Jump to content
Airbrush

The North Korea Problem

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The very fact they're letting international investigators in is a gigantic leap from their previous foreign policy procedures.

I would wait for the finalization of the inspections before assuming anything. NK has agreed to inspections and stopping their program since the 90s. Neither is it the first time of them actually letting investigators in (and then kicking them out if they are getting too close). 

The most positive aspect is the seemingly improved relationship to SK, but a mere agreement to inspections does not seem that much different to past negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would wait for the finalization of the inspections before assuming anything. NK has agreed to inspections and stopping their program since the 90s. Neither is it the first time of them actually letting investigators in (and then kicking them out if they are getting too close). 

The most positive aspect is the seemingly improved relationship to SK, but a mere agreement to inspections does not seem that much different to past negotiations.

Hmm. I wasn't aware of this previously. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What North Korea is doing in the reports doesn't violate any of the agreements that were made. Unlike Syria which was violating agreements. There is a difference.

You’re moving the goalposts. Stop doing that. 

Heres what you said:

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

As far as I've found, we're pretty much certain of all of North Koreas nuclear facilities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re moving the goalposts. Stop doing that. 

Heres what you said:

I haven't moved the goal posts, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of doing that. My entire previous point even highlighted things about how hard it is to hide nuclear facilities as compared to chemical weapons facilities. Your report that you provided didn't even touch on suspected hidden facilities, holding grounds, or launch site. It talked about what they were doing at the facilities that we know about. Do not equate those two different things. One is a statement I made, one is not.

The report focused on what they were doing, not some giant new nuclear facility we just found out about.

Hence, my original assertion is still 100% true, and I haven't moved the goal posts. You're also taking what I've said away from the original point I made.

Syria was doing things against the agreement, and we suspected it before it was confirmed.

At the moment we don't suspect North Korea of doing the same thing Syria did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me break this down for you with small words. 

You: We’re pretty much sure of where all their sites are. 

Me: Actually, no. Many are hidden and still secret. 

You: They’re not violating their agreements. 

Me: Stop moving the goalposts. I wasn’t talking about the agreements. 

You: I didn’t move the goalposts. Syria is not NK. 

Me: Facepalm. Let me explain this one more time using crayons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iNow said:

Let me break this down for you with small words. 

You: We’re pretty much sure of where all their sites are. 

Me: Actually, no. Many are hidden and still secret. 

You: They’re not violating their agreements. 

Me: Stop moving the goalposts. I wasn’t talking about the agreements. 

You: I didn’t move the goalposts. Syria is not NK. 

Me: Facepalm. Let me explain this one more time using crayons. 

 

You're not understanding what I said.

Your link, which is what you used to say the bolded line, did not mention anything about hidden or secret nuclear facilities. It solely talks about what North Korea is doing at those nuclear facilities.

To clarify, this is the link you provided:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44679144

 

So. Let me explain this to you how I see it.

 

Me: We're pretty much sure of where all their sites are.

You: Actually, no. Many are hidden and still secret. *provides link detailing activity about north korea at nuclear sites, not about secret or hidden nuclear sites.*

Me:(Reading the link detailing activity at North Korea Nuclear Sites, and realizes it, decides you must be trying to say something about activity in North Korea at nuclear sites, while what I originally said was that we know of the nuclear sites.) They're not violating agreements.(I said this because I believed that since you provided a link about north korean nuclear activity, you were trying to draw a correlation between Syrian chemical weapons activity).

You: Stop moving the goalposts. I wasn't talking about the agreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your link, which is what you used to say the bolded line, did not mention anything about hidden or secret nuclear facilities. I

Quote

It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.

"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.

"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Quoted Text

They are not hidden or secret though, we(The U.S. Government) knows about them. The long-standing suspicion simple comes from those of us outside the loop of intelligence services. The report was about the activity at these sites(which we clearly know about).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

They are not hidden or secret though, we(The U.S. Government) knows about them. The long-standing suspicion simple comes from those of us outside the loop of intelligence services. The report was about the activity at these sites(which we clearly know about).

Then by your definition it is impossible to have secret locations. Because if we do not know about them, they do not exist. But if we do know about them, they are not secret.

The implication obviously is that because they have kept facilities secret that have been ultimately discovered, there is a likelihood of yet undiscovered ones. Thus one cannot claim with certainty (as you did) that we know of all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Then by your definition it is impossible to have secret locations.

