Author Topic: North and South Korea  (Read 164899 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea, Summit Ideas
« Reply #400 on: March 12, 2018, 11:16:29 AM »
First, must start with the admission that all conservatives including me thought Obama was naive, stupid and wrong in 2008 to say he would meet with the mullahs in Iran.  A US Presidential summit elevates the standing of tyrants in their own countries.

This is different, why?  Because it is Trump, for one thing.  You can take that two ways.  To a liberal and their view of the other leaders, you are only elevating the tyrant to the level of Trump, not to the level of a US President.  In NK it might be seen as elevating Trump to the level of Kim.

On the other side of this, Trump has earned the right to communicate with NK any way he wants because he is the only person in the world in the last 3 decades to get their attention.

From the previous post, WSJ: "This is the real danger of a summit. It raises expectations so high..."

No it doesn't.  Everyone except Trump has already accepted that 1) NK is nuclear, 2) the US and the world isn't going to do anything about it, 3) the global policy of non-proliferation is dead and all major actors now need nukes, and 4) NK's main industry will be the export of weapons and technology to rogue nations.

Danger lies in the policy of doing nothing, which was everyone but Trump's answer to the crisis, what crisis?

Talks are a way of crossing off the idea that this could be solved with talks.

The next step is to announce the date and location.  Since the theme is to break rules, Trump should insist that the meeting take place in Taiwan and the US will graciously provide the security.  Give China until May to disarm NK and we will cancel the Taipei Summit.

Trump can combine this photo-op with a nuclear technology transfer and sale summit with allies Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc. if China is fine with everyone having their allies nuclear armed.  He can also announce a site search in Taiwan for a new US Embassy while he's there.

One more idea, strike the nuclear sites and palaces while Un is arriving at the summit and negotiate from a position of strength.






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #401 on: March 12, 2018, 11:33:13 AM »
The difference is that Obama was a pussy, perennially being grabbed by the pussy and Trump has the Norks surrounded by various aircraft carrier groups and squeezed by ever tightening sanctions.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #402 on: March 12, 2018, 11:53:40 AM »
The difference is that Obama was a pussy, perennially being grabbed by the pussy and Trump has the Norks surrounded by various aircraft carrier groups and squeezed by ever tightening sanctions.

Are there many people out there who think they got over on Trump in any sort of deal?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Stratfor: To reunifty or not to reunify
« Reply #406 on: April 18, 2018, 06:36:02 AM »
    After decades of lamenting the Korean Peninsula's division, South Koreans increasingly regard reunification as unnecessary and undesirable.
    The split between North and South Korea along the 38th parallel, though seemingly arbitrary, follows approximately the same border that divided the peninsula's northern and southern kingdoms in antiquity.
    The division reflects the reality of contemporary geopolitics, which suggests that if reunification does happen, it will more likely occur under Beijing's wing than under Washington's.
============================

According to legend, a gaggle of junior young men from the U.S. Army and State Department divided Korea, armed with nothing more than a pencil and a wall map from National Geographic magazine. The day after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, with Japan's surrender imminent, they got abrupt orders to split the Korean Peninsula into Soviet and American administrative zones until elections could be held for a new national government. For lack of a better idea, they simply drew a line along the 38th parallel.

Elections took place on either side of the line in the summer of 1948, but they produced two separate governments. That August, on the third anniversary of Japan's surrender, Gen. Douglas MacArthur told South Korea's National Assembly that "an artificial barrier has divided your land. This barrier must and shall be torn down." Yet 70 years on, the border has not budged. MacArthur's position officially remains the default assumption; Koreans from North and South alike regularly talk of minjok, their shared kinship. A "Basic Agreement" signed in Pyongyang and Seoul in 1991 defined Korea not as two separate states but as one going through a "special interim." The same year, a joint Korean team competed in the World Table Tennis Championships under a new national flag. The "June 15th North-South Joint Declaration" in 2000 spoke of "the noble will of the entire people who yearn for the peaceful reunification of the nation," and Jeong Se Hyun, South Korea's minister of unification between 2002 and 2006 and the engineer of the "Sunshine Policy" of North-South rapprochement, continues to insist that the "national division was a tragedy."

Today, the situation on the Korean Peninsula is much the same, despite the combined Korean women's hockey team that entered the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics this year under the united Korean flag. The only thing that seems to have changed is that now South Koreans are increasingly concluding that national division is anything but a tragedy. According to polls conducted by the Korea Institute for National Unification, the 69 percent of South Koreans who favored reunification in 2014 has shrunk to 58 percent this year, and fully 72 percent of South Koreans in their 20s now feel that reunification is unnecessary.

After the Pyeongchang Games ended, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un issued a call to "write a new history" of the peninsula's unification. I doubt that this column is what he had in mind, but a look at Korea's history over the long term does cast fresh light on its divisions — and seems to suggest that South Koreans know what they are talking about. The North-South divide is not, in fact, an artificial and interim arrangement. Rather, North-South divides have characterized Korea for most of the last 6,000 years. Geopolitics has always answered the questions of whether and where the Korean Peninsula would be divided.

An Early Lead for the North

Most of Korea's history has unfolded in China's shadow. Whenever China was dominant, the peninsula's center of gravity lay in the North, while the South — to varying degrees — formed an underdeveloped periphery. Only during the last six centuries, when Japan's gravitational force often rivaled that of China, was the peninsula pulled southward. The shift tended to erode the North's lead in development over the South between 1400 and 1900. But it wasn't until the mid-1970s that an unprecedented gap began to open between a developed South Korea and a backward North Korea. And in the 21st century, China's rising wealth and power are drawing South Korea back toward it, with profound effects on the peninsula's division. No one knows where matters will stand 20 or 30 years from now. Of one thing we can be certain, though: There is no sense in which either a unified Korea or a peninsula centered South of the Han River is "natural."

Korea's early history was largely about finding ways to deal with what came its way from the bigger, more sophisticated worlds to its north and east. People in China's Yellow and Yangtze river valleys began domesticating rice and millet around 7500 B.C. and were giving up their mobile, foraging lifestyles to reside in permanent, settled villages by 5500 B.C. By contrast, rice didn't reach the Korean periphery until about 4400 B.C., and millet not until 3600 B.C. Even then, Koreans became farmers only slowly. Permanent villages started appearing in the North around 2000 B.C. and spread south of the Han River only after 1500 B.C., possibly thanks to Manchurian immigrants who also imported from China the first metal weapons and tools that Koreans had seen.

The biggest villages and richest graves remained in northern Korea, and Chinese texts tell us that by about 400 B.C., some sort of organized government was forming in the North. This state, Gojoseon — better known by the older transliteration of Chosun — had its capital at what is now Pyongyang. We know little about its archaeology, but it apparently fell to a Chinese kingdom called Yan, based around modern Beijing, only to break away in 195 B.C. under the leadership of a Chinese rebel before the Han Dynasty reconquered it and turned it into a cluster of provinces in 109 B.C. Throughout this back-and-forth, two facts dominate: Northern Korea was consistently richer, more populous and more developed than southern Korea, and it was in every way a Chinese satellite. Burials from Pyongyang, such as the sumptuous Soganni Tomb 212, are stuffed with Chinese silk, lacquer and jewelry that came from as far afield as Sichuan. Southern Korean tombs are not. Korea was as deeply divided 2,000 years ago as it is today. But in antiquity it was the North that was developed and the South that was backward.

Korea's early history was largely about finding ways to deal with what came its way from the bigger, more sophisticated worlds to its north and east.

In and out of China's Sphere of Influence

Northern Korea remained part of the Chinese cultural sphere even after the Han Dynasty fell in A.D. 220, but it managed to free itself from direct Chinese rule. The empire's former Korean provinces reconstituted themselves as the independent kingdom of Goguryeo. From its capital at Pyongyang, Goguryeo took over most of the peninsula and much of Manchuria, too, by the 470s, eventually posing such a threat that China's Sui Dynasty bankrupted itself to launch massive but unsuccessful invasions between 612 and 614. Goguryeo had arrived as a great power in East Asia.

Yet even in the kingdom's moment of glory, geopolitical shifts were overtaking the Pyongyang elite. In Japan, a new kingdom called Yamato unified most of the archipelago and opened itself to China, and southern Koreans grew rich trading with it. Copying the sophisticated ways of northern Korea, they formed their own states and rebelled against Pyongyang's rule. In 676, one of these new states — Silla, with its capital at Gyeongju in the far southeast — overthrew Goguryeo completely.

