more from Outside the Beltway: In the wake of yesterday’s meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un, The New York Times has an interesting report this morning suggesting that the Trump Administration may be ready to give up the idea of an immediate commitment to denuclearization on the part of North Korea in new talks with DPRK negotiators that appear to be back on schedule . . . . If this report is accurate, and it’s worth noting that National Security Adviser John Bolton is denying that it is on Twitter, then it could mean that the Trump Administration is finally willing to acknowledge reality with regard to the negotiations with the DPRK that have been taking place ever since tensions on the peninsula began cooling down at the beginning of 2018. From that time until now, the Trump Administration has maintained that its goal in the talks with North Korea is an agreement that results in the DPRK giving up its nuclear arsenal and its entire nuclear research program. As I noted even before these U.S.-North Korean negotiations began last year, that is quite simply an unrealistic and, for the time being, an unachievable goal that will guarantee that negotiations will fail. After the Singapore Summit, President Trump claimed that North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat and his Administration claimed that Kim had agreed that the goal of future negotiations would be denuclearization along the lines that the United States was demanding. Very quickly after what amounted to a photo opportunity summit that had produced nothing in terms of substance, though, it became clear that this was not the case. Just two weeks after the summit, for example, it was reported that North Korea was increasing production of the fuel needed to make additional nuclear weapons and that it was concealing the existence of ongoing nuclear weapons research at secret facilities well hidden from both surveillance and, most likely, the ability of the United States to take the sites out in a military strike. Additionally, it became apparent in the days after the summit that the much-publicized destruction of the DPRK’s primary nuclear weapons test site, a much-hyped pre-summit event that was witnessed by American and other international journalists was much less than met the eye and that the site could easily be rebuilt if needed in the future. Weeks later, we learned that the DPRK had also begun work on the construction of new ballistic missiles at yet another secret site. Additionally, analysts who have seen satellite images say that the DPRK has made a second large nuclear reactor operational. This type of reactor is capable of making plutonium which is, of course, one of the main fuels used in the production of nuclear weapons. This new reactor can reportedly make four times as much plutonium as North Korea’s current reactor, which has been the source for the plutonium needed for its nuclear arsenal to date. Finally, as recently as September it was reported that North Korea was continuing to develop nuclear weapons at secret sites that may or may not be known to American intelligence. Obviously, these are not the actions that one would expect from a nation that had agreed to “denuclearization” in the sense of giving up their existing nuclear weapons program and existing arsenal of weapons. In addition to this, it has been apparent for some time, that the United States and North Korea are talking about two fundamentally different things when they talk about the idea of denuclearization. When the United States talks about “denuclearization,” it is principally referring to the idea that the goal of these current talks, indeed perhaps the only goal, is for the DPRK to give up its nuclear weapons, its weapons research program, and its ballistic missile program. Leaving aside the fact that the regime in Pyongyang is unlikely to do this simply because the existence of the nuclear arsenal they do have is perhaps the best deterrent available to guarantee the survival of the regime, this stands in stark contrast to what the North Koreans mean when they talk about “denuclearization.” For them, it means the removal of all American troops from South Korea if not the entire region, including Japan, and the lifting of the so-called nuclear umbrella that the United States has in place which essentially reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to any attack on its allies in Seoul, Tokyo, or elsewhere in the region. The North Koreans made this clear as recently as December and again in January of this year, but the Administration appears to have not gotten the message. As I have said before, there are things that could be accomplished if both the United States and North Korea approached these negotiations realistically. In that regard, the idea that the Administration might be willing to accept something short of full denuclearization could arguably be a step in the right direction. Tensions on the Korean peninsula, which have been on a razor’s edge since the end of the Korean War and ramped up significantly last year during the tit-for-tat exchanges that took place between President Trump and the North Korean leader, have calmed down significantly this year and making that more permanent would be a good thing. Additionally, more formal negotiations aimed at bringing the Korean War to a formal end should be pursued, as should agreements designed to ease the conventional arms standoff across the Demilitarized Zone. However, as I have noted before (see here and here), if the United States continues to insist that the ultimate goal of these talks is the idea that North Korea will give up its nuclear arsenal, then these talks are doomed to fail. This report in the Times is, perhaps, a sign that the United States may be willing to give up on the unachievable for now goal of denuclearization. If that’s the case then maybe, just maybe, these future talks might have a chance at succeeding. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-ready-to-give-up-denuclearization-in-north-korea-talks
Those are propaganda examples, some absurd examples. that's where the mass murder dictator stuff was made up. imo, the main stream media have zero credibility when it is 'news' on something they hate, never see, never know, never sell. If you haven't noticed it, too bad. Anyway, what's the body count for Kim? what's the body count for your every president? for every Israel president? should we make a complete list before labeling who is mass murder?
