Comments on: Trump calls Kim’s bluff and finesses him

By: Tim Turner

Tim Turner — Fri, 25 May 2018 06:20:47 +0000

This is, of course, the correct thing to do.

By: Richard Saunders

Richard Saunders — Fri, 25 May 2018 06:04:02 +0000

Thanks, GB, glad you liked it. There’s no question in my mind that the relaxing the sanctions on ZTE was a direct response to China’s purported pressure on L’il Kim. Trump noted, in one of his off-hand lawn pressers, that the Norks changed their tune after a surprise and unpublicized meeting between Rocketman and Xi. Don’t be surprised if the sanctions against ZTE suddenly spring back to life.

By: I R A Darth Aggie

I R A Darth Aggie — Fri, 25 May 2018 04:08:49 +0000

Trump also reminded Rocketman that I have a very large stick with which to deal with you should you act out.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Fri, 25 May 2018 03:28:16 +0000

Richard Saunders,

How apropos. I’m not a fan of Rogers but “The Gambler” and “Lucille” are truly memorable songs.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Fri, 25 May 2018 03:26:08 +0000

parker,

I agree that China does not want to get into a nuclear war with America. However, IMO they believe that once the balance of power has shifted, when push comes to shove, we’ll be the ones backing down.

Plus, if a more docile N.K. is what they want, why let things get to this point? Is it reasonable to imagine that China didn’t long ago foresee where this road would lead? The Chinese have been enabling the Norks pursuit of nuclear ICBMs for what 50 years? Which begs the question; what purpose does a nuclear ICBM capable N.K. serve for China?

I’ve wrestled with that question and can come up with only one practical possibility. Leverage.

IMO, the Norks overriding societal goal is reunification of Korea under the North. It explains all of their actions.

Nuclear ICBM capability is a game changer. It’s the one thing that could prevent US interference in the event of an invasion of the South by the North.

So too with China and Taiwan. But of course, China already has that capability and has yet to place that card on the table… which is where the Norks come into play. They are the pawn China is employing to establish precedent.

That precedent being nuclear blackmail.

We might doubt that China would actually threaten innocent populations but no one will doubt Kim’s intent. Once Kim obtains an arsenal of nuclear ICBMs, he won’t launch a suicidal attack upon the US. He’s a monster but he’s not an idiot. Nor is the N.K. leadership that supports him.

Instead, he’ll threaten to immolate multiple regional population centers as a deterrent to our interference when he attacks the South. And, we have no way to defend or prevent a N.K. nuclear ICBM attack on regional population centers. Think 150 MILLION innocent hostages…

I can’t imagine Congress agreeing to risk that many people’s lives. Nor can I imagine a President risking both those lives and certain impeachment if the worst happens. It’s a no win scenario for the US. No matter what happens we get the blame.

IF successful, the Chinese have a clearly established path forward to Taiwan, unchallenged regional dominance and global ‘influence’.

If unsuccessful, China has risked little.

By: Richard Saunders

Richard Saunders — Fri, 25 May 2018 01:32:01 +0000

You got to know when to hold ’em,
Know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealing’s done.

— Kenny Rogers, 1978

By: Tuvea

Tuvea — Fri, 25 May 2018 00:29:10 +0000

Yes indeed. All negotiations can be considered ‘games’.

In mathematics study of such problems is called, appropriately enough, Game Theory.

By: om

om — Fri, 25 May 2018 00:18:01 +0000

Trusting Obama didn’t work out for Quadaffi, being fearful of what Bush might havce done kept Quadaffi alive and in power after Saddam was swinging. Obama’s “handling” of Lybia didn’t work out well for Quadaffi or for the Middle East and North Aftica.

By: steve walsh

steve walsh — Fri, 25 May 2018 00:04:54 +0000

This is fun to watch unfold. Both parties are good and clever. I would not be surprised to learn the reference to Libya was done to test Kim, to learn, or confirm, from his response what he values. Trump knows concessions will have to be made, he wants to figure out which ones will get the best return.

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 25 May 2018 00:04:04 +0000

I’m with Purdie and Geoffrey Britain: mentioning Libya was idiotic.