Posted on 05/29/2018 11:33:57 AM PDT by Wuli
When Donald Trump canceled his planned summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—before hinting that it might happen anyway after all, as the South Koreans moved into damage-control mode on Saturday with an impromptu summit of their own—it followed days of discussion over a historical parallel: Libya. U.S. National-Security Adviser John Bolton said the basis for a deal with North Korea was the “Libya model” from 2003 to 2004, when Muammar Qaddafi essentially handed over his entire nuclear program to the United States. For North Korea, however, this allusion to Libya looked “awfully sinister” because, in 2011, less than a decade after Libya appeased the West, the United States and its allies joined with local rebels to topple Qaddafi’s regime.
For Pyongyang, Libya is not the only warning from history about the perils of disarmament. In 2003, Iraq claimed to have abandoned its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and even allowed inspectors back into the country, but nevertheless endured a U.S. invasion and regime change. In 2015, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but in 2018 Trump tore up the deal.
So are there any models of “rogue” regimes with nuclear programs that might appeal to North Korea? The answer is yes. But, unfortunately, it’s a state that kept its nuclear deterrent intact: Pakistan. If Pyongyang is weighing up two possible futures—Libya vs. Pakistan—it’s not much of a choice.
[Just an excerpt - 1st few paragraphs]
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
If such is the result of a summit, it is not a good long term deal for South Korea and a pox on the United States forever if we accept it.
I am never in favor of diplomatic deals over major global security issuers that have as a priority a "legacy" for a politician. Seldom have they resulted in long term peace.
One MIRV’d SLBM destroys North Korea. One missile!
“I am never in favor of diplomatic deals over major global security issuers that have as a priority a “legacy” for a politician. Seldom have they resulted in long term peace. “
That’s why “Rocketboy Kim” is very nervous, because with his death would likely come the end of the Kim Regime of 60 years or more. I am left wondering just how many of the NK “Generals” with their “$hit For Brains Hats” are really all in for Communism? That is the real question! What would come AK (After Kim)?
What’s the point of talking if kim plans to keeps his nukes?
NoKo, if they play their cards right, may become the real winner just like W.Germany and Japan after WWII. Both countries are better off than they were before WWII.
Kim needs to shoot for East Germany and go down as a great leader who reunified his people...
Setting your standards a little low aren’t you NK?
There is none. No sense in even planning to meet unless they are prepared to completely dismantle their nukes. Kim needs to acknowledge this right away. There is simply nothing else to talk with them about.
We’re not really talking about what Kim wants any longer, so this article is a numbskull’s opinion piece, that doesn’t address reality, at least in part.
These negotiations are predicated on Kim giving up his nuclear program. That hardly leaves a “Pakistan like” option. That’s utter nonsense.
As for whether this turns out bad for South Korea, it is their leaderships situation to bungle. Hopefully they won’t.
Trump is involved, and I don’t think he’s going to make a deal that sees a unified nation adopting the North Korean model. I have a hard time seeing the South accepting that either.
Look at what the North Korean model has turned the North into.
While some want to address South Korea’s leadership, and that they favor the North model, I think they’re woefully out of touch with reality.
South Korea isn’t going to join a plan that would turn it into a brutal dictatorship.
This is the Atlantic, muffing rational thought for quite some time.
I doubt these “models” are more than media fiction.
For whatever they’re worth, responsible Pakistan is not a model for NK.
Of course China would like NK nukes to be a threat China can use against competitors as Pak’s nukes are.
It's really hard to blame countries for not trusting us.
Yes, and we have about 240 MIRVed missiles available for the rest of the bad guys. That's a total of almost 1800 nukes each with 5 times the destructive force of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
Sebastien Roblin
January 21, 2017
Nine years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Ishirō Honda’s Godzilla depicted a monster awakened from the depths of the ocean to wreak havoc on Japanese cities. A giant fire-breathing reptile, however, was less horrifying than what was to come. In less than a decade’s time, there would be dozens of real undersea beasts capable of destroying multiple cities at a time. I’m referring, of course, to ballistic-missile submarines, or “boomers” in U.S. Navy parlance.
The most deadly of the real-life kaiju prowling the oceans today are the fourteen Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines, which carry upwards of half of the United States’ nuclear arsenal onboard.
If you do the math, the Ohio-class boats may be the most destructive weapon system created by humankind. Each of the 170-meter-long vessels can carry twenty-four Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) which can be fired from underwater to strike at targets more than seven thousand miles away depending on the load.
As a Trident II reenters the atmosphere at speeds of up to Mach 24, it splits into up to eight independent reentry vehicles, each with a 100- or 475-kiloton nuclear warhead. In short, a full salvo from an Ohio-class submarine—which can be launched in less than one minute—could unleash up to 192 nuclear warheads to wipe twenty-four cities off the map. This is a nightmarish weapon of the apocalypse.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russia-china-fear-americas-ohio-class-submarines-19120
He DOES want to keep his nukes. He just can’t.
Then there’s no point in talking to them.
If you were him, wouldn’t you want to keep nukes after Bolton said he wanted to follow the Libya model?
Sure I would but that means nothing because one way or another he will either give them up or they will be taken from him. We will do it because we can and he cannot stop us, nor will China interfere if we do use force to take them.
In any case I believe the sanctions will eventually work and the little fat f*ck fold.
“For whatever they’re worth, responsible Pakistan is not a model for NK.”
It is wrong to put the words “responsible” and Pakistan together when discussing obtaining and proliferating nuclear weapons. Pakistan not only lied about its own developments, it has directly aided North Korea and others in their nuclear arms, and missile developments. Therefor, there is no “responsible Pakistan” in consideration or discussion.
The Pakistan “model” is one of a liar and a cheat who the international community reluctantly accepted as a nuclear power, after which Pakistan violated international rules on nuclear proliferation.
The portion of that that attracts the dictator in North Korea is that unlike Libya or even Iraq, Pakistan got to keep its nuclear weapons and was accepted as “normal” country with all the economic privileges that implies.
If THAT is what comes from any upcoming summit agreement, then history will one day show that Truman was wrong and MacArthur was right - the Korean war should have been won 100% by all means necessary.
“These negotiations are predicated on Kim giving up his nuclear program.”
The media is getting most of what is said to be North Korea’s position of “denuclearization” through the mouth of the HARD left leader of South Korea, and not in the exact words of what that means to Kim.
“Predicated on Kim giving up his nuclear program”? When, how, on what terms, and by what date, and with what concessions and economic benefits have to occur first.
The two sides are either farther apart than the media makes it sound, or the deal is not going to be a good one, for our side, if North Korea leaves satisfied, knowing what the dictator wants: Respect it does not deserve without any change in the regime or its behavior, removal of the U.S. from South Korea as part of what it is calling “denuclearization” which is really just - keeping far too much than will be safe, long term, for South Korea, with no more than a “promise” it will never be “offensive”, for which it wants trade and investment with the west that is as open as it is with China.
If Bolton remains Bolton Kim will not agree to the international oversight we would rightly demand on Kim’s “denuclearization” including U.S. and South Korean observers in that as well. If Bolton is trumped by Trump, in favor of a legacy for Trump, we can pity the future on the peninsula as the South, under hard lefties like Moon, submit to heavy POLITICAL concessions with an unchanged Communist dictatorship.
We’re not just talking about denuclearization.
They are trying to weave a restoration of Korea, vs a North and South.
Nobody said it would be easy, but if there is a rejoining, there would be no Northern leadership to develop and use nukes against anyone.
Of course we have to wait and see how it plays out. Trump is playing hardball, and he’s not going to let an opportunity go by like this, and leave nukes on the table.
Either the talks are productive, or it all falls apart.
As for the South’s leadership, I sincerely doubt the people of South Korea want the reunified nation to adopt the government of principles of the North.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.