The South enjoyed a golden age in the eighth and ninth centuries, catching up quickly on the North's lead in development. Then as now, however, geopolitics was a delicate business. If Silla could exploit its central position cleverly, it could hold the balance of power between Japan and China. On the other hand, if it lost control, it might be crushed between these bigger states. This is precisely what happened in the early 10th century, when a breakaway northern state called Goryeo — from which the modern name "Korea" comes — allied itself with Japan. Sandwiched between two rivals, Silla abruptly collapsed.

Goryeo built a capital at Gaegyeong (traditionally transliterated as Kaesong), almost exactly halfway up Korea's west coast, just north of the modern Demilitarized Zone. The location was a good choice: Silla's success had left the peninsula more united and integrated than ever before, and a centrally located capital now made more sense than one at Pyongyang. Goryeo flourished after 1100, becoming famous for its lacquer and celadon pottery. Choe Yun Ui built the world's first printing press with movable type there, 200 years before Gutenberg's press in Europe, and Korean scientists carried out precocious experiments with gunpowder weapons.

But despite these triumphs, Goryeo's rulers had little more joy than Silla's leaders did at balancing China and Japan. Sometimes China was the scarier neighbor, and in 1271, Goryeo's Prince Wonjong formally submitted to Kublai Khan, the Mongol warlord who had become China's emperor. For the next 80 years, Korea once again paid tribute to the Chinese Empire, as it had done under the Han Dynasty more than a millennium earlier. This time, though, when the empire fell apart in the 1350s, Goryeo broke free — only to find itself immediately exposed to devastating raids from Japanese pirates. Gunpowder weapons eventually gave Korean fleets the edge, but Japan was beginning to matter more than China. When a coup overthrew Goryeo's King U in 1392, the new Joseon Dynasty recognized this reality by moving its capital south to Hanyang (modern-day Seoul), closer to where the action was.

Over the next 400 years, a unified Korean state ruled from Seoul worked out how to play China and Japan off each other. At the same time, a sense of Korean identity grew on the peninsula. Korean bureaucrats even abandoned the Chinese script in 1446 in favor of the native hangul alphabet. But the delicate balance broke down in 1592. Japan's chancellor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, invaded Korea after uniting the Japanese archipelago, as a prelude to conquering China itself. Korea hung on only by renewing its tributary relationship with China.

When Hideyoshi died in 1598, his successors abandoned his aggressive policies, and as the 17th century wore on all three Northeast Asian powers accepted a regional equilibrium in which none tried to resolve its problems through violence. Each promoted internal unity and increasingly closed its borders. Korea probably was more unified and peaceful in the 18th century than ever before.
Shifting the Balance

How long this equilibrium could have lasted in the absence of external shocks is anyone's guess. As it was, however, the biggest geostrategic upheaval of all — the intrusion of the West — blew it apart in the 19th century. Though the three Northeast Asian countries each took measures to keep Western merchants and missionaries off their territory — Korea went furthest of all, earning the nickname "Hermit Kingdom" — Westerners turned to force in the mid-19th century. In 1840, Britain shot its way into China, and the United States opened Japan 14 years later by threatening to do the same. Korea held out the longest, sinking an American gunboat at Pyongyang and killing its crew in 1866. But the same year, a French force raided Ganghwa Island to punish Korea for massacring Christians. Recognizing the strategic importance of the island, which controlled access up the Han River to Seoul, Americans assaulted it again in 1871, killing hundreds of defenders for the loss of just three attackers. Japan, meanwhile, launched its own attack on Ganghwa in 1876, having responded to the arrival of U.S. forces with a crash modernization program. Unable to resist, Korea opened its ports to Japanese trade and admitted Americans too in 1882.

The biggest geostrategic upheaval of all — the intrusion of the West — blew Korea's equilibrium apart in the 19th century.

China made a last big push to keep Korea in its orbit in the 1880s, but Japan had already shifted the geostrategic balance too far. In 1894-95, Tokyo's modernized fleets and armies smashed those of Beijing, which had merely grafted a few Western steamboats and cannons onto their antiquated organizations. The resulting Treaty of Shimonoseki formally ended Korea's status as a vassal of Beijing. When Russia tried to step into China's shoes, Japan defeated it, too, in 1905. Japan turned Korea into a protectorate and then annexed it outright in 1910, submerging it into a colonial empire that grew to include Manchuria in 1931 and much of coastal China after 1937.

In the 1930s, Northeast Asia looked rather like what Hideyoshi had hoped for in the 1590s, with its center of gravity in Tokyo. Not even Japan's total defeat in 1945 entirely erased the pattern, thanks to Washington's eagerness to rebuild Japan as a bulwark against Soviet communism.

An Indelible Line

Dividing Korea along the 38th parallel ended a millennium of unity but was in a sense just the latest version of the geostrategic balance that emerged as early as 1400. Korea once again was caught between China and the rising force of Japan. The growing involvement of Russia and the United States since the late 19th century enlarged the stage on which Korea's story played out but did not change the fundamental fact that the peninsula's fate depends on the balance between the continental powers to its northeast and the maritime ones to its southwest. A division at the 38th parallel made a lot of sense during the Cold War, and North Korean leaders were right to worry after their Soviet patron's collapse in 1991 that the peninsula might be reunited on American terms. Had it not been for China's resurgence in the 1990s, that might very well have happened.

Looking at the long term suggests that the 20-something South Koreans who see no need for unification are right: The division of Korea — in roughly the same place as the North-South boundary in antiquity — reflects the reality of contemporary geopolitics. And that same reality suggests that if reunification does happen, it is more likely to be under Beijing's wing than under Washington's.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
North Korean test site collapsed on the last test, SCMP
« Reply #407 on: April 25, 2018, 11:38:34 AM »
South China Morning Post is reliable, but they obviously have no access to the test site.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un

North Korea’s nuclear test site has collapsed ... and that may be why Kim Jong-un suspended tests
The mountain’s collapse after a fifth blast last fall has led to the creation of a massive ‘chimney’ that could leak radioactive fallout into the air, researchers have found

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 25 April, 2018, 2:51pm

The last five of Pyongyang’s six nuclear tests have all been carried out under Mount Mantap at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site in North Korea’s northwest.

One group of researchers found that the most recent blast tore open a hole in the mountain, which then collapsed upon itself. A second group concluded that the breakdown created a “chimney” that could allow radioactive fallout from the blast zone below to rise into the air.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #408 on: April 25, 2018, 12:31:02 PM »
This is something that should be easy to detect, yes?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #410 on: April 26, 2018, 05:24:53 AM »
"Contrary to a lot of the White House talking points, Kim’s trial balloon about “denuclearizing” doesn’t mean he’s open to disarming. It’s 30-year-old jargon for getting America to abandon the South Koreans"

or the other way around - to drive a wedge between US and S Korea and get them to abandon the US.

I don't know if Trump could be flattered into falling for (likely) ruses but I know Bolton or Haley can't.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #411 on: April 26, 2018, 06:49:11 AM »
From the EMP thread on the SC&H forum:

Dr. Peter Fry LPSCrfp16-12.pdf

Dr Fry appeared on the Mark Levin show this past Sunday evening-- VERY much worth tracking down and watching (Would someone find it and post it on the EMP thread please?).  A serious and credible man with the government job that gives him access to much that we do not know.

Anyway, among the things he discussed was the EMP variation of Nork nuke strategy.  Short version:  he very much regards it as a realistic scenario.

In that case then does it matter that the Norks have no yet developed a re-entry shield (though presumably they are working on it right now)? 



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #414 on: April 29, 2018, 09:14:05 AM »
Pondering how the Nobel people will weasel their way out fo giving The Donald the NPP :

Give the prize instead to both Korean heads of state
Give it to China's Xi.

Give it to Hillary since she helped Trump get elected ........

With regards to China'a Xi there is a lot more to the public eye then we can see.

Kim met with him not long ago

In some way China surely sees it is NOW (with Trump as Prez vs the wish washy Brock) in their interests to get N Korea to change course.

I am wondering if before they saw NK as a nice buffer between them and the US .  A poker chip they could play over and over again against us.

Now they may see a peaceful N and S Korea situation more to their liking.  What I mean if there is no war between N and S K then why should S K permit the US to have a military presence on the peninsula just off their coast.

S Korea being a bit of dupes will oblige and kick the US out.  As China increases its military power in Asia that would suit them just fine.

Se we get rid of the nuclear threat and China gets us out of Korea.

Next play is how will China get us out of Okinawa ?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Why North Korea will give up its nukes
« Reply #417 on: May 01, 2018, 11:44:12 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/its-time-for-real-talk-about-north-korea/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-04-30&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

Opposing view:  "Kim will, in the end, trade away his nukes."

