I'll toss this out- Roadmap for Korean peace

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Can't take credit for this one, but I liked the sound of it. Brooking Institution


The idea is to reduce military forces in the Korean Peninsula while at the same time dealing with the horrific NK economy.

Looks like a plan to me.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Its still blackmail for they still want welfare support inorder to give up weapons they should of never had. I dont think its worth our time & money to help korea if kim jong is still in power. It will come back to haunt us like it did with Saddam. I dont believe their views will change about us. I for one am done with the US helping countries who strongly hate america.
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
cliff notes:bring capitalism to north korea, or at least we can say we tried and nuke'em. otherwise known as the china policy.

i don't see kim buying it. this is going to weaken his stranglehold for power, give people a little and they take it all. what does he care about his people, he's living the high life. he just needs nukes so no one can shock and awe him. i think he's bluffing with the nukes, but who's going to find out?

plus he's still gotta unify korea, hence i don't think kim will be cutting his conventional forces anytime soon. that's the problem with these dictators, what do they want? just come out and say so. ;) they're like politicians they say nothing and let the populace argue which each other, while they stay in power. fooled again.

if on the other hand kim really wants to bring power to nk and not invade, he might go ahead with it. but who's to say he won't just use it to gain more money to eventually attack sk on a more equal footing. that's going to be hard to convince the US government to strengthen north korea, of course we don't have this problem with china for some reason. we just have to realize we're still so much more powerful.

then there's the whole issue of trust. would you trust the us to not break a non-agression pact? i wouldn't. we would just take any missile strike from iran as an attack from north korea.

currently kim is still in power because of china. china doesn't want to see a failed north korea, because then we'll reconstruct it and they definately don't want a us ally next door. they also don't want a powerful north korea, because they need a good rich customer like south korea. in other words, china likes the status quo. and since they're the masters of nk, that won't happen. we're going to have to use our trade issues to pressure them.

also who is going to deal with nk? nk is not going to allow western people in, maybe sk i'm not sure. i doubt it. so that leaves china. china doesn't want to waste money in nk. they're on the road to superpower stardom.

it's a good solution, but i don't think its doable because both sides don't trust each other. and china likes the current situation. and like the author said at least we can say we tried then nuk'em.

i really don't see the problem with nk. sure they potentially have nukes and he might use them if he loses power. but after that, poof he's gone. kim is not dumb enough to export nukes. he'll go to the edge and ship missiles/drugs/weapons but not nukes. he's trying to make money to survive, not commit suicide.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Good read, but I dont think Kim Wants to loose any power over his contrey. As da loser also said, China doesnt want another Pro-US country near them.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
I do not think nuking NK is necessary or desireable. Getting it to be less of a threat is. What would be needed is a multinational effort here. IF NK were convinced that it has no allies to save it, then presenting it with a way out of misery could be an effective motivator. One of the things I like is not sending money, but improving infrastructure linked to continual reductions of forces. That also allows reductions on both sides. Reductions would be verifiable. The point here is that there exists a potential for a diplomatic solution that directly helps the north Koreans, while lowering the threat of armed conflict. Of course it depends on the goodwill of our team memember countries (Russia, China, etc), but these countries really do not want a nuclear bonfire in their back yards. NK itself complies or not. It is possible to verify that the terms of the agreement are being followed. We can always go back to this crazy posturing if needed, but a plan like this gives hope that something that gives both sides much of what they want can be formulated.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
NK is not stupid. Only way they will disarm is Congress signs a formal non-agression treaty AND they get secuirty assurances from CHINA in writing AND normalized economic status.

They saw what happend to IRAQ when they got a clean bill of health by IAEA.. It was'nt worth the paper it was written on.

BUSH is a Disaster.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
NK is not stupid. Only way they will disarm is Congress signs a formal non-agression treaty AND they get secuirty assurances from CHINA in writing AND normalized economic status.

They saw what happend to IRAQ when they got a clean bill of health by IAEA.. It was'nt worth the paper it was written on.

BUSH is a Disaster.
Well, the US would have to sign a non-agression treaty, and all the other conditions too. That does not have to happen all at once though. Competent negogiators can set milestones if you will, along this road. Of course Bush et al would have to drop the belligerent tone, and that would require a 180 in terms of approach.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Zebo
NK is not stupid. Only way they will disarm is Congress signs a formal non-agression treaty AND they get secuirty assurances from CHINA in writing AND normalized economic status.

They saw what happend to IRAQ when they got a clean bill of health by IAEA.. It was'nt worth the paper it was written on.

