in the long run. I'm less sure they can also maintain all of North Korea in a short-term sense of things. Hope they're working on it though.
Fortunately, existing technologies can be synergized to accelerate development at cost effective rates, and living standards being improved should give North Koreans more than enough resources and time to participate in the process.
I dunno about that last bit. Skip to the bottom; basically, this is not going to be an easy pie to slice, no matter who winds up slicing it. But you're right, we can drop a 4G network instead of laying cables, and shit like that. Sometimes it pays to be the last horse across the line. Then again, I mean, how's Afghanistan look these days? It's not like we didn't spend money there.
You make it sound like you have Trump on speed dial.
It seems like it'd be much less of a hassle to deal with a developed North Korea that's free of human rights abuses, especially if they engage in meaningful and high volume trade with the rest of the world. Such a drastic change in their way of life would probably discourage them from being hostile, and might actually set a positive precedent for its future leaders.
One of us is putting the cart before the horse and I'm not honestly sure which of us it is. DPRK has no human rights and engages with no meaningful trade. We would very much like them to not abuse human rights and DO have meaningful trade. Which one is the avenue to the other, and/or are they both either? That's a sentence, shut up. POINT BEING -- that version of Korea you're picturing is awesome. Also, I don't think we have a responsibility to get them there. Our responsibility (right now anyway) begins and ends with their ability to annihilate our citizens and allies. If we stray too far from that, we're nation-building. Or imperialists. Or, ya know, pick a word.
It's not about the UN, but the capabilities of its member states. China's far from being self sufficient, and the rest of the world can make China's economy suffer if they get to that point before China does. This is ignoring the potential pain that can be caused through espionage, memetics, and other nonviolent methods.
Well whatever is being done at this exact moment is working, and we haven't bombed China, so I guess just let it roll. I'm just saying, the concept of possible repercussions hasn't stopped them in the past. Maybe Twitter is Chinese kryptonite.
I can't access the article, and I'd rather not guess about what you're referring to. Mind copy-pasting that section?
WEIRD, this morning there was no paywall and now it wants me to subscribe. Well the gist is, we've got some exposure to the average North Korean based on who flees the country. Generally who comes across isn't the upper-crust of society, so grain of salt, but the state of education and labor skills is preeeetty (unremarkably) lackluster. Three generations of Kims have poisoned the learning well. It'll be decades before they're a self-sustaining economy..... frankly that might even happen faster with a Kim overseeing the process, if he could be compelled to do so. Basically the article was talking about what we've learned from the ROK trying to help DPRK refugees adapt and adjust, and the societies are drastically, often violently, different, to a generally depressing degree.
Oh? In that case, please tell Betsy to answer her goddamn phone.
She says "get a Skype account you peasant." What's a skype?
So apparently Trump has just hired Bill Clinton's impeachment Lawyer. I shall now laugh heartily as I swirl my goblet full of wine between my bejeweled fingers.
So apparently Trump has just hired Bill Clinton's impeachment Lawyer. I shall now laugh heartily as I swirl my goblet full of wine between my bejeweled fingers.
HAHAHAHA oh my goodness...sorry but just look at this quote straight from the article.
"The irony is that the far right have long called for the British government to take firm control of our borders. Now they are doing just that."
Yep, irony and hypocrisy all rolled into one. It's sooo important for the UK government to ban 'camgirls' who are making a few speeches, passing out a few questionable leaflets, but ex-ISIS fighters are A-OK. People who say naughty things are prevented entry while people who actually killed others in the name of Islam are being put back into society, but no can't have visitors stay for a few days and make people think.
One thing I'll give the article at least is it admits. "Islamist and right-wing extremism is reaching into our communities through sophisticated propaganda and subversive strategies creating and exploiting vulnerabilities that can ultimately lead to acts of violence and terrorism,"
UK's prevention rate of Islamic extremism has been pretty crappy the last few years though so I say their actions speak a heck of a lot louder than their words. The UK government deserves every bit of criticism it gets, just as every government and political figure should be criticised by what they do. The UK government essentially are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, since it is painfully obvious they are trying to silence opinions, which only makes people more suspicious of them and more people now will be interested in what those banned people had to say.
