North Korea threatens to withdraw from summit with Trump

[TomSea]

To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes,  the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death.   There isn't anything the NORKs fear more.   The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive.  Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival   

Absolutely, good posting.

[thackney]

To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes,  the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death.   There isn't anything the NORKs fear more.   The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive.  Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival   

I don't see pursuing nuclear weapons would have kept Gaddafi in power.  Correlation does not imply causation.

[Victoria33]

@Victoria33 this is why I told people they should give Trump credit for bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula and for "de-nuclearizing" the Norks until the ink is dry on the papers.
IMHO they agreed to the talks to stall in order to provide cover for something they are doing behind the scenes.

@txradioguy

That is exactly my thinking.  Kim has a plan; the US is just reacting to his plan.  Kim is in control of this.

[Sanguine]

@txradioguy

That is exactly my thinking.  Kim has a plan; the US is just reacting to his plan.  Kim is in control of this.

I don't think so, but time will tell.

[Jazzhead]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Understood, but the actor that needs to be convinced of that is Rocket Man.   He sees nukes as essential to ensuring his survival.  Only if he can be convinced that his regime can both survive and thrive by re-joining the rest of the world would he agree to give up nukes. 

[Oceander]

Good old NK rope-a-dope in action. 

[TomSea]

I don't see pursuing nuclear weapons would have kept Gaddafi in power.  Correlation does not imply causation.

He gave up his WMD program, hardly sounds like pursuing them but I'm not an expert on that time in history.

..........

Contact: Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy, (202) 463-8270 x102

Updated: January 2018

On December 19, 2003, long-time Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi stunned much of the world by renouncing Tripoli’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and welcoming international inspectors to verify that Tripoli would follow through on its commitment.

Following Gaddafi’s announcement, inspectors from the United States, United Kingdom, and international organizations worked to dismantle Libya’s chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its longest-range ballistic missiles. Washington also took steps toward normalizing its bilateral relations with Tripoli, which had essentially been cut off in 1981.

Libya’s decision has since been characterized as a model for other states suspected of developing WMD in noncompliance with their international obligations to follow. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker stated May 2, 2005 during the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that Libya’s choice “demonstrates that, in a world of strong nonproliferation norms, it is never too late to make the decision to become a fully compliant NPT state,” noting that Tripoli’s decision has been “amply rewarded.”

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology

He probably could have caused a lot of damage with what he had including chemical weapons and probably an inroad to some of the precious  minerals in Africa like yellow cake uranium.  Seems pretty simple to me.

[thackney]

Understood, but the actor that needs to be convinced of that is Rocket Man.   He sees nukes as essential to ensuring his survival.  Only if he can be convinced that his regime can both survive and thrive by re-joining the rest of the world would he agree to give up nukes.

I would guess he sees nuclear weapons as a way to grow his power and economic strength.  That may be a subtle difference.

[TomSea]

@txradioguy

That is exactly my thinking.  Kim has a plan; the US is just reacting to his plan.  Kim is in control of this.

It's a lot better than the appeasement of Bush 43, Clinton and Obama... and I think they may even include Bush 41 per none other than John Bolton.  Those former presidents caused this mess. Something is happening and that is good.

And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to note, how Gaddafi gave his weapons up; and he was thrown out of power some time later.

Crickets if we are going to hear these Presidents criticized, at least the Republican ones.



@Victoria33

[Restored]

My theory is that all the nuke stuff was done for and by Iran. After they got it working and lost the site, there was no point continuing.

The US and South Korea and holding joint exercises so this is the normal NK response although tempered slightly this year.

[Restored]

And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to note, how Gaddafi gave his weapons up; and he was thrown out of power some time later.

My guess is that Gaddafi saw he was losing control to the extremists and needed help. It was just too late for him.

[txradioguy]

It's a lot better than the appeasement of Bush 43, Clinton and Obama... and I think they may even include Bush 41 per none other than John Bolton.  Those former presidents caused this mess. Something is happening and that is good.

And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to note, how Gaddafi gave his weapons up; and he was thrown out of power some time later.

Crickets if we are going to hear these Presidents criticized, at least the Republican ones.



@Victoria33

It was Bush 43 and his war on terror that forced Gaddafi to give up his nukes.  He didn't want to be the next Saddam being pulled out of a hole.  He was working with us to identify other bad actors in the region.

Obama and his drive to put radical Islam into every nation in North Africa and the Middle East is the reason Gaddafi is dead and the country in turmoil.

Bush was tough on the Norks too.  His predecessor and his successor were the ones that turned the blind eye to all the illegal crap the North was doing.

[txradioguy]

My guess is that Gaddafi saw he was losing control to the extremists and needed help. It was just too late for him.