My apologies if this is how it came off.

When I said:

"While it's possible North Korea does have hidden nuclear testing areas, I wouldn't equate it to Syria.

...

As far as I've found, we're pretty much certain of all of North Koreas nuclear facilities."

I did not mean it as an absolute. I said we're pretty much certain of of where all of them are , however I didn't mean for that to come off as "We're certain of where all of them are". 

Additionally, directly afterward, I provided the reasoning for why I'm pretty much certain we know of where they all are, as compared to why we didn't know where all of Syria's were.

"Which is another factor. Syria was able to produce more chemical weapons because of the relative ease of creating them(to nuclear weapons).

North Korea may have chemical weapons we don't know about, but nuclear testing facilities and holding grounds are virtually impossible to hide with modern technology unless they were made and stopped running before major U.S. surveillance began(which was right after the Korean war).

I mean, we detected a nuclear blast under a mountain. (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.) I feel like we would have noticed other operational sites as well.

That's mainly why I'm willing to say it's most likely cleared up. But I guess it is possible. We'll see."

 

 

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The implication obviously is that because they have kept facilities secret that have been ultimately discovered, there is a likelihood of yet undiscovered ones.

See above as to why I don't think that is a likelihood. "discovered" is the wrong word to use when talking about the ones we know about. More like "Watched them get built and kept an eye on them over the years."

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Thus one cannot claim with certainty (as you did) that we know of all of them.

Again, my apologies. I did not mean for my claim to come off as having 100% certainty. I meant for it to come off as a very likely certainty(like 95-99%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Again, my apologies. I did not mean for my claim to come off as having 100% certainty. I meant for it to come off as a very likely certainty(like 95-99%).

I see this as another distinction without a difference. Much as you cannot claim 100% certainty with any credibility, you equally cannot claim 95-99% certainty... at least not in a credible way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iNow said:

I see this as another distinction without a difference. Much as you cannot claim 100% certainty with any credibility, you equally cannot claim 95-99% certainty... at least not in a credible way.

And that is an opinion.

As is mine.

Agree to disagree.

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

And that is an opinion.

As is mine.

Agree to disagree.

Fair enough, but... to be clear... even this is a false equivalence. You'll notice my "opinion" did not assert levels of certainty or specific probabilities, whereas your "opinion" very much did... and continued to do so even when directly challenged and shown to be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, iNow said:

You'll notice my "opinion" did not assert levels of certainty or specific probabilities, whereas your "opinion" very much did... and continued to do so even when directly challenged and shown to be mistaken.

It was directedly challenged, yes, but hardly shown to be mistaken.

Nuclear sites are difficult to hide. https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-find-hidden-nuclear-facility-9392

North Korea has been under U.S. Surveillance since the Korean War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

 

Unless you have proof otherwise of the things I have stated, I wasn't shown to be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Unless you have proof otherwise of the things I have stated, I wasn't shown to be mistaken.

This is pretty basic math, Raider.

You cannot assert a percentage if you don't know both numbers in your calculation.

You do not know how many hidden/secret/unknown nuclear sites exist in North Korea. This is true by definition, yet you continue to assert percentages despite not knowing the actual baseline for your denominator. 

I'm not attacking your identity. I'm not arguing against you as a person. I'm merely pointing out that you're pulling things out of your ass and asserting them as fact. That's where I've applied my challenge to your posts.

You either grasp this or you do not. Just accept that's okay to make mistakes sometimes, use it as an opportunity to improve future posts, and we can then continue this discussion about the countless many other things about which we surely agree. You know, or keep digging your heels in farther and farther... I suppose that's an option, too.

 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2018 at 12:43 AM, Raider5678 said:

Syria was doing things against the agreement, and we suspected it before it was confirmed.

At the moment we don't suspect North Korea of doing the same thing Syria did.

North Korea has been providing Syria with weapons and chemical materials. The distinction between the two doesn't hold. 

Quote

 

North Korea has been sending equipment to Syria that could be used to make chemical weapons, a UN report says.

Some 40 previously unreported shipments were made between 2012 and 2017, the report found. Materials included acid-resistant tiles, valves and pipes.

The leaked report says North Korean missile specialists have been seen at Syrian weapon-making centres.

The allegations follow new reports of chlorine being used by Syrian forces, which the government denies.