No one knows the future but I like the thinking of this author better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/05/01/kim-jong-un/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9fda6398ca35

Why North Korea will give up its nukes
By Spencer Kim May 1
 
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, prepares to shake hands with South Korean President Moon Jae-in in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. April 27, 2018. (Korea Summit Press/AP)

 
Spencer Kim is chairman and CEO of CBOL Corporation, a California aerospace company, and co-founder of the nonprofit Pacific Century Institute, which fosters understanding among the peoples of the Pacific Rim.

SEOUL — I hear it so often. The most important thing to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is regime survival and the most important thing to him is his nuclear arsenal. But by historically meeting with South Korean President Moon Jae-in Friday, Pyongyang has shown what is most important. Nukes are, and always were, subservient to regime well-being.

Kim, who has god-like status among his people, has in effect told them four things:
1) The nukes program has served its purpose, and we will stop work on it now.
2) All efforts will focus on making you rich, like the Chinese and South Koreans.
3) I have started a new era of Korean history by reaching out to the South.
4) Our nukes have tamed the Yankees, and now I am going to trade them for permanent security and leverage to make you rich.

Kim cannot now say, “Oops, I misread the situation — let’s go back to being poor but proud with nukes!” He has mounted a tiger and cannot get off without being eaten. He must ride it all the way to his destination.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. First, to U.S. President Donald Trump for his involvement, without which no deal was ever going to be made, and for pushing the maximum pressure campaign. This campaign is aimed at pushing Pyongyang into a corner so it has to choose between regime survival and nukes and has to thus cry uncle by choosing regime survival.

Second, Moon deserves credit for realizing that if he wanted to be “Nixon to China,” he had to first be Nixon by shoring up his right wing domestically and proving to his ally in the White House that he was also an advocate of maximum pressure, all while signaling deftly to Kim that if he ever wanted to make a deal, now is the time.

And finally, let’s give credit to Kim. He was dealt a weak hand. His is the smallest, poorest and least-loved country in Northeast Asia, by far. He faces four existential threats to his regime’s existence, from: the United States (militarily), South Korea (culturally, with the siren song of absorption), internally (a coup could rise from a newly entrepreneurial class if things go too slow or from the masses below if the economy shatters) and China (Chinese high-handedness and Korean prickliness go back millennia).

Regarding China, people who really understand North Korea reference this saying: “When the door is open, they curse America. When the door is closed, they curse China.” It is no different today than in the past. Maximum pressure meant the Chinese maneuvered and positioned themselves as the only lifeline to North Korea — a situation as odious to Pyongyang as it is dangerous. Kim’s uncle was executed under suspicion of some kind of collusion with China; his half-brother was poisoned to death in Malaysia because he was a possible alternative ruler in any China-inspired coup.

What is needed to address all four existential threats? For starters, a peace treaty to forestall any U.S. military adventurism. Second, a relationship with the South that eschews absorption for long-term rapprochement and economic assistance. Third, China-style economic reform that assures Kim’s control of the regime and establishes rapid development as his source of legitimacy instead of resistance against the U.S. bogeyman. Finally and most importantly, the end of international sanctions and the beginning of economic diversification, to reduce reliance on China and avoid becoming a de facto Chinese province.

When he created the “byungjin” (parallel development) policy of pursuing both nuclear missiles and economic development simultaneously, did Kim foresee that he needed the former if he was ever going to have enough bargaining chips for a solution to all four of his threats? If so, he is one smart guy. If not, he is lucky. But planned or not, I give him credit for seeing this opportunity for what it is.

And don’t forget, in this “new era” of North-South history, Kim, who is young and faces no elections, will be in charge in the North for decades while he deals with a string of future South Korean presidents. He has the chance, more than any other person, to shape Korea’s future.

The exact details and timing may be devilish, and there may be some temporary twists on the road, but Kim will, in the end, trade away his nukes.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #418 on: May 01, 2018, 12:15:42 PM »

Certainly a plausible analysis-- and certainly I hope he is right!!! 

My prior post and its subject line was prompted by a sense of far too much self-congratulatory assumption of the conclusion.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
KJU Kim Jung Un for Nobel Peace Prize
« Reply #419 on: May 01, 2018, 01:10:15 PM »

Certainly a plausible analysis-- and certainly I hope he is right!!! 

My prior post and its subject line was prompted by a sense of far too much self-congratulatory assumption of the conclusion.

I agree.  A lot of high fiving and no agreement, no accomplishment, not even a meeting site - so far.

Kim Jung Un has:  a cute wife, wealth, power, and the adoration of everyone still alive who surrounds him.  He has an ego Trump could only hope for (yet he is one push of a button away from elimination.)  He likes the limelight, photographed with Xi, big smiles, with Moon and now with the 'leader of the free world'.  He has heard crowds chant "Nobel" for Trump.  It is Un who will get the Nobel (you heard it here first), maybe Trump grudgingly too and Moon, if this dark chapter of human history gets put behind us right now.

What an opportunity!  They can (attempt to) copy the Chinese model of economic freedom without democratization.  Yes, it would spiral out of control and his people will eventually hang him, but hey ... give it a try.  )

He could go to a Heritage Foundation seminar, study Singapore and Hong Kong, become a free trade zone on the newly strategic land that bridges China, Russia and South Korea, with ports on two seas.

His keeper Xi Jinping already told him what to do, and it probably was not to cause a "fire and fury" war with America on their border.

He needs sanctions lifted and Trump, Pompeo and Bolton are not going to take the usual song and dance for that.

They don't need nuclear weapons that they can't use. 

It would not take much to make N.K. the fastest growing economy in the world and Nobel prize winning Kim Jung Un a worldwide hero.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #420 on: May 01, 2018, 05:45:08 PM »
IIRC the cutie is his sister , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Trump's Seoul Train
« Reply #421 on: May 02, 2018, 12:51:49 PM »
http://www.thediplomad.com/2018/04/trumps-seoul-train.html

Friday, April 27, 2018
Trump's Seoul Train
Just a quick post as I get ready to go out the door to get a flight to California. Be back in a week.

A most remarkable diplomatic development is occurring right in front of our eyes. The Korean War is about to end, or at least, there's a great probability that it will. The press reporting here in the USA on this incredible development is rather low-key, muted, and often buried below stories about Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, Royal baby photos, and, of course, the never-ending Jim Comey book tour and interview extravaganza.

The Korean War, often referred to as the "Forgotten War," proved a bitter, horrible conflict that few if any saw coming or were prepared to handle. The war, which began June 25, 1950 with a Stalin-encouraged invasion of the South, "ended" with an armistice on July 27, 1953. It cost somewhere above 2.5 million lives, perhaps as many as three million--including some one million Chinese "volunteers." (Personal note: In 1979, I talked to a Chinese diplomat who had been a "volunteer." He said he had never seen firepower like the one that US forces could bring to bear on the battlefield-- "brutal," he called it.)

That old armistice has been an on-and-off affair with lots of violent and deadly incidents since then. The two Koreas remain divided by one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world, and that division has been a potential WWIII flashpoint since 1953. The end of the Cold War did not see an end to the tense situation along that divide, and, in fact, saw an increase in tensions as North Korea went on a drive to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon. The dictatorship in Pyongyang has been one of if not the most reprehensible regime in the world. The people of North Korea live not only with the constant threat of war thanks to their leaders, but exist under horrific daily conditions. North Korea has to be the most miserable country on earth, and one of the few that regularly threatens global destruction.

We are now seeing the leaders of the two Koreas meeting, vowing to formalize the end of the war and to seek a way to denuclearize the peninsula. Huh? What happened? It must have been some tweet from Hillary or Obama, or some wise statement by Pelosi or Corbyn that did it. Gotta be. Or that Kim Jung-un, he's really just a pussy cat who loves his people and peace. Can't possibly be the man in the White House, because we all just KNOW that he's a clown and a loudmouth who doesn't know what he's doing, and thank God, that at least Putin controls him, or who knows what would happen, eh?

Sorry, scoffers. Trump gets the credit.

President Trump played Kim like Perlman plays a violin. Trump quickly got the measure of the dictator and checked him at every move, despite the pearl-clutching and couch-fainting in the West. Kim launched rockets; Trump labelled him "Rocket man" and ridiculed his pretensions. Kim bragged about his nuclear button, Trump fired back that his was much bigger and, unlike Kim's, it was guaranteed to work. SecDef Mattis, in his low-key USMC way, reminded the world that, if need be, we have a military solution to the Korean problem. The US Navy closed in on the peninsula and the USAF deployed bombers. US-ROK military exercises went ahead. Trump went to the Chinese and drove home their responsibility for keeping Kim under control and, not so subtly, asked the Chinese whether their relations with the US were less important than their relations with Kim. Kim got the message; met with the CIA Director; has agreed to a one-on-one with Trump. We have now the first real opportunity since 1953 to turn the page on the Korean War. Things can, of course, go wrong, but they seem to be going quite right.