BUSH is a Disaster.
Well, the US would have to sign a non-agression treaty, and all the other conditions too. That does not have to happen all at once though. Competent negogiators can set milestones if you will, along this road. Of course Bush et al would have to drop the belligerent tone, and that would require a 180 in terms of approach.
Funny thing is the more Nukes NK gets the more they are in the drivers seat so to speak. Basically, now that the US has been so beligerant with them and thier ability to use iraq preemtion as an excuse/example not to caplitulate, they will not do anything until at a minimum USA does the two conditions above first. Then IAEA inspectors can come in. The two governemnts are at extreme opposites. Therefore NK will be a full fleged nuclear state in a couple years ....it's to late to reverse.... to much water under the bridge.

Why should we care anyway? they would'nt use them against us unless we attack them.. I love MAD I wish every coountry had about 200 ICBMs, then we really would have world peace.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Zebo
NK is not stupid. Only way they will disarm is Congress signs a formal non-agression treaty AND they get secuirty assurances from CHINA in writing AND normalized economic status.

They saw what happend to IRAQ when they got a clean bill of health by IAEA.. It was'nt worth the paper it was written on.

BUSH is a Disaster.
Well, the US would have to sign a non-agression treaty, and all the other conditions too. That does not have to happen all at once though. Competent negogiators can set milestones if you will, along this road. Of course Bush et al would have to drop the belligerent tone, and that would require a 180 in terms of approach.
Funny thing is the more Nukes NK gets the more they are in the drivers seat so to speak. Basically, now that the US has been so beligerant with them and thier ability to use iraq preemtion as an excuse/example not to caplitulate, they will not do anything until at a minimum USA does the two conditions above first. Then IAEA inspectors can come in. The two governemnts are at extreme opposites. Therefore NK will be a full fleged nuclear state in a couple years ....it's to late to reverse.... to much water under the bridge.

Why should we care anyway? they would'nt use them against us unless we attack them.. I love MAD I wish every coountry had about 200 ICBMs, then we really would have world peace.
The problem with MAD is that you need to have something to lose. NK is in such an awful mess, that they may eventually feel not only threatened, but without any reason to live. An angry man with a gun and nothing to lose is a very dangerous one. It would be best if you gave him a reason to live. Same with NK IMO

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Zebo
NK is not stupid. Only way they will disarm is Congress signs a formal non-agression treaty AND they get secuirty assurances from CHINA in writing AND normalized economic status.

They saw what happend to IRAQ when they got a clean bill of health by IAEA.. It was'nt worth the paper it was written on.

BUSH is a Disaster.
Well, the US would have to sign a non-agression treaty, and all the other conditions too. That does not have to happen all at once though. Competent negogiators can set milestones if you will, along this road. Of course Bush et al would have to drop the belligerent tone, and that would require a 180 in terms of approach.
The US signing a non aggression pact had better include the dismantling of the DMZ along with major political reform in NK(Kim stepping down as part of this).
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmithThe problem with MAD is that you need to have something to lose. NK is in such an awful mess, that they may eventually feel not only threatened, but without any reason to live. An angry man with a gun and nothing to lose is a very dangerous one. It would be best if you gave him a reason to live. Same with NK IMO
Well said.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Zebo
NK is not stupid. Only way they will disarm is Congress signs a formal non-aggression treaty AND they get secuirty assurances from CHINA in writing AND normalized economic status.

They saw what happend to IRAQ when they got a clean bill of health by IAEA.. It was'nt worth the paper it was written on.

BUSH is a Disaster.
Well, the US would have to sign a non-aggression treaty, and all the other conditions too. That does not have to happen all at once though. Competent negogiators can set milestones if you will, along this road. Of course Bush et al would have to drop the belligerent tone, and that would require a 180 in terms of approach.
The US signing a non aggression pact had better include the dismantling of the DMZ along with major political reform in NK(Kim stepping down as part of this).
Well, getting rid of the DMZ would be a goal. Kim stepping down will certainly be acceptable to the NK leadership, just as Bush stepping down would be to this administration. Maybe Israelis will pack their bags and move out of the middle east as part of their roadmap.

A goal is to get NK to feel LESS threatened, at least as long as things are progressing. Making demands that we know are going to be unacceptable is pointless. No on second thought it is not. This method would allow Bush to start a war, saying that they were negotiating, but were being rebuffed. That is NOT diplomacy

Diplomacy is the art of the possible. If you want to set precondidtions that you know are bound to sabotage the effort, then don't even try. Hopefully diplomats will be handling diplomacy, and not the Pentagon.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY