He's not wrong, but it's kinda stupid to whine about that now. He (should have, and any normal candidate would have) knew the deal going in.

That doesn't mean he has a freaking clue what to do now, either. One of the glaring failures of his presidency is the humiliating exposure of his inability to negotiate successfully.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Typical Trump. Makes an ass out of himself on the international stage with his empty threats and then blames Obama for it. Its done before and will be done again.

So what do you think past administrations should have done differently, and what do you think Trump's options are now?

Past administrations shouldn't have cooperated with blackmail, obviously. They should have told NK to pound sand.

Current administration should do nothing. Tell NK to pound sand.

Done and done.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So you're a fan of the Obama Administration position. :) I think the last White House concession to NK was Bush taking NK off the terror watch list in October, 2008. Obama pretty much ignored NK except throwing down some sanctions.

Be careful. That's a lot of words. Everyone knows foreign policy has to be simple enough for 140 characters.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 Except for that time when he tried to buy their cooperation with a quarter million tons of food, I guess.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What the bloody fuck is that supposed to mean? No doubt his sure-fire NK plan is on the shelf right next to his plan to defeat ISIS. Ye gods what a moron.

So, I'm just trying to frame what you think we should have done over the past decade or two. Basically, let them build their nuclear capability, maybe enact sanctions, but not offer any carrot, just stick. Is that a good general summary?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yup.

Best case scenario: Their nuclear program wouldn't be as advanced as it is today.

Worst case scenario: Their nuclear program would be the same as it actually is today.

And it still presents no threat to us.

Here's a tip: North Korea only has as much control over us as we give them.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Except it didn't happen. But you have to admit that Obama because by far the closest of the last 4-5 Presidents.

But I think you thought that you could end ICBM development for a little food, you have to take that deal. If you believed it would be honored. But the Obama Administration clearly didn't think it would be honored, so didn't take the deal.

But I think you thought that you could end ICBM development for a little food, you have to take that deal.

If.

But I'm not a complete rube, so I wouldn't be anywhere near naive enough to think that NK was going to change its ways and abandon its nuclear program in exchange for some food.

But yeah, the deal didn't go through, because NK violated it almost immediately. Shocking!

Are you done defending Obama's honor now?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Got it. I think that's a kind of unrealistic foreign policy plan though. If we want another sovereign nation to not do something they have every right to do, and that they think is in their interest, we can either threaten and beat them into it, or we can offer them something in return for not doing it, or a mix of the two. Seems to me that most of the world acknowledges that foreign policy and diplomacy typically involves both stick and carrot. It's an unfortunate by product of our superpower status, in my mind, that so many Americans seem to think it's perfectly fine, and that we have every right to expect success, by just using stick all the time. Then they don't understand why many parts of the world view as us bullies instead of virtuous bringers of freedom.

(Not saying that you, Vitus, see it that way, just a general observation)

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If we want another sovereign nation to not do something they have every right to do, and that they think is in their interest, we can either threaten and beat them into it, or we can offer them something in return for not doing it, or a mix of the two.

Or we can recognize that ultimately, we can't control what they do, and given that what they do poses no real threat to us one way or the other, let go. We don't need to control every sovereign country that wants to do something we don't want them to do. The insistence on exercising that control is their primary source of influence.

There is a time to negotiate with the carrot, there's a time to negotiate with the stick, and there's a time to recognize that there's no deal to be made, and no compelling reason to chase the deal like an idiot.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yeah, I agree. I'd prefer that we tried a lot less to force or cajole everyone into doing what we want.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

As soon as you admit he's your soul brother!

I don't totally disagree with you, but you're overplaying that hand a bit. Yes, NK poses a real threat. We have around 30,000 soldiers any many thousands of other Americans in South Korea. Guam. Japan. They have nuclear weapons. A nuclear ICBM would net them hundreds of millions (billions?) on the black market. We have enormous economic interests in the area, and a vested interested in preventing China from taking de facto ownership of those waters.

It doesn't take a deep investigation of history to find examples of when the let's-ignore-them-because-they're-not-a-direct-threat-and-really-someone-else's-problem theory backfired badly on the U.S.

So while I might end up with the same decision, I wouldn't take it so breezily, as if it's the obvious decision. Hand-waving away little things like nuclear ICBMS. Might keep me up at night, on occasion.

As nuclear ICBM capability becomes a commodity amongst unstable governments, the odds of it ending very poorly for the U.S. or her allies increases dramatically. A President should play the long game, not just the short game. And isolationism is generally playing the short game.

From another mother. No doubt.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

A) Who's going to buy it
B) Assuming someone could scrape together that cash and not get a box of pinball machine parts they aren't going to launch it at us
C) The warhead, yes I realize that is an issue, but again who's going to buy it?

Friends of North Korea.

And I'm not even talking about physically sending actual stuff. But just sharing design and manufacturing data.

"As nuclear ICBM capability becomes a commodity amongst unstable governments, the odds of it ending very poorly for the U.S. or her allies increases dramatically. "

Exactly. Squashing it now will save future lives.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

You still need to build and test it to make sure it's not pinball parts.

Again, just because we decided to station troops on the other side of the planet on North Korea's border does not make them a threat to our country. It's like looking at a guy wave a knife around from the safety of your car, then getting out of your car and walking up to the guy, and convincing yourself that he's a threat to you because now he can stab you.

North Korea is simply not a threat to the United States, anymore that Iraq was a threat to the United States. They are poor, isolated, and contained, while we actually are a hyper-power, militarily. The only scenario in which we face danger from them is one in which they're just completely mad and suicidal, and I'm not hearing anyone say that's the case.

That doesn't mean I'm thrilled with the idea that they have nuclear weapons. I'm not. Just like I'm not thrilled with the idea of Russia having nukes, or with the idea nuclear weapons in Pakistan. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean I can do anything about it, and it doesn't mean I really have to do anything about it, except get used to the reality that we live in an uncertain world. Deal with it. I don't know why we seem to think that we're entitled to live in a world of guaranteed safety, and that we have the ability to make it so. We aren't, and we don't.

If you don't favor isolating North Korea, what's your alternative for the "long game"? I'm open to hearing ideas on how to approach North Korea in general, although I think it still ultimately boils down to the same basic reality- we cannot control other countries. In the meantime, we have no other serious option to play- the stick involves massive casualties that aren't justified at all by the problem at hand, and the carrot has proven worthless to counterproductive. We can go to war, we can try to buy them off again, or we can do what Trump loves best, and blow hot air.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sure. But let's say Iran - which is clearly motivated to have its own dedicated nuclear weapon capability - is now 8 years away (making that up, don't know the real number). NK sends them everything they've learned, maybe it becomes 2 years. Allows Iran to pass the inspections on the current sanctions while still making progress, using North Korean facilities for R&D.

That's no good.

No, I'm sorry. An ICBM is different than a SCUD missile. North Korea is a threat. You might be inclined to accept the risk. But you can't say it's "simply not a threat." Because it's a threat.

Plus now that President Vitus has allowed violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with no penalty whatsoever, what are you going to do about Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al once they see that it's OK again?

Again, long game. Geo-politics is complicated. Don't pretend it's simple and obvious with simple "knife-waving outside your car" analogies to represent an inter-continental ballistic missile.

No, I'm sorry. An ICBM is different than a SCUD missile. North Korea is a threat.

Just because they have a nuclear ICBM does not make them a threat. Do you think they're actually going to launch one at us? Seriously?


Plus now that President Vitus has allowed violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with no penalty whatsoever

North Korea is not currently party to the NPT, though. And even so, their refusal to adhere to it has not come with "no penalty whatsoever." There are endless sanctions in place already, and the country is an international pariah. I thought you said you are against isolating them. What penalty or alternative are you proposing here? What else can we do?

How is President Trail going to defuse the threat he perceives from North Korea?

what are you going to do about Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al once they see that it's OK again?

We have pretty decent cards to play with most of those countries. We don't with North Korea.

But hey, what's your plan? I assume you're not going to war over this.


Geo-politics is complicated. Don't pretend it's simple and obvious with simple "knife-waving outside your car" analogies to represent an inter-continental ballistic missile.

When you have no real options, it's actually pretty simple. And the analogy was pretty sound. You can't claim they're a threat to the US based on the fact that we stationed a bunch of troops on their front door. Further, just because a country potentially has the ability to inflict some kind of harm on us does not make them a threat, either.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

In 2015 the article below was written and I believe that it's still true or will happen sooner:


"Put simply, under this deal, Iran will have nuclear weapons in little over a decade, and our children will live their lives under an Iranian nuclear Sword of Damocles. This is the hard fact for which the White House has no answer."


http://observer.com/...ittle-over-a-decade/




And we have the UN and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). How's that working out for us? What we need from it yesterday is a unilateral declaration that any country using nuclear weapons will be destroyed completely and utterly by those signing the declaration. I don't have much faith in the UN to do much to halt conflict, nor would a resolution like I suggested carry any weight, but would like to see who would go on record, and who wouldn't, for this proposal. For many people the idea that someone is going to use nuclear weapons offensively is a given. I'd like to do whatever is possible to prevent that from ever happening.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

What we need from it yesterday is a unilateral declaration that any country using nuclear weapons will be destroyed completely and utterly by those signing the declaration.

I'd argue that with respect to North Korea, that is a fact well understood by everyone, including the North Koreans. And that's all the assurance we're ever going to be able to get, ultimately.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You guys do understand, that using nuclear weapons to ANY extend on this planet, means the end of civilization as we know it, right?

And yes, Hiroshima was only at the beginning of nuclear weapons design....
You guys are insane to even think about that being a viable possibility.

If you have a death wish, just use your own gun!

Are you asserting that many parts of the world view us as bullies because "so many Americans seem to think it's perfectly fine" to use a stick-only approach? Or are you asserting that many parts of the world view us as bullies because we use too much stick and don't give enough carrot?

In either case, what are these parts of the world?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I'm asserting that many people in many countries view the U.S. as a bully on the international stage, because they view our foreign policy as being based on our desire to force our beliefs and our interests on the rest of the world, frequently with little regard for the interests of other countries, and they see us as being willing to pursue those policies with either military or economic stick (because we are strong enough to do so), with carrot only as an afterthought.

As for which countries, just Google America and Bully, and see how many articles, polls, and other websites come up. It can't possibly be a surprise to you that many view us this way.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Do you have any evidence for this claim or is that anecdotal? I have looked at some polls and to me it appears that US is viewed favorably or unfavorably depending geo-political allignment. We are viewed favorably in France and un-favorably in Egypt yet I'm sure we give more money to Egypt.


And I'll be on my way to becoming a foreign policy PhD.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I understand that letting NK use nuclear weapons is not an option. If conventional weaponry can stop Kim I am all for it. However, I am not willing to let him develop longer range missiles and then see the west coast become a nuclear wasteland. I'm less than 100 miles from the Frisco. If Frisco goes the radiation could kill me and my family and on any given day we may be standing at ground zero. Anyone heard of nuke insurance?

"The latest North Korean nuclear test is estimated to have the explosive power of 20-30 kilotons — equivalent to 20,000 to 30,000 tons of TNT going off at once. That’s more than the 15- and 20-kiloton strength of the bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

"First, there would be an explosion — a fireball roughly a third of a mile wide with temperatures equal to the surface of the sun. A blast wave would knock down most buildings within a half-mile of the explosion. A flash of thermal energy would burn exposed people within a mile of the detonation and temporarily blind those looking toward it. Up to several miles away from the detonation, there would be less severe damage, like shattered windows.