Here

 

North Korea is also currently violating U.S. sanctions with the help of Russia. 

Quote

 

Updated Sept. 17, 2018 8:19 p.m. ET

UNITED NATIONS—The U.S. and Russia reached an impasse during a United Nations Security Council debate Monday on North Korea, threatening to upset a tenuous consensus on international efforts to pressure Pyongyang with economic sanctions days before world leaders gather for an annual meeting in New York.

The impasse also comes as U.S.-North Korean talks have stalled, increasing pressure on the Trump administration to redouble international sanctions efforts to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons, in keeping with a June summit statement in Singapore.

The U.S. and Russia at the Security Council exchanged accusations that the other was to blame for impeding the goal of convincing Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs. Here

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/north-korea-missile-bases.html

Quote

North Korea is moving ahead with its ballistic missile program at 16 hidden bases that have been identified in new commercial satellite images, a network long known to American intelligence agencies but left undiscussed as President Trump claims to have neutralized the North’s nuclear threat.

The satellite images suggest that the North has been engaged in a great deception: It has offered to dismantle a major launching site — a step it began, then halted — while continuing to make improvements at more than a dozen others that would bolster launches of conventional and nuclear warheads.

The existence of the ballistic missile bases, which North Korea has never acknowledged, contradicts Mr. Trump’s assertion that his landmark diplomacy is leading to the elimination of a nuclear and missile program that the North had warned could devastate the United States.

Singapore summit was clearly a photo opp and little more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/north-korea-missile-bases.html

Singapore summit was clearly a photo opp and little more.

Polling shows that the majority of people here in the U.S. feel Trump has done a good job handling North Korea. The optics battle has already been won. At this point I think most people here in the U.S. would blame Kim Jong-un exclusively for anything bad which happens next. Trump has a blank check regarding the issue. Trump can do as he will and no one want to challenge him to loudly on it. 

While I believe the use of both sides (GOP & Dem) arguments is normally a lazy (often dishonest) attempt at appearing pragmatic this is a case where it may apply. In criticizing the Iraq War Progressives went too far in questioning all foreign military intervention and implying a cause and effect where by the U.S. was arguably responsible for the problems we wished to solve. The sentiment was true regarding Iraq and Afghanistan but not across the board globally. Simply butting out of all matters isn't the answer and Progressives haven't seemed to balance their non-intervention idealism with real world realities. As a result Democratic politicians often lack meaningful foreign policy positions. Beloved politicians on the left like Sanders, Warren, Harris, and etc seemingly have no stated views on foreign policy of any depth. Those Democrats who do like Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, and etc are considered too hawkish and part of an old guard establishment which needs to be pushed out. It leaves Democrats absent as opposition to Trump's Nationalistic foreign policies. Meanwhile the GOP isn't no better. They have identified many global enemies but fear another Iraq. So the GOP priorities strength and security to react if forced but are otherwise mute on what should be done. Both sides have a laundry list of what they don't want to do but neither has even a hint about what they would like to do. 

No one here in the U.S. wants to be responsible. We have a fingers crossed approached hoping South Korea and China can figure it out without U.S. leadership. On the surface it seems to be working a little. North and South Korea do appear to be mending their relationship. However Kim Jong-un is a murderer and a revolt against his regime is inevitable in my opinion. Kim Jong-un will execute many people as he feels necessary to maintain power. The potential for a Civil War which spills over into a refugee crisis or North vs South Korean war is high. Terrorism against Japan or South Korea by rogue conservative North Korea military groups is also a huge concern I have. Surely some officials in North Korea have spent their lives drinking the cool aid and view the outside world as the enemy. There is a lot of risks to consider and I don't think any politicians in the U.S. are currently speaking clearly regarding North Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alexwatson1711 said:

I don't understand the psyche of united states. Why America don't want other countries to become nuclear power? 

United States itself is nuclear power.

It wants to wield the biggest stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alexwatson1711 said:

I don't understand the psyche of united states. Why America don't want other countries to become nuclear power? 

United States itself is nuclear power.

I think it's more about how you use this nuclear power. And to be fair, N Korea is not know for it's rational decisions. 

USA does not threaten other countries with missile launches. Not lately anyway (Except for the aforementioned). 

This is a N Korean message to it's (only?) ally - China.