Trump gets the credit.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
GPF on North and South Korea reunification
« Reply #422 on: May 05, 2018, 09:23:08 AM »
(click to enlarge)

The North and South have fundamentally diametric economic and political systems and national ideologies. They also have very large guns pointed at each other’s head. Neither side has much reason to trust the other to refrain from trying to exploit the chaos that would come with a transition and force reunification on their own terms. This trust gap is not going away, nor is the prisoner’s dilemma. True reunification would require breathtaking courage from leaders on both sides, who would need to ignore immediate incentives and assume enormous risk while going through the process.

This is, in part, why only two modern states have achieved negotiated, peaceful reunification. One was Yemen in 1990, and its experience ever since has been nothing anyone wants to replicate. The more instructive comparison is Germany, which reunified the same year. Prior to being sliced in two by outside powers, both Germany and Korea were cohesive cultural, linguistic and ethnic entities. Yet both became locked in a protracted zero-sum contest for supremacy between their competing halves. Both are surrounded by countries that, through the long-term lens of their own geopolitical imperatives, would rather see them stay divided. Both had U.S. troops stationed on half their home soil. And like the North, East Germany suffered greatly from the loss of Soviet aid and security.

In most ways, though, the two Germanys were much better suited for reunification. By 1991, they were far more integrated than the Koreas are today, and the East was already beginning to disintegrate. East Germany had never adopted North Korea’s extreme version of totalitarianism and collectivism, and it didn’t derive its legitimacy from as intense a narrative of permanent siege by outside forces. The economic disparities between the two Koreas are also far wider. By 1991, West Germans were two to three times as wealthy as their eastern brethren, while South Koreans are estimated to be between 12 and 40 times richer than North Koreans (the North’s opacity explains the wide range in estimates). Thus, reunification was considerably less taxing for the West than it would be for the South, which likely wouldn’t enjoy the same level of outside funding for the process that the West Germans did.

Despite their age-old suspicion of a united Germany, neighboring powers like France and the United Kingdom accepted reunification in service of the broader project of European integration, with NATO and the common market diminishing the threat of German domination of the Continent. None of Korea’s neighbors have a similar cause to tolerate a process that puts a more powerful state on their doorstep.

North Korea, despite its poverty, has already proved capable of surviving without Soviet support. And though Pyongyang does not want to be beholden to Chinese patronage, this lifeline isn’t going to dry up anytime soon, given China’s ascendancy and interest in retaining the North as a buffer state. As a result, North Korea is more likely to be able to hold out on reunification if it doesn’t like the terms. By comparison, West Germany and its allies were able to gradually entice the East Germans away from the wheezing USSR, which couldn’t afford to keep up heavy subsidies to its client states anyway. For all intents and purposes, West Germany absorbed East Germany. North Korea won’t willingly follow suit. And unlike East Germany, North Korea has nukes.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
North Korea and China, Xi tells Un to take the deal ?
« Reply #423 on: May 08, 2018, 06:48:13 AM »
I wonder what sparked this sudden interest in hope and change on the Korean peninsula?

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-05/08/c_137164363.htm

They always show a picture of the leaders all relaxed and photogenic, yet the timing of the meeting indicates they are everything but relaxed about what is to come.

We can only speculate and figure out what was said now from what their actions are later. 

Each of these men has unimaginable power in his own world but faces risks of that changing much more than we do on the world stage.  Both are extremely rational men that will act in their own best interest as self perceived.  That is my view, unlike our old assumption that his father and grandfather were irrational madmen.

Un is either asking what should I do or Xi is telling him what he should do and the answers aren't simple.

From Un's point of view, reunification makes him personally obsolete and puts him in danger of eventually going the way of Saddam, being tried by his own people for the crimes that kept him in power.  The South isn't going to unify to be subjects of the North.  Unification is defeat for Un.

China, they say, wants to keep N.K. as a sovereign buffer state from what is a de facto alliance of South Korea, the US and perhaps Japan, Taiwan and others.  Xi does not want an NK vs. US war on his border, no matter how it goes, fighting over all the wrong issues from China's point of view.  They would be forced to either jump in or look weak and irrelevant for not doing so.  For one thing, if China jumped in on NK's side, Xi would find China facing military opposition where he is now unopposed such as where he is militarizing the South China Sea.  He benefits far more from the status quo, let the US giant fall back to sleep, not by waking them up.  His navy and military are catching up with the US.  The longer he goes without engagement, the more they can catch up.  His waiting game is for Trump to lose power back to the US parties of global weakness.

It seems to me, his advice to Un is to have NK become what China is now - on a small scale.  Get rid of nukes in exchange for guarantees of permanent sovereignty.  Open up economically and in other ways, while still keeping central party power and restricted individual rights.  That model seems unstable to me but is working for XI and the ruling party of China.

Maybe Un can get a planeload of money from Trump like Iran did from Obama in exchange for not needing to fight a new foreign war.

Trump wins if NK denuclearizes.  He will pay to get that and most certainly would lift all sanctions in exchange for real verification.  What does NK need nukes for anyway.  They probably don't work and he can't use them anyway.  Supposedly he can now reach the west coast of the US with his missiles.  That is assuming they are not shot down making him look impotent.  Threatening a strike has power but doing it would be to lose power.  Losing power is Un's greatest and only fear. 

My advice to Un is the same as Xi's.  Take the deal.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #424 on: May 08, 2018, 03:01:15 PM »
Maybe China will guarantee Nork security?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #425 on: May 09, 2018, 06:29:26 AM »
Maybe China will guarantee Nork security?

Yes, maybe China AND the US will guarantee their security since no one wants to invade or rule them anyway.  If Kim Jung Un is serious about denuclearization / disarming and if both sides are serious about verification, it will most certainly have to include a non-aggression agreement with the US.  Make a Senate ratified treaty with the US that outlasts an administration, lesson learned from the Iran deal. Denuclearization and meet some agreed human rights benchmarks in exchange for security.  Have the US verify de-nuke and some international group certify progress on human rights.  If they break the agreement, both China and US need to be off the hook on any security or sovereignty commitment - and down he goes.

I don't think China, S.K., Russia or the US want to govern his fiefdom, one of the world's poorest places.  We simply want to end the threat and lessen the human rights abuses.  If he is no longer a threat to the US and to his neighbors and all nations agree to his nation's controversial right to exist, why not give him guarantees - so long as he complies on his part.  If Un is bold, this could be quite a breakthrough for all sides.  He keeps power and his people have the opportunity to get a better life, to earn luxuries - like food. 

On the other side of it, if this is just another attempt to bluff people like the Madeline Halfbright deal with freebies given for false promises, I think they are wasting their time trying that with people like Trump, Bolton and Pompeo.  I wonder what Trump and US do with this threat if negotiations fail, but I would rather think now about how this can work if they succeed.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
GPF:
« Reply #427 on: May 14, 2018, 11:41:04 AM »
North Korea: We’re starting to get a clearer picture of what the U.S. is demanding from North Korea ahead of their summit in June. Over the weekend, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlined stringent conditions before the U.S. is willing to lift sanctions on Pyongyang including the transfer of nuclear scientists overseas, the destruction of nuclear data and so forth. Pompeo also said Kim Jong Un understands why his preferred phased and synchronized approach to denuclearization – the basis of past failed agreements – is unacceptable to Washington. National Security Adviser John Bolton said the North would not receive any benefits until it fully denuclearized. In exchange, the U.S. hinted at some assurances of regime security for Pyongyang while offering to help revive the North Korean economy and allow private U.S. investment. Curiously, however, Pompeo later seemed to imply that the U.S. may be content with a deal that merely prevents the North from being able to strike the U.S. mainland. Such a deal would likely decouple Northeast Asia from the U.S. alliance network, something that has been a strategic objective for China and North Korea for some time. There’s good reason to doubt that North Korea would agree to U.S. demands, hence why Pompeo appears to be keeping options open for a “lesser” deal. Either way, we need to figure out North Korea’s end game here. If the U.S. allows North Korea to keep some of its weapons while assuring only that the U.S. mainland won’t be attacked, other countries, most notably Japan, would sound the alarm. Be on the lookout for their responses.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
GPF: Norks manage expectations, one provocation at a time
« Reply #428 on: May 18, 2018, 07:39:46 AM »
North Korea Manages Expectations, One Provocation at a Time
May 18, 2018
By Phillip Orchard

The United States, it seemed, had finally done the impossible – it had managed to bring the government of North Korea to the negotiating table to end its nuclear program. Pyongyang had been signaling since March, if not earlier, that it was ready to deal. The North had warmed up to the South, having attended the Olympics and having gone behind enemy lines for the first time to meet with the South Korean president. By all accounts, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo heard what he wanted to hear during his trip to Pyongyang last week. National Security Adviser John Bolton was drawing up his plans. North Korea had yet to back out of the negotiations.