Ok, let's start that list. How many people would you say trump has killed? After all, he is a president.
The other idiot son is now blatantly lying... President Obama did not visit the DMZ in 2008. President Obama visited troops stationed in South Korea NEAR the DMZ in 2012 in advance of a 53-nation Nuclear Security Summit. The trump's can't do anything without lying. Link to Obama's visit (has the picture the other idiot son tweeted): https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/03/25/president-obama-south-korea
I am all for leaders of opposing nations meeting to ease tensions. I do understand Obama and previous adminstrations' position that meeting Kim without any concessions would only empower his regime. And I do understand that Trump is pretty much lying when he said that Obama wished he could have this meeting when the North Korean regime for the past 20 years have always desired a US president to have a face to face photo op opportunity. I do have to ask the Trump supporters here about their cognitive dissonance of supporting Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal that our intelligence community has stated they were abiding by while being angry at Trump critics who think Trump is giving too much in terms of legitimacy to Kim's regime without anything in return.
Seriously do you just oppose everything Trump? He is choking both regimes with sanctions and is willing to come to the table with either who wants to concede their strong stances. So I take it you are for paying Iran to play nice.
Is that what you think is happening with Iran? We've had crippling sanctions on Iran for how many years now before the Iran deal? The last administration actually found a way to have neutral IAEA inspectors have snap inspections while allowing Iranian citizens to be actually involved in Western markets, something that can actually improve the situation. Trump nixed the deal against the advice of our own intelligence community explicitly stating under sworn testimony in Congress that Iran is abiding by the deal. As a result, we were 10 minutes away from launching an attack and possibly starting a full fledged war with a country four times more powerful than Iraq. How do you see that as positive development? All motivations from Trump stem from appearance and vindictiveness. He pulled out of the Iran deal because the man who insulted him at a White House correspondents dinner, Obama, signed the Iran deal. He wants to meet with Kim because he wants to be seen as a "master negotiator who was the only US president who was able to meet the North Korean Dictator face to face" while trying to sell a false narrative that previous presidents wouldn't have been able to meet Kim if they desired.
How so? The nuclear scientists, engineers and intelligence community didn't think so. Maybe you have some better insight.
The inconsistency is obvious but not seen. Proponents of Iran deal, which focused on a very narrow goal, wasn’t distracted by Iran human right records, was not an all or nothing solution but one that had limits with monitoring to ensure compliance, should treat NK in a similar way. Opponent of the Iran deal, which did not like the narrow goal, was not happy about dealing with a regime with horrible human right records, was for an all or nothing solution, should treat NK in a similar way. But we are seeing the opposite toward NK among the Right while at the very same time they reject the Iran deal. And we are also seeing some of that among the Left while at the very same time they want to maintain the Iran deal. For me, I'm a supporter of the Iran deal and I have been a proponent of treating NK in a similar, realistic, and practical way. The big glaring problem is Trump has shown that he does not act in the interest of the US, but for himself. While his intention is selfish, the effect can still be objectively observed as an improving relationship that may lead to a deal. But of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some deals forth coming to personally benefit him.