"One must clearly understand that the D.P.R.K.'s line of access to nukes for the existence and development of the country can neither be changed nor shaken[...] And that the D.P.R.K. will never beg for the maintenance of friendship with China, risking its nuclear program which is as precious as its own life, no matter how valuable the friendship is... China should no longer try to test the limits of the D.P.R.K.'s patience[...] China had better ponder over the grave consequences to be entailed by its reckless act of chopping down the pillar of the D.P.R.K.-China relations."

Don't forget that China represents over 90% of N Korea's international trade. 
You can just google who N. Korea threatened with a nuclear missile strike in the last few years but the list is pretty long and worrisome. 

Australia :  https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-threatens-australia-with-nuclear-strike-over-us-allegiance/news-story/fa28ccb9eaaff6c02f5c12bdc19bc227

Japan: "North Korea issued its first explicit threat to Japan this week, claiming it would sink the entire country with a nuclear bomb in fresh verbal conflict with the United Nations. "

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/north-korea-sparks-outrage-and-warning-of-unprecedented-threat-as-it-fires-missile-over-japan-a3621686.html

USA: 

North Korea also suggested the US should be “beaten to death like a rabid dog”. This was a reference to the “heinous resolution” a 15-member security council made by voting unanimously in support of a US-drafted plan condemning the missile test over Japan. The resolution also imposed measures that include a ban on North Korean textile imports and restrictions on oil exports to the country.

“Let’s reduce the US mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilisation of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now,” the Korea Asia-Pacific peace committee said in response. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41242992

N Korea also isn't big on human rights, healthcare and living conditions so the fact that they are spending resources on Military Nuclear programs isn't a good sign.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It wants to wield the biggest stick.

To be fair, most countries don't want other countries to become nuclear powers. I think it has more to do with the desire to limit the  significant risk that additional nuclear weapons bring to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, alexwatson1711 said:

I don't understand the psyche of united states. Why America don't want other countries to become nuclear power? 

United States itself is nuclear power.

There are several different reasons:

- Properly maintaining the Nuclear materials requires a level of infrastructure not every country has. Japan is still working on Fukushima all these years later. 

- North Korea has already launched in Japan's direction, threatened Guam, and has been very aggressive towards South Korea.  So there is legitimate reason to believe a Nuclear armed North Korea poses a threat to its neighbors.

- The more individual parties with Nuclear materials the greatly the likelihood that someone crazy winds up with Nuclear materials. 

- North Korea and the U.S. have an adversarial relationship. Of course one would want those who are adversarial to them to become more heavily armed. 

That said it is hypocritical. Threatens aside I think there is an argument to be made that it is in fact the U.S.  who poses the bigger threat to nations like North Korea and Iran than vice versa. North Korea has launched attacks on it own peninsula and sold weapons to a handful of nation but that pales in comparison to what the U.S. has been up to over the last 60yrs. The U.S. has sent troops into Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo,  Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Panama, and to this day have tens of thousands of troops sitting on North Korea's border. So I can see how from another nations perspective it could be the U.S. who is dangerous. 

7 hours ago, Silvestru said:

I think it's more about how you use this nuclear power. And to be fair, N Korea is not know for it's rational decisions. 

USA does not threaten other countries with missile launches. Not lately anyway (Except for the aforementioned). 

 Yet it is the U.S. who is the only nation in History to every used Nuclear Weapons in war. We (USA) drop 2 on Japanese cities incinerating a quarter of a million people. Mostly civilians. It is also the U.S. who sold Saddam WMD's, trained and funded Osama Bin Laden, is currently selling Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia weapons, and etc, etc, etc. Blood is on everyone's hands. The U.S. might be the adult in the room when dealing with North Korea but not all adults are automatically good. A lot of adults drink too much, have violent tendencies, are selfish, and son on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that the reason for America's nuclear arsenal is a deterrent to the Russian ( and also Chinese ) nuclear arsenal, and has been for 70 yrs.
( I assume you've noticed Russia's increased ambition/aggressiveness as of late, so we could soon be back in a 'cold' war )

But if the US had wanted to 'nuke' North Korea, they could have easily done so for about 55 yrs, since 1953, before NK gained any nuclear weapons.
( albeit with a lot of SK casualties, and delicate diplomacy with China )
So who exactly, is the NK nuclear arsenal a deterrent to ?
And if not a deterrent, are they a first strike weapon, or simply a means of extortion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.