Spanningen op het Koreaanse schiereiland #22 Covfefe 2 missiles

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 11:48 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Onzin, Trump heeft werkelijk geen idee waar ie mee bezig is.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 11:40 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Neuh, China 1 - NK 0 - VS 0

China heeft laten weten nooit de aanvaller te steunen, dat heeft de beide kleuters even op hun plaats gezet.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 11:55 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Dit is een verkrampte onderbuik reactie.

Trump weet heel goed waarmee hij bezig is. Een duidelijke rode lijn trekken die (in tegenstelling tot zijn slappe voorganger) de andere partijen wel degelijk serieus nemen. China bond in. Nu NK. Dan doe je uitstekend werk als president van Amerika.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 11:40 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Neuh, China 1 - NK 0 - VS 0

China heeft laten weten nooit de aanvaller te steunen, dat heeft de beide kleuters even op hun plaats gezet.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:08 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Niemand neemt Trump serieus, zelfs Noord-Korea niet.

Dat kan ook niet met een malloot die steeds het tegenovergestelde tweet van wat tot dan toe het beleid was en wat zijn ondergeschikten zeggen.

De vent is een clown en by far de slechtste POTUS ooit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:12 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar neemt NK Trump wel serieus want ze blazen hun voorspelde aanval af. Dat heet in nette bewoordingen inbinden. Totaal serieus te noemen.

Trump kreeg voor elkaar wat zijn voorgangers nalieten. China via getekende VN-sancties partij laten kiezen en Kim voor de internationale wereld een toontje lager laten zingen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:13 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Nee man, dat lag toch niet aan Trump. Dat moet je toch ook wel kunnen zien?

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:15 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja, dergelijke reacties kun je ook verwachten van al die anti-Trumpies. Moet ik daar nog serieus op ingaan?

NK bindt in na de harde bewoordingen van Trump en natuurlijk heeft Trump daar zelf niets mee van doen. Zo simplistisch. Alsof een dreinende kleuter zijn snoepje niet krijgt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:18 schreef DustPuppy het volgende:

[..]

Harde bewoordingen van China en Mattis, inderdaad. Bijna goed.

Ik snap echt serieus niet hoe men dat niet kan inzien.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:25 schreef remlof het volgende:
Noord-Korea heeft trouwens nooit gezegd dat ze Guam gaan aanvallen.

Alleen dat ze vier raketten 30 tot 40 km uit de kust van Guam (dus buiten de territoriale wateren van 22km) willen laten neerkomen.

Dat is een flinke provocatie, maar zeker geen aanval.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:30 schreef Infection het volgende:

[..]

Ok, en nu?

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:31 schreef remlof het volgende:

[..]

Is het allemaal niet zo dramatisch als het wordt gebracht, alsof we op de rand van een kernoorlog staan ofzo.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:26 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

China.

Die heeft zich netjes laten inbinden door Trump door mede de VN sancties tegen NK te tekenen. China weet drommels goed dat het niet van beide walletjes kan blijven eten en dat Trump zich niets van China zal aantrekken als NK aanvalt. Trump heeft juist openlijk de druk op China opgevoerd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:25 schreef remlof het volgende:
Noord-Korea heeft trouwens nooit gezegd dat ze Guam gaan aanvallen.

Alleen dat ze vier raketten 30 tot 40 km uit de kust van Guam (dus buiten de territoriale wateren van 22km) willen laten neerkomen.

Dat is een flinke provocatie, maar zeker geen aanval.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:56 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

En alleen dat ze gingen nadenken of ze dat zouden gaan doen.

Trump is bruut getrollt door die gasten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 13:02 schreef Ulx het volgende:
De VS weet nu nog steeds niets over de capaciteiten van de raketten. NK weet dat Trump bluft met zijn fire en fury bullshit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:56 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

En alleen dat ze gingen nadenken of ze dat zouden gaan doen.

Trump is bruut getrollt door die gasten.

quote:

The United States has insisted for decades that it will never accept a nuclear-armed North Korea — but now some national security experts say it's time to rethink that stance.

The debate over the once-unthinkable option has sharpened in recent weeks as a growing number of security experts, former spies and ex-diplomats say North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and advancing missile force have progressed too far to make disarming it a realistic goal.

Instead, they say, the U.S. should focus on containing Kim Jong Un's regime, as it did with Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s China when they went nuclear. In those cases, the U.S. used the threat of overwhelming retaliation to deter them from using their weapons, then later offered incentives for the USSR and China to limit or reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

President Donald Trump’s White House advisers disagree — most prominently national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who argued Sunday that "classical deterrence theory" won't work with a regime that "engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people."

But a growing number of people inside and outside the government who have dealt directly with North Korea believe Washington must come to terms with the likelihood that Kim’s government won’t give up its nuclear arsenal, which it sees as its insurance policy against foreign aggression. That means the United States and its key Asian allies must develop a strategy to keep a lid on North Korea’s nuclear threat, preferably before it fully masters the ability to threaten the U.S. mainland.

"The year started with North Korea saying they were going to have this capability, and Trump saying essentially, 'You're not,'" said former U.S. Ambassador Robert Gallucci, who held informal talks with North Korean diplomats late last year. "Are the North Koreans so different and nondeterrable? It is a question on which war and peace will depend."

It has long been American policy, dating back at least to the early 1990s, that the United States could not accept a nuclear North Korea. Washington has relied on steadily punitive international sanctions to try to punish Pyongyang and hamstring its efforts since a 1994 agreement aimed at halting its development of nuclear weapons unraveled and North Korea in 2006 conducted the first of five atomic bomb tests.

The standoff has come to a head in recent weeks as North Korea tested a series of missiles with longer ranges — including those believed capable of hitting the United States — and U.S. intelligence agencies reported it has made progress in miniaturizing its nuclear warheads to fit on those missiles. Trump last week threatened North Korea with "fire and fury" if it continues on its destabilizing course.

The debate about disarming the North has become more pointed in recent days as some administration officials have sought a diplomatic solution, including calls for negotiations from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis. But the Trump administration has stuck with its insistence that North Korea give up its nukes, despite suggestions from others that it's time for a new approach.

In a New York Times op-ed last week, Obama-era national security adviser Susan Rice outlined a "pragmatic" strategy in which the U.S. would "rely on traditional deterrence" against North Korea while tightening sanctions and beefing up its defenses.

When asked Sunday on ABC about those comments, McMaster replied: "No, she’s not right.

"And I think the reason she’s not right is that the classical deterrence theory — how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea?" he continued. "A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction? A regime that imprisons and murders anyone who seems to oppose that regime ... ?"

But others who have dealt directly with the North Korea threat and nuclear diplomacy disagreed.

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, responded to McMaster's arguments on Twitter by writing that "the regime HR is describing sounds a lot like Stalin's or Mao's, yet deterrence worked against these much more formidable foes."

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, went even further, telling CNN that "our thought process here ought to be on accepting it and trying to cap it or control it. But I think a denuclearized North Korea, I would love to see it, but I don't think it's in the cards.”

Significant questions exist, however, about what a containment strategy would look like.

Would North Korea agree to some international inspections of its nuclear facilities in return for security guarantees or better relations with Washington, as it briefly did in 1994? Would it be permitted to mount nuclear weapons on its missiles so that they are at the ready? Would South Korea and Japan feel compelled to develop nuclear arsenals of their own? How could the U.S. guarantee their security through so-called extended deterrence to prevent a nuclear breakout in the region without making Pyongyang too paranoid?

One leading D.C. foreign policy think tank's debate is emblematic of the larger conundrum.