Everything looked as it should.

If all this seemed too good to be true, well, that’s because it was. On May 15, Pyongyang abruptly pulled out of high-level talks on reunification with South Korea scheduled for this week, citing the continuation of major U.S.-South Korean military drills. The timing seemed curious – North Korea had proposed the talks just days earlier, the U.S.-South Korean exercises had been scheduled for months, and North Korea had intimated that the exercises wouldn’t derail the talks, anyway. Later that day, Pyongyang threatened to scrap the June 12 summit in Singapore between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump. Among other grievances, the North cited Bolton’s repeated demands for immediate, rather than phased, denuclearization along the lines of the U.S. deal with Libya in 2003.

Pyongyang’s aversion to the Libya deal is unsurprising; the Gadhafi regime agreed to it, only to fall, partly at the hands of the United States, less than a decade later. Here too, it’s the timing that’s surprising, considering that Bolton had been pushing Libya as a model for months, but it can be explained in one of two ways. The first is domestic politics. It’s possible that hardliners in Pyongyang had grown uneasy with the pace at which Kim appeared to be rushing toward a deal, sparking an internal struggle over where to go from here. If he was serious about fully capitulating to U.S. demands, then we would expect major resistance. The problem with this explanation is there’s no hard evidence suggesting that Kim is facing any backlash at all, nor that the North has any intention to capitulate.

The second and more obvious explanation is that the North Koreans are who we thought they were. We’ve never been convinced that Kim was serious about handing over his nukes, and this week’s events only validate our doubts. What Pyongyang has done in the past few days is merely an attempt to manage expectations, clarify its position and strengthen its hand ahead of a landmark negotiation.

Conflicting Visions

North Korea appears to be laying the groundwork for an alternative plan — just one that will look nothing like what Bolton and, with somewhat more wiggle room, Pompeo laid out last weekend. Indeed, there are reasons to seriously consider reports that Kim is mulling a “Vietnam-style” economic liberalization. And there have been signs that Pyongyang is preparing the North Korean public — long conditioned to accept a permanent police state as the price to pay for fighting the evil American imperialists — to accept an accommodation with their great foe. On May 17, for example, NK News reported that authorities have been removing anti-American propaganda in the capital city.

But the North intends to do so as a nuclear power, and its outreach to the U.S. is chiefly about obtaining recognition from Washington as such. In the Trump administration’s view, denuclearization needs to be complete, verifiable and irreversible — and, importantly, completed by the end of Trump’s first term. According to Bolton, every one of the North’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, along with its associated equipment, plus its ballistic missiles, must be dismantled and shipped to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee before North Korea gets anything tangible in exchange. The U.S. even wants North Korea’s nuclear scientists to leave the country. To North Korea, denuclearization is more of an aspirational long-term goal. Maybe, for example, it would someday work toward global disarmament, with some near-term caps on the size and shape of its arsenal in exchange for a departure of U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula.

Nothing about the North’s recent behavior suggests that it is backing off this position. Since it first opened the door to a rapprochement during Kim’s New Year’s speech, the North has conceded very little of substance. True, it has frozen missile and nuclear tests, but it already has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons, and while its long-range missile program is incomplete, it’s advanced enough to make the U.S. reconsider an attack – as is its conventional weapons along the demilitarized zone that threaten more than half of South Korea’s population. And though Pyongyang seems ready to dismantle one nuclear test site, there’s nothing to stop it from keeping its many others open (besides, the site in question was likely made unusable after a test in September 2017).
 
(click to enlarge)
North Korea, moreover, doesn’t have much use for the sort of economic assistance the U.S. is apparently offering (mostly private investment) at this point. Releasing American prisoners, which Kim recently did, is a measure of good faith but is strategically meaningless. His historic summit with South Korean President Moon Jae-in in April was, at best, just the start of a decadeslong process toward reunification. He got a sitting U.S. president to break precedent and meet with a North Korean leader face to face without giving up a thing.

Open Doors

The question is what happens when the White House comes to terms with the truth: that the North believes that it’s bargaining from a position of strength, and that it won’t give up its nukes willingly. The United States can either accept a deal that effectively lets North Korea have nuclear weapons, or it can try to halt its program by force.

The North’s statements this week were meant to nudge Trump toward the former option. One way to read the KCNA warnings is that they are an attempt to drive a wedge between Trump and hardliners like Bolton. (Already, the White House is distancing itself from Bolton’s Libya rhetoric.) Pyongyang believes Trump has a political interest in reaching a deal by June, regardless of what the regime actually concedes. People like Bolton, in the view of North Koreans, complicate things by overselling what the North is willing to give up, making the president less willing to compromise.  Whether or not this view is accurate — and it’s hard to see why Bolton would push Libya as a model otherwise — it’s clear that the North had grown concerned that a rare opportunity was slipping away.

The North can probably tolerate a deal that permanently freezes its intercontinental ballistic missile tests – which would enable Trump to claim a victory insofar as it secures the U.S. mainland from an attack. (Indeed, this is a possibility Pompeo alluded to last weekend.) Such an agreement would probably come alongside a slow denuclearization process and measures nudging the U.S. toward the exits. This would help the North stave off war and potentially obtain some sanctions relief without substantially undermining its nuclear deterrent any time soon. Perhaps even more enticing for Pyongyang, an ICBM freeze would also raise doubts in South Korea and Japan about Washington’s commitment to their security, doubts that could undo their longstanding alliances.

If nothing else, the North needs a symbolic agreement, one that allows both sides to save face and prolong the negotiations. The threat of U.S. force is still too potent – and the North’s deterrent is too close to completion — to walk away from the table completely, as the North has done repeatedly in the past. And this means it needed to manage expectations in Washington and keep the door open for a deal that would end the standoff largely on Pyongyang’s terms.

The post North Korea Manages Expectations, One Provocation at a Time appeared first on Geopolitical Futures.





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
GPF: Norks and Iran
« Reply #430 on: June 02, 2018, 09:44:35 AM »
North Korea, Iran: North Korean media reported that Iran and North Korea have signed a memorandum of understanding on technology cooperation. Little detail was provided. The two countries have a history of cooperating on missile and nuclear technology. The timing is interesting, of course – the Iran nuclear deal is all but dead, and North Korean nuclear negotiations are clouded in uncertainty. This is something to keep our eyes on.

•   Finding: No additional details have been released by either side. On the surface, at least, it appears to be a low-level cultural exchange. (The memorandum of understanding was signed by the heads of the two countries’ national libraries.) If Tehran and Pyongyang were keen to resume technological cooperation in the military realm, we’d expect the two sides to do so quietly to avoid stoking a backlash from other powers whose support both countries are trying to woo to improve their positions against the U.S.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
North Korea, US "Summit", CVID
« Reply #431 on: June 04, 2018, 02:01:52 PM »
Trump needs to start and end this meeting without a handshake photo  - unless and until he makes the agreement.  The photo opp is the achievement if you are Un.  CVID is the achievement the rest of the world needs.

CVID = Complete Verifiable Irreversible Denuclearization (Dismantlement)

The term doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.  Either it is or it is not Complete. Verifiable. Irreversible. Denuclearization.  Not exactly what Madeline Halfbright negotiated.  (

Obama White House:  "We reaffirm our commitment to our common goal, shared by the international community, to achieve the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea in a peaceful manner."
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/north-koreas-nuclear-program-irreversible-15537

The incongruent term  was to achieve all this "in a peaceful manner".  It will be achieved when the threat of regime change level force is perceived as real and imminent. 

Bush Presidency:  Also all talk, no action, bad results:
https://www.usip.org/publications/2006/01/dismantling-dprks-nuclear-weapons-program-practicable-verifiable-plan-action
At least they came up with the parameters.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
WSJ: Hanlon on the future of the US-Sork alliance
« Reply #432 on: June 05, 2018, 09:02:12 AM »

By Michael O’Hanlon
June 4, 2018 6:52 p.m. ET
28 COMMENTS

Should the U.S. bring its nearly 30,000 troops home from the Korean Peninsula in return for North Korean nuclear disarmament? An adviser to South Korean President Moon Jae-in recently suggested the answer might be yes. And Kim Jong Un likely won’t give up the bomb without an end to the U.S.-South Korea alliance in its current form.