Then, there would be deadly radiation. Debris from the explosion would be sucked upwards into a giant mushroom cloud and then carried downwind. This would be the threat that concerns most of us: Falling particles the size of grains of sands sprinkling down across the Bay Area would emit gamma rays that could give people severe radiation poisoning.

The most dangerous zone would be 10 to 20 miles downwind of the explosion, while some fallout could occur 100 miles away or farther, depending on the magnitude of the explosion. (Communities upwind and far enough away from the explosion would escape relatively unharmed.)

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Whoa, take a deep breath.

The USSR/Russia and Red Chinese have had thousands of nuclear warheads, some of them in the megaton range, aimed at the US for the past 50+ years. But they haven't used them. Why do you think N Korea would attack the US with a single (or even a dozen) nuclear warheads?

You might want to go with the "N Korea is bent on attacking the US with nuclear weapons even if this means national suicide for them!" argument. However, as bad as a nuclear attack by N Korea would be, they are not going to be turning the west coast into a nuclear wasteland. The Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons) and Nagasaki bomb (21 kilotons) didn't turn southern Japan into a nuclear wasteland. The 100 above ground nuclear weapons tests (including a device with a 74 kiloton yield) that the US conducted 65 miles NW of Las Vegas, Nevada, didn't turn Las Vegas into a nuclear wasteland.

Relax, go ahead and get on with your life.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

You could be correct but I have never thought that any of the Russian leaders were insane and I have been watching them since the '60s. That's the difference here. Kim is nuts. He could be psychotic for all I know. I also keep wondering if China is going to step aside, get involved, or if this is really about their claims to some islands they want, including Taiwan. I haven't forgotten about the long game which for China could be decades from now. But I do believe that eventually they will take what they claim is theirs. Unlike a lot of people I still believe that China is our enemy.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I'm kind of with you on him being looney tunes and his brain is just wired differently than ours(at least most of us) And I would not be surprised at all that he may even have in place a dead mans switch. Take him out and some trusted general throws the switch and sets off the nukes. Egos like his want to go down "Bigley" in history, so what better way than to blow up the world. He would be dead so nothing personal left to lose, as in these guys minds the rest of their people are all just pawns in their life story.

He is not like any of the Russian leaders before him, but there are many different leaders now in the same category as him. Our best defense is going to get them into the world culture as quickly and seamlessly as possible. I think this will be Iran's undoing in the long run, 10 or 15 years from now when they have their nukes most of the people will be part of the world community and economies, and they will just be another nuclear power among all the others in the world..

No, the three arguments are these.

1) North Korean government would use the weapon as a last resort if it's own existence were in doubt. If the U.S. starts attacking North Korea (conventionally) , there's very little North Korea can do. It would have a matter of hours of existence. One of the things it could do is launch medium range nukes at Guam, South Korea, and Japan. Maybe some get by THAAD/AEGIS. And Hail Mary an ICBM at California.

2) The North Korean government appears less than stable. If you go over this list of political executions, it tells the story that either 1) there have been coup-like forces that have been cropping even at the highest levels of the military and government, or 2) there aren't coup-like forces and Kim Jong-un is paranoid. Neither is good when you have nuclear weapon capability. Russian and China haven't had nearly this level of drama since they've had nuclear weapons.

3) The U.S. has geopolitical consistency to consider. The doctrine of nuclear non-proliferation has been in place since around 1970. That treaty has motivated many countries to voluntarily give up production or ownership - South Africa and the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. The vast majority of countries don't try to make them. Our President Vitus with this "ignore them" doctrine just signaled defacto exit from nuclear non-proliferation. He won't do a thing if you make a nuclear weapon. Or even if you start threatening people with them. Game on. Don't you think Ukraine would love a "defensive" nuke? And Iran can go full steam ahead. If Iran goes full steam ahead, Saudi Arabia will want to as well. The more of these things there are in unstable parts of the world, the more likely they get used. The world, say, 20 years from now, could get rather scary.