HAHAHAHA oh my goodness...sorry but just look at this quote straight from the article.
"The irony is that the far right have long called for the British government to take firm control of our borders. Now they are doing just that."
Yep, irony and hypocrisy all rolled into one. It's sooo important for the UK government to ban 'camgirls' who are making a few speeches, passing out a few questionable leaflets, but ex-ISIS fighters are A-OK. People who say naughty things are prevented entry while people who actually killed others in the name of Islam are being put back into society, but no can't have visitors stay for a few days and make people think.
Seems like such a good 'gotcha' doesn't it? We kick out pretty blondes with leaflets but we welcome murderous muslim psychos with open arms! Such a wacky lot us brits are.....
But she wasn't kicked out for handing out leaflets that 'letter' from the home office that they both tweeted was the most fraudulent piece of crap I've seen since Hilary's bill of health.
And of course we bring Ex ISIS fighters back to the UK, they can burn their passports in a little campfire all they want they are still British citizens who have committed British crimes so they are tried and convicted in their country. This country doesn't work on Brittany Pettibone's bullshit white nationalist standards, they may be mostly brown but they are civically part of this country so they are the UK's problem and they should be punished here.
You're acting like we literally 'let them back in to go free' dropping them in the nearest public park with a free hand grenade and an AK-47.
UK's prevention rate of Islamic extremism has been pretty crappy the last few years though so I say their actions speak a heck of a lot louder than their words. The UK government deserves every bit of criticism it gets, just as every government and political figure should be criticised by what they do. The UK government essentially are shooting themselves in the foot on this one, since it is painfully obvious they are trying to silence opinions, which only makes people more suspicious of them and more people now will be interested in what those banned people had to say.
Pretty crappy? I guess that's the citizen's luxury of only getting to hear about attacks that are actually successful. Do you know how many terrorist attacks and plots have been stopped since the 7/7 London bus bombings? Probably not, because you only hear about the few that slip through and get to make the news. We have a problem with terrorism, so do the US, and going by Las Vegas and all your school shootings, its not strictly a Muslim problem either. So until one of these countries hires Professor Charles Xavier for their counter terror team, expect the prevention rate to NOT be 100%.
We don't have total free speech in UK, don't like it? You don't have to live here. You can got to one of your lovely corners in America and get full unscensored free speech on your way to the store. We don't accept foreigners coming over here and preaching extremist nonsense.
Now I know you really want to call the UK hypocrites and act like we only ban white conservatives. Have a look at our ban list and get back to me. Tell me what percentage are white and conservative. I'll wait.
And you can change the subject to South Africa, doesn't mean I have to follow it, I'm still talking about this.
The UK is a democratic country and obviously not everyone speaks for everyone, but at least some of the leaders there know the stakes. I can't find it NOW, but I read one of BBC's in-depth stories about the de-radicalization strategies y'all have running, and I have mixed feelings about how realistic the goals are, but it honestly sounds like the UK has its head on straight on this whole terrorism game (and why not, they've been in GWOT as long as us, as hard as us, on just as personal a level as us, it follows that the government is plenty serious).
I really should write an analogue to the Left Behind novels where all these hilarious right wing fever dreams come to pass. She wandered through the bombed out streets of Qubec where the lynch mobs hunted for all those who had refused to bow to sharia law. If only the decrepit socialists had heeded the cries of The Great Matyr. With reverent fingers she touched the forbidden scrap of orange cloth concealed deep in her robes and bitterly repented having ever been foolish enough to believe the poisonous lies of academics and university lectures....
It writes itself! Of course given the prospective readership I'd be banking pretty heavily on a pilgrims progress effect.