This might sound like a reasonable trade-off, but recall that the North Korean threat consists of much more than nuclear weapons. Pyongyang maintains a huge conventional military, robust special forces, stocks of chemical and biological arms, and hundreds of artillery tubes and missile launchers in range of Seoul. If these threats could also be substantially reduced, it would be fair to ask about the future of the alliance.

Yet consider its tremendous benefits. A strong U.S.-led alliance system has been very good for international peace and stability, and the U.S.-South Korea alliance has been an integral part of that broader community. This transcends specific threats from North Korea, Russia or any other hostile power.

South Korea is the world’s 11th-largest economy and remains influential. No one should want to return to the anarchy that prevailed in Europe and East Asia a century ago, when countries had weak and shifting relationships but no enduring bonds. The result was two world wars followed by catastrophic conflict in Korea.

In military terms, the alliance has proved its mettle beyond the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. has some 60 allies and security partners. But few countries have shown the same commitment to collaborative global military operations, combined with the same fighting capability, as South Korea. It has the largest military by head count of any American ally, and arguably one of the toughest and most combat-capable forces. For future security missions—counterterrorism, protection of sea lanes, cyberdefense—the alliance offers great benefits for the U.S.

Then there is South Korea’s immediate security—and, most of all, concerns about China. South Koreans are in no hurry to pick a fight with a rising China, as even a reunified Korea would have only 5% of China’s population. China isn’t an enemy Koreans can afford to have, but also not a country most Koreans want to trust and deal with on their own. Some kind of alliance with the U.S. would reassure Koreans about their future security and role in the world.

What kind of alliance would make sense if the North Korean danger disappeared? A first option would be a modestly scaled-back version of today’s, with no more than 25,000 troops stationed at all times. The U.S. would retain something like its current mix of U.S. forces: a brigade of heavy Army forces, additional ground-logistics capabilities, two wings of Air Force fighters and attack aircraft, as well as facilities in Korea’s southeast. But this would be backed by a commitment to send hundreds of thousands of troops for the direct defense of South Korea. Under this scenario, a hypothetical China threat would replace today’s real North Korean threat for military planning.

The other option would be perhaps 5,000 to 8,000 troops. This wouldn’t emphasize a Chinese invasion threat, but rather binational or multinational expeditionary operations throughout the region and globe. Most of today’s American fighter aircraft in Korea, with their relatively short ranges, might return to the U.S., as would logistics capabilities to bring in more than 300,000 in the case of a general war.

The heavy Army brigade now in Korea might be transformed into a light brigade, better suited for peacekeeping missions. It could be based at a new regional peacekeeping center where other nations—even China—could send forces to train. U.S. special forces would remain in modest numbers. Some U.S. Navy ships might be located in Korea too. Perhaps the U.S. could create a hub for ships employing robotics and artificial intelligence, given South Korea’s excellence in those areas.

We don’t need to answer these questions now, but it isn’t too soon to start the debate. And it is definitely not too soon to oppose any North Korean demand to end the U.S.-South Korea alliance as part of a nuclear deal.

Mr. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
North Korea US Summit - betting odds, Are you feeling lucky?
« Reply #433 on: June 06, 2018, 01:00:26 PM »
An Australian observer covers the horse race side of the contest, a light summary of the interests and strengths of key participants.  He has Trump (5:1) 3 times more likely to win than Un (15:1). 
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/06/06/usnorth_korea_are_you_feeling_lucky_113514.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #434 on: June 06, 2018, 04:53:03 PM »
 :-D

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
suaan rice
« Reply #435 on: June 12, 2018, 05:50:06 AM »
The obama crowd stumbling all over themselves trying to validate themselves:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/susan-rice-north-koreans-were-not-prepared-be-serious-when-obama-was

Sorry Sue.  You and Barry were actually epic failures .  :wink:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: susan rice
« Reply #436 on: June 12, 2018, 07:46:33 AM »
"You and Barry were actually epic failures"

Fact check:  True.

From the article:  Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, one of former President Obama's top advisers was asked why Obama didn't try to negotiate with Kim Jong Un during his eight years in office (when the North Korean nuclear threat accelerated).

"There were efforts at discussions," Rice responded. "The problem is that, at every turn, the North Koreans would make commitments and then break them."

"The fact of the matter is that I believe the North Koreans were not prepared to be serious under Kim Jong Un with respect to sitting at the table until they perfected their nuclear program and their missiles."


No.  The difference is that an American President with the power to take down his regime has convinced Un that his demise is imminent.
-----------------------------
I watched that interview Sunday and I watched her previously on the same show passing the lie of Benghazi to the world.  I suppose it wasn't Rice's first appearance since that epic lie and there has been a host change since then, but when was she ever called out on what REALLY then with that prepared and scripted lie she told all networks?  Who wrote it, why did she agree to deliver it, what was the consequence of lying to cover for Obama's failure and phony reelection, and why is she still held out as a credible guest?  (The questions are rhetorical.  We all know as she did then she would be REWARDED for lying to confuse the issue and allow Obama to cover his foreign policy failures through his reelection.

Now it's Comey, Brennan and Clapper too held out as voices of wisdom to share.  No wonder these shows get such horrible ratings.  You can watch for hours, tolerate endless commercials and know less at the end than when you started.

Then we hear about Presidential dishonesty with this President, Trump, as if his mischaracterizations and inaccuracies are something new to the Oval Office when in fact Obama following W Bush proved that voters do not prefer truth.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Stratfor: China, North and South Korea
« Reply #437 on: June 12, 2018, 09:19:19 PM »
    eijing will support warmer ties between the United States and North Korea, so long as their dialogue does not precipitate a complete collapse or, conversely, a rapid rapprochement in their relations.
    China will likely increase its economic influence over Pyongyang to ensure North Korea does not fall into the United States' orbit.
    Chinese leaders will base their actions on the North Korean nuclear issue on the principle of maintaining the balance of power on the peninsula in regard to the United States.

The Big Picture

U.S. President Donald Trump's decision in March to meet with Kim Jong Un has dramatically reshaped Beijing's calculations and posture toward North Korea. The ramifications of the summit, however, will ultimately determine China's role. With the amicable meeting setting the stage for subsequent dialogue, China will work to insert itself into the equation to increase its economic leverage to keep North Korea in its orbit.
See 2018 Third-Quarter Forecast
See Coping With a Nuclear North Korea

The June 12 summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was historic even if it didn't produce any earth-shattering breakthrough — and that's just how China wants it. Though short on specifics regarding critical issues such as denuclearization and U.S. security guarantees, the summit's amicable atmosphere assuaged Beijing's immediate fears about hostilities on its doorstep. For Beijing, the prospect for better ties between Washington and Pyongyang is a positive outcome, so long as the dialogue does not produce outright failure or a sudden rapprochement that leads to what China might call Kim's "Nixon moment." Amid expectations that Washington and Pyongyang will steer their relations between these two extremes — while remaining mindful about the potential for another false dawn — China will look to insert itself into the discussions so it can shape the future of the Korean Peninsula in accordance with its interests.

In Chinese policy circles, the expectations for a significant breakthrough in the runup to the summit were relatively low. But Beijing also did not desire the return of any stalemate, preferring instead continued dialogue. Having previously acknowledged its limited ability to influence either side, Beijing had framed the North Korean crisis as one whose solution lies in bilateral talks alone. In turn, China has expressed hopes that such talks could initiate more comprehensive nuclear and political negotiations that would ultimately allow it to play a more significant role. Nonetheless, after restoring its strained relationship with North Korea and regaining its role on the peninsula, Beijing hopes to insert itself into the equation — especially if the summit ushers in a mechanism to manage the Korean issue.

North Korea's reduction (if not eradication) of its nuclear capacity and cessation of further missile tests would represent a net gain for China — especially if the United States also halts military exercises with South Korea. Beijing entertains few hopes that Pyongyang will truly abandon its nuclear weapons or that Washington will ease strategic pressure on China if the peninsula becomes a nuclear-free zone. But the latest dialogue will ease Beijing's immediate concerns about military confrontations while also providing the country with a counterargument to regional neighbors such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, who support the advancement of U.S.-led defense deployments and even nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia.
What Comes Next

Wary of becoming the odd country out, Beijing's next priority will be to ensure its continued role in shaping events on the peninsula. China is aware that both Washington and Pyongyang hope to bypass, or at least reduce, their reliance on it in its usual role as mediator. Mindful of this potential point of convergence, China harbors concerns that follow-up meetings could result in a tactical alignment or even a deal that could jeopardize its strategic interests on the peninsula. Still, as the major regional power and a signatory of the 1953 Korean War armistice, China views itself as an indispensable actor in any peace deal that determines the peninsula's future.