See my post above.

[XenaLee]

Well gee..... who here is shocked at this latest revelation?   It's the ssdd pattern of NK. 

[XenaLee]

@Victoria33 this is why I told people they should give Trump credit for bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula and for "de-nuclearizing" the Norks until the ink is dry on the papers.

IMHO they agreed to the talks to stall in order to provide cover for something they are doing behind the scenes.

And.... the only reason why the Norks stopped nuke testing is because the testing site collapsed.  Did they really think the rest of the world wouldn't figure that one out?   

[txradioguy]

And.... the only reason why the Norks stopped nuke testing is because the testing site collapsed.  Did they really think the rest of the world wouldn't figure that one out?   

Probably not.

[TomSea]

I'm a big George W. Bush fan, so I really support Trump in defeating ISIS, both in Iraq and to a lesser extent because we are not allied with Assad, in Syria as well.  Trump salvaged Dubya's foreign intervention.  Now, Trump has to deal with this other, but I have full confidence in him.

[aligncare]

L’l Kim woke up to the fact that Trump was holding all the cards going into the upcoming meeting and finally made a move to regain some leverage. Not to worry though, Trump has done this a million times in his career as a negotiator, knows how it all works and is prepared to handle things just fine.

After Trump makes him an offer he can’t refuse, L’l Kim will give up his nuclear ambitions – despite this last minute show of bravado.

Edited to say Kim knows Trump won’t flinch at pushing the button unlike previous presidents. Advantage – ‘dat man he crazy’ – Trump!

[Sanguine]

My two cents' worth (not sure it's even worth 10 cents):
1. Iran and NK have been working together to develop offensive nukes
2. Iran had a massive infusion of money in the recent past; they could easily support NK's efforts to develop nukes, begging the question: is Kim really suffering? (Obviously, whether or not his people are suffering is irrelevant to Kim.)
3. China is probably putting pressure on Kim to deescalate, and well may dislike the idea of Kim having usable nukes. 
4. Kim's nuclear mountain collapsed.  I doubt that this destroyed his program, unless his paranoia meant that he didn't have backups of all the data. 
5. Did his scientists die also?  In that case, it could well slow down any development.  If both 4 & 5 happened, it could pretty much end it for a long time.
6. Does Kim negotiate in good faith?  Using information from past Kims and this one the answer is clearly no.
7. Is this a real opportunity for making NK nukeless?  Yes, it very well could be. 

[GrouchoTex]

NK has done this repeatedly over the years, so this isn't a shock.
Standard operating procedure for those folks.
There is nothing anybody on our side had to do right or wrong to bring this about.
It's just the way they are.
It will be interesting to see what comes next.

[edpc]

It will be interesting to see what comes next.

Based on what was posted above, it seems obvious what will happen next. Trump will show up with an agreement he had written in Hangul, hands-free, with his member and Kim will love it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not surprising.  Also have read accounts (MSM though) that Kim has been stated that de-nuclearization is not on the table.

How foolish is the orange leader and his orange geese going to look if this is all true?

From potential Nobel Peace Prize to an episode of "Punk'd" in one easy lesson

Why does seem he is foolish?

Someone makes what seems a plausible overture to eliminate a conflict that has been occurring for over 65 years now, and you would rather just ignore the possibility to change things and be content with status quo?

The reasonable thing to do is exactly what Trump has said, and that is to be prepared to meet him under the conditions that have been prescribed.

[GrouchoTex]

Based on what was posted above, it seems obvious what will happen next. Trump will show up with an agreement he had written in Hangul, hands-free, with his member and Kim will love it.

I'm not sure what this means.

I'm not sure I want to know............

[IsailedawayfromFR]

To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes,  the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death.  There isn't anything the NORKs fear more.   The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive.  Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival   

There was no correlation whatsover between those two events.

How do you say there was?

[Jazzhead]

There was no correlation whatsover between those two events.

How do you say there was?

Perhaps not, but the point is that the "Libyan model" is being touted and the Libyan regime met its ignominious end.   That's hardly comfort to Kim,  who appears to base his regime's survival on the ability to deter the U.S. with nukes.   The point is that if Kim is going to give up his nukes,  he is going to have to be assured that his regime survives.  He doesn't want to suffer Gaddafi's fate. 

We have to understand that calls for regime change,  the garrisoning of tens of thousands of U.S. troops on Korean soil,  and active, on-going military exercises with South Korean forces are precisely why Kim won't give up his nukes.   We paint him as a crazy man, but he is a rational actor.   We threaten his survival, and we are going to have to offer him an unprecedented deal to get him to move on the nuclear issue.