A recent report published by the Brookings Institution concluded that "given the pace of North Korea’s advances and the risk that a nuclear-capable North Korean regime poses to the United States and its allies, the Trump administration should coalesce around a single coherent strategy for giving diplomacy with North Korea one last shot, all the while being prepared to accelerate efforts to strengthen deterrence if diplomacy fails." Another Brookings report, titled "Why deterring and containing North Korea is our least bad option," agreed.

However, yet another Brookings publication concluded it would be "deeply problematic" to try to contain and deter a nuclear Pyongyang, writing: "North Korea has a demonstrated track record of nuclear proliferation. A nuclear North Korea could sell or transfer nuclear material or technology to those who might be prepared to use it against the United States.

"At the same time," it added, "a nuclear-armed [North Korea] that harbors profound grievances against the United States, that has threatened to use its nuclear weapons against the United States, and that hopes to use its nuclear capabilities to blackmail its neighbors or the United States presents an unacceptable threat to America’s security."

The author of that report — Evans J.R. Revere, a senior fellow in East Asia policy studies — added in an interview that America's chief allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan, would probably find that state of affairs intolerable and seriously consider developing nuclear arms of their own.

"Is North Korea sufficiently like the Soviet Union and China using the same tools? If you actually have that conversation with the North Koreans, it is obvious to me that the North Koreans are keen to tell us they don't intend to play that game," said Revere, who met with North Korean officials at the United Nations in New York last month. "That's troubling. They become very dismissive of this. It says it is not prepared to be contained or deterred."

He said allowing North Korea to remain nuclear would also have serious consequences for broader international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970. In that treaty, the declared nuclear powers at the time pledged to work toward disarmament and agreed to international inspections, while non-nuclear nations agreed not to develop nuclear weapons.

North Korea left the treaty in 2003. Allowing it to re-enter as a nuclear power would damage efforts to persuade other noncomplying nuclear powers such as Pakistan, India and Israel to join, Revere said: "There is a lot of baggage here."

But others argue that North Korea has already, in fact, been deterred.

"It is not a crazy state or irrational. They are operating according to rationality — which is regime survival," said Robert Litwak, director of international security studies at the Wilson Center, another Washington think tank.

"North Korea has been a nuclear power since 2006, and they have posed a regional threat to Japan and South Korea essentially since that time," Litwak said. "The novel factor for the United States is that North Korea in the foreseeable future will be able to threaten the U.S. homeland with a nuclear strike."

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a D.C. advocacy group, agreed that "historically speaking" the North Koreans "have been deterred.

"They have had a conventional [military] capability that can wreak havoc across" the border on South Korea, Kimball said. "For the last decade they have been a nuclear-armed state with ballistic missiles. We have known they are capable of launching some sort of nuclear strike in response to an attack on North Korea."

Even some who believe that North Korea can be contained aren't quite ready to accept it as a nuclear power. They believe that the combination of new sanctions and offers of diplomatic recognition, trade and security guarantees — backed by a credible military threat — still might work to persuade Kim to surrender his nukes.

"There is a long way to go before we have the kind of vulnerability [from North Korea] we had [with] the Chinese or the Russians," said Gallucci, who was the chief U.S. negotiator with North Korea in 1994. "There is time for negotiations. This is not impossible to imagine. It is not some wild-ass concept."

Revere believes that more sanctions and covert action designed to stymie North Korea's nuclear and missile efforts must come before accepting a nuclear North Korea. Still, he said, tolerating North Korea's nuclear arsenal "may be where we end up because the alternatives are too horrible or difficult to think about — particularly the notion of using military force to end their program or possibly the regime.

"I'm not there yet."

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 augustus 2017 12:12 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Blijkbaar neemt NK Trump wel serieus want ze blazen hun voorspelde aanval af. Dat heet in nette bewoordingen inbinden. Totaal serieus te noemen.

Trump kreeg voor elkaar wat zijn voorgangers nalieten. China via getekende VN-sancties partij laten kiezen en Kim voor de internationale wereld een toontje lager laten zingen.