China is likely to use its economic influence to ensure that North Korea does not fall into the United States' orbit. Tentative detente between North Korea and the United States will make it easier for Beijing to wield its economic influence — and even challenge the sanctions against the communist state — to ensure Pyongyang remains closer to China than the United States. By doing so, China would gain a tool to defend itself against growing U.S. pressure on trade and other issues. Beijing has already eased its unilateral punitive measures against North Korea and has a strong incentive to maintain the economic momentum — to the extent that it has encouraged Pyongyang to emulate China and open up its economy. After all, a more liberal North Korean economy would offer Beijing a more stable neighbor and increase prosperity in China's northeast, which is isolated due to its lack of sea access and Pyongyang's policies.

Beijing welcomes the prospect of warmer ties between Washington and Pyongyang, but it will base its ultimate perception and actions on the balance of power on the peninsula and its position regarding the United States. The summit could offer China a chance to help shape relations on its northeastern frontier, but the rapid developments on the peninsula could provide a stern test of Beijing's role and its desire to preserve its strategic interests in the area.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
What ???? That was fast
« Reply #438 on: June 13, 2018, 06:02:28 AM »
The Donald said this:

"Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!" Trump wrote on Twitter."

oh ok.  I will sleep great tonight.

Kim told Donald who then relayed the message to us.

 :-P

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: What ???? That was fast
« Reply #439 on: June 13, 2018, 07:02:21 AM »
The Donald said this:

"Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!" Trump wrote on Twitter."

oh ok.  I will sleep great tonight.

Kim told Donald who then relayed the message to us.

He had me with safer now than under Obama.

Yes there is a chance that Trump will brag too early about solving this; there is obviously a lot (everything) that can still go wrong.

Missing are the words verifiable and irreversible.

If we accomplish all that is promised with our new friend, we will be partners with the N.K. human rights record.

Democrats and never-Trumpers actually made us safer, convinced Kim that Trump was ready to launch a nuclear war against them.  Standing up to G7, standing up to Iran, standing up to TPP, standing up to Paris accords, standing up to China, standing up to his own party all make him look ready to stand up to the threats of the little dictator.  The choosing of Bolton, Pompeo, Mattis and the big boost in the defense budget all act to make the peace through strength threat credible.

The China card is interesting.  Xi has been meeting with China.  Some say Trump will try to lure N.K. out of China's orbit.  China can easily fight that by providing money and oil etc.  Competing for their affection is the opposite of maximum pressure.  I see that Pompeo raced straight to Xi after the Singapore meeting.

Peace treaty between N.K. and S.K. alone would be historic - and likely to happen.  It costs them nothing.  Moving our forces out of S.K. would save the US a little money.

Here is the video Trump gave Kim:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A838gS8nwas

A real peace treaty with the US would go through the US Senate.  Iran warns NK that Trump will nullify deal.  Trump can't if this is done right.

Kim can't use his nuclear force anyway.  It violates all of HIS objectives, like to live a long, prosperous life.  He is done if he strikes first and he is done if he strikes second.  And there is a very good chance we can shoot down whatever he shoots up.

It also seems to me that all his weaponry isn't as ready and usable as we are told.  Dangerous?  Yes.  Accurate, reliable, ready?  Don't know.  A world class arms race is expensive.

If the US removes nukes from S.K., and I didn't know we kept any there, we can blow up Pyongyang from Montana in 29 minutes (Newt said).  Or strike from other parts of the triad like the Pacific fleet.

The Nobel Peace Prize joke is real.  They hate Trump and would hate giving it to him but Kim may have already won.  It would be a shame if Kim deceived us and something happened to him before the ceremony.

The hardest part of this is to keep up the pressure and the threat of destruction while working together constructively on the details of the plan.  There will be ups and downs.

Trump shouldn't brag mission accomplished at the first meeting but critics like Schumer are just as foolish to criticize him after one day for not having all the details nailed down yet when his party botched this for decades.

The video above, done in Korean too, gives a very tempting and imaginative look at what NK could become, switching the lights on and seeing high rises going up.

The visit to Singapore visit was a taste of prosperity too.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 07:10:47 AM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Ben Shapiro - yup
« Reply #441 on: June 13, 2018, 03:35:31 PM »
masterstroke or debacle

Trump blundered coming out of the meeting declaring  a victory so soon.
If Kim does not follow through on his verbal promises he will make the world's greatest deal maker a total  fool.

Unless there is more we do not know about, but I doubt it.  Keeping my fingers crossed in NJ ............

 :|


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Ben Shapiro, No differences? Doug disagrees. )
« Reply #442 on: June 13, 2018, 04:06:35 PM »
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31740/trumps-big-north-korean-moment-either-masterstroke-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=061318-news&utm_campaign=position1

"Korean officials have been promising that same thing for years"

True but some differences between now and 1996:
1. This is DT and that was WJC.  This is Un; that was Il.  No differences?
2.  This is the beginning of a process; that was the end of one.
3.  Secretary of State is Mike Pompeo, first in his class at West Point, Magna Cum Laude Harvard Law School.  SecState then was Madeline Halfbright.
Pompeo negotiated this agreement.  He was previously National Security Director working on the same NK question.  Does anyone think he doesn't know exactly what Madeline Albright's agreement says, and what was the outcome?
4.  National Security is John Bolton; then it was Sandy Burglar.  No difference?
5. Def Sec now is Mad dog Mattis with a new, enlarged budget, then is was a Secretary of Dismantling American Defense.
6.  Then all foreign affairs staffers came out of the same school of cautious diplomatic manners and military avoidance.  Now we have the Disrupter, not afraid of offending anyone or breaking the mold.
7. Then we knew the administration would never take a military action on the border of China and Russia.  Now we know or at least all believe he will.
8. Then NK had no strike capability.  Now they do.  Can't just drop or ignore this.
9. Then we had no lever.  Now Un knows war games begin on his coast the minute he looks unserious.  And having to spend billions to move equipment around might mean we aren't playing war games this time.
10.  Then, China was just as duplicitous as NK and covered for them.  Now China has been called out, has plenty of other issues with the US, larger issues than NK to China, all intertwined in their negotiations with Trump.

Same thing?  Will have the same horrible outcome?  I don't think so.  Does anyone think Trump will look the other way and forget out while this fizzles and leave it to his successors to deal with?  I don't think so.  Trump wants this, success here makes him a historic figure and success here makes him more likely to succeed on other issues, Iran, China and ally trade for examples.  He is likely to be relentless until this is done.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #443 on: June 13, 2018, 05:08:07 PM »
Key Point:  Strong sanctions in place and staying in place, with option to go Genghis Khan.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #444 on: June 14, 2018, 06:46:00 AM »
Key Point:  Strong sanctions in place and staying in place, with option to go Genghis Khan.

Agreed.

Jim Talent, a defense hawk Republican Senator, said this morning that China is on board, wants this to work, meaning (he believes) China will support the whole Trump effort with North Korea.  If true, that is quite different than their back stabbing of all previous efforts.  If true, this can succeed.  We will see in their actions.

I also wondered during Trump's bizarre support of Russia to re-join 'G7', nonsensical on the face of it, if he was teasing Russia to not undermine his efforts with NK.  Russia is also a bigger world player with its nukes if fewer other rogue nations have them.  Like China, Russia's nuclear clout drops as Japan and the whole region goes nuclear to defend against the NK threat.

Accepting a nuclear North Korea means rejection (permanently) of non-proliferation and a forever more dangerous globe.  It won't be solved later if it isn't solved now.  This requires support of a few key players and is FAR more important than a mostly meaningless communique photograph with (failing) European placeholders.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
All true.  There are plenty of reasons China should side with us and not because we show weakness to them but because we show strength and resolve.

http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-real-summit/
Now, with Singapore behind us, China is ready to ease the pressure.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-china/china-suggests-north-korea-sanctions-relief-as-trump-kim-meet-idUSKBN1J80F5]
That cannot happen if denuclearization is to succeed.

Let's increase Xi's blood pressure a little. There are plenty of options. For starters, kill the defense sequester. In addition to conducting freedom of navigation operations, penalize China for militarizing islands in the South China Sea. Levy tariffs. Sell the F-35 to Taiwan. Warn the region that, if negotiations with Kim fail, America may be forced to reintroduce the tactical nuclear missiles that were removed from the Korean peninsula in 1991.

Will China protest, and U.S. doves cry? Of course they will.



Mike Pompeo lays out the plan and the options for Xi Jinping
-----------------------------
China can take a number of bad things from their perspective off the table, like us selling F-35's to Taiwan and Japan going nuclear during Trump's presidency, by holding the line with us right now against rogue N.K.

Historic Moment: If everyone acts decisively in their own best interest right now, the NK nuclear threat gets eliminated and "The Korean War" is officially over.  Enough Nobels for everyone to get one, like Al Gore's movie crew received.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #446 on: June 15, 2018, 11:20:03 AM »
Yes.

I suspect Trump's references to someday US troops leaving South Korea is part of the price with China.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Re: North and South Korea
« Reply #447 on: June 17, 2018, 04:10:00 AM »
Trump, Pompeo Offer Conflicting Versions of North Korea Talks
President says he has solved the threat in Pyongyang, while his secretary of state cites ‘risks’
What Comes Next After the Trump-Kim Summit?
After the historic meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, The Wall Street Journal's Gerald F. Seib asks: Who might be in the spotlight over the next couple of months? Photo: Getty
By Jessica Donati and
Louise Radnofsky
Updated June 15, 2018 4:09 p.m. ET
110 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s assertion Friday that he has “solved” the North Korean nuclear-weapons threat again diverged from how Secretary of State Mike Pompeo depicted the outcome of this week’s summit between Mr. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Mr. Pompeo, in meetings in South Korea and China after the summit, said much work remains before North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons and told Chinese officials on Thursday that “there are still risks we won’t achieve that.”

Mr. Trump’s claim on Friday, in remarks to reporters at the White House, echoed Twitter messages he sent earlier in the week after his summit with Mr. Kim in Singapore, when he said: “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” The view also has been disputed by some U.S. experts on diplomacy with North Korea.

Mr. Trump’s remarks have contrasted with views expressed by Mr. Pompeo, who is in charge of driving the diplomatic process forward after the Singapore meeting. The conflicting public statements risk sending mixed signals that set back the process, some say.

“What [Trump] may have done is undermined his leverage for solving the problem,” said Robert Einhorn, a former U.S. negotiator on North Korea’s missile programs. “Secretary Pompeo and State Department are playing a responsible role in not exaggerating what has been achieved and not minimizing the challenges ahead.”

Mr. Pompeo engaged in a flurry of diplomacy since the summit, traveling to China and South Korea to drum up support among regional players. Late on Thursday night, he tweeted that on his final day on the road, he had met two presidents, held four bilateral meetings and met with embassy teams, “A great day for American diplomacy.”

Meeting with South Korean officials in Seoul on Thursday, Mr. Pompeo said: “It could be the case that our effort will not work, but we are determined to … reset the conditions for North Korea’s participation in the community of nations.”

The State Department, asked about the contrasting assessments, said, “The President made clear he did not expect we could solve all issues in one meeting.”

Mr. Trump’s assertions about solving the nuclear threat from North Korea have come under criticism this week for giving China an incentive to loosen its enforcement of international sanctions against North Korea. The president has conceded that Beijing may already be relenting on hard-won U.N. sanctions.

Both Republicans and Democrats have said that the U.S. should continue its policy of maximum pressure until North Korea proves it is dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

Mr. Pompeo presented a measured vision of the process ahead, telling reporters on Thursday that the modalities for verifying whether North Korea is holding up its side of the bargain were just “beginning to develop.”

The top U.S. diplomat also countered criticism that the joint statement signed by Messrs. Kim and Trump was scant on detail and that it failed to define the goal of the talks as being complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. The document didn’t reflect the “great deal of work done” already, Mr. Pompeo told reporters.

Mr. Trump on Friday also continued to draw attention by praising Mr. Kim in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” Mr. Trump said: “He speaks and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same.”

After the interview, he told reporters that he had been kidding and added, “You don’t understand sarcasm.”

Asked about North Korean human-rights abuses perpetrated by Mr. Kim, Mr. Trump said, “I can’t speak to that.”

It wasn’t clear if this contradicted an earlier White House statement that said the issue was raised in the meeting.

Mr. Trump also indicated that he planned to call North Korean officials over the weekend but didn’t elaborate.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
WSJ: Troops for Nukes Trade?
« Reply #448 on: June 17, 2018, 09:02:30 PM »
A Troops for Nukes Trade?
U.S. forces in South Korea do far more than protect Seoul.
U.S. and South Korean army soldiers pose on a floating bridge on the Hantan river during a joint military exercise in this 2015 file photo.
U.S. and South Korean army soldiers pose on a floating bridge on the Hantan river during a joint military exercise in this 2015 file photo. Photo: Ahn Young-joon/Associated Press
By The Editorial Board
June 17, 2018 3:33 p.m. ET
36 COMMENTS

President Trump sowed confusion in Asia last week when he called U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises “very provocative.” He suspended them until further notice and mused that he’d eventually like to bring all U.S. troops in Korea home. North Korea, Russia and China were pleased—American allies not so much.

“We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money,” Mr. Trump said in Singapore, but which exercises does he mean? Vice President Mike Pence met with GOP Senators last week and suggested that Mr. Trump meant two annual combined exercises, the Ulchi Freedom Guardian in August and the Foal Eagle in late winter or early spring. But the Pentagon hasn’t confirmed that, and U.S. allies were caught off guard.

Mr. Pence’s spokeswoman later said regular training exercises and exchanges would continue, which is essential. The U.S. and South Koreans are constantly working to sharpen their skills in using weapons and responding to enemy tactics. This includes amphibious landings, parachute drops and responding to North Korean artillery. Stopping those drills would be military malpractice.

Canceling the two giant exercises will also reduce readiness, since they are timed to coincide with North Korea’s exercises and involve allied troops and U.S. forces from other theaters. Mr. Trump made the offer as a unilateral concession, but it’s notable that Kim Jong Un has offered no comparable military gesture. Returning three Americans his government took as hostages and promising to return veterans’ remains aren’t threat-reducing.

If Mr. Trump wants to remove provocations from the peninsula, how about asking Kim to pull North Korean forces back from the Demilitarized Zone and take Seoul out of artillery range? That would justify the exercise cancellation as a goodwill offer.

Beyond the exercises is Mr. Trump’s interest in using U.S. troops in South Korea as a negotiating tool in nuclear talks. U.S. forces working alongside a democratic ally aren’t the same as the illegal development of nuclear weapons by a state sponsor of terrorism.

Mr. Trump seems to think the South Koreans are getting a free ride on the U.S. taxpayer, but that’s false. Nearly all of the 28,500 U.S. troops on the peninsula have begun moving to Camp Humphreys, a giant new U.S. Army base south of Seoul. The base cost some $11 billion to build and South Korea paid more than $10 billion. Seoul also pays for roughly half of the operating costs of U.S. forces in the country.

Then there’s the larger strategic picture in East Asia. U.S. forces don’t merely deter a North Korean invasion of South Korea. They also prevent China, which has considerable economic sway over Seoul, from exerting more political control over Seoul’s foreign policy. The troops are also a forward deployment to protect regional democracies like Japan and Taiwan, and the U.S. alliance with Japan is crucial to containing China’s ambition to dominate the Western Pacific.

The good news is that Congress is waking up to Mr. Trump’s troops-for-nukes predilections. Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska added a sense of the Senate amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that says “the significant removal of United States military forces from the Korean Peninsula is a non-negotiable item as it relates to the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis called his counterparts in South Korea and Japan Thursday to reaffirm America’s “ironclad defense commitments” and “determination to maintain the readiness of its forces in the region.” But with Mr. Trump you never know.

U.S. deployments overseas are part of a global strategy of alliances to deter war, prevent the emergence of a dominant regional power like China, and keep threats as far as possible from the U.S. homeland. The size and nature of U.S. forces in Korea can be rethought if North Korea completely and credibly gives up its nuclear program and ceases to threaten the South. But in the meantime U.S. forces should not be a chit in a trade with Kim Jong Un.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Troops for Nukes Trade?
« Reply #449 on: June 18, 2018, 08:03:09 AM »
"If Mr. Trump wants to remove provocations from the peninsula, how about asking Kim to pull North Korean forces back from the Demilitarized Zone and take Seoul out of artillery range?"

I would assume all of that is on the table.

"Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska added a sense of the Senate amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that says “the significant removal of United States military forces from the Korean Peninsula is a non-negotiable item as it relates to the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea."

The Senate doing its job here is a good thing for Trump, strengthens his hand in negotiations.  If NK wants a peace treaty with the US that isn't repealed with executive order of his successor or by Trump himself, that goes through the Senate.  Kim Jung Un knows that.

There will be no peace treaty that doesn't allow a US second strike if NK strikes the US or allies first.  OTOH, this let's-keep-things-the-way-they-are mentality is also dangerous; it led to where we are now.

If Congress wants to strengthen Trump's hand, they should pass and hand him authorization to make first strike attacks against N.K. including the Dear Leader palaces at any time that the President alone determines NK is not faithfully and expediently proceeding toward 'complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization'.  That would answer the only unknown in the whole complex equation, Why would Un give up his nukes.