What to do with North Korea...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

whembly wrote:

To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.

Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?

Yet, the same people (Republicans) are again claiming we need to do the same thing in Iran?

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
whembly wrote:

To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.

Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?

No.

Yet, the same people (Republicans) are again claiming we need to do the same thing in Iran?

Evidently many (ie, IAEA) saying it's not working.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Evidently many (ie, IAEA) saying it's not working.

Those sound a lot like weasel words. Who specifically, aside from president clownshoes?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iaea-says-iran-upholding-deal-as-trump-looks-to-decertify-it/

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/2114595/iaea-chief-says-iran-complying-nuclear-deal

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/iran-complying-with-nuclear-deal-iaea/article19829171.ece

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/351853-tillerson-urging-trump-to-certify-irans-compliance-with-nuclear-deal

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.814629

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/352463-top-general-says-iran-complying-with-nuclear-deal

The UN atomic agency chief on Monday affirmed Iran’s commitment to a 2015 nuclear deal, in a statement that comes as the US has argued that Tehran was violating the “spirit” of the accord, with US President Donald Trump looking to “decertify” it.

“I can state that the nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under the (nuclear agreement) are being implemented,” International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said in prepared remarks during a conference in Rome.

Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium — used for peaceful purposes, but when further processed for a weapon — did not exceed the agreed limit of 300 kilograms (661 pounds), the report said.

It added that Iran “has not pursued the construction of the Arak… reactor” — which could give it weapons-grade plutonium — and has not enriched uranium above low purity levels.

This is salient to the thread at hand. The blatant misrepresentation and base dishonestly on display with Iran means that there is literally zero reason for North Korea to attempt any kind of deal with the US.

**Iron_Captain**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Evidently many (ie, IAEA) saying it's not working.

Those sound a lot like weasel words. Who specifically, aside from president clownshoes?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iaea-says-iran-upholding-deal-as-trump-looks-to-decertify-it/

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/2114595/iaea-chief-says-iran-complying-nuclear-deal

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/iran-complying-with-nuclear-deal-iaea/article19829171.ece

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/351853-tillerson-urging-trump-to-certify-irans-compliance-with-nuclear-deal

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.814629

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/352463-top-general-says-iran-complying-with-nuclear-deal

The UN atomic agency chief on Monday affirmed Iran’s commitment to a 2015 nuclear deal, in a statement that comes as the US has argued that Tehran was violating the “spirit” of the accord, with US President Donald Trump looking to “decertify” it.

“I can state that the nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under the (nuclear agreement) are being implemented,” International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said in prepared remarks during a conference in Rome.

Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium — used for peaceful purposes, but when further processed for a weapon — did not exceed the agreed limit of 300 kilograms (661 pounds), the report said.

It added that Iran “has not pursued the construction of the Arak… reactor” — which could give it weapons-grade plutonium — and has not enriched uranium above low purity levels.

This is salient to the thread at hand. The blatant misrepresentation and base dishonestly on display with Iran means that there is literally zero reason for North Korea to attempt any kind of deal with the US.

Yeah, Russia could have told them the same thing. The US will lie about everything and rarely keeps its word, not when it is a promise and not even when it is an official treaty.

**whembly**

Oh?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iaea-chief-calls-for-clarity-on-disputed-section-of-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKCN1C12AN

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s chief urged major powers on Tuesday to clarify a part of their nuclear deal with Iran dealing with technology that could be used to develop an atom bomb, an area Russia said the agency should leave alone.

The 2015 pact between six major powers and Iran restricts its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Compliance with those curbs is being verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has defended the deal as a major step forward while declining to comment specifically on criticism of it by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called the accord - reached by predecessor Barack Obama - “an embarrassment to the United States”.

But while Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has infuriated Tehran by saying the IAEA should widen its inspections to include military sites, diplomats say Russia has been trying to restrict the agency’s role by arguing it has no authority to police a broadly worded section of the deal.

That section bans “activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device”. It lists examples such as using computer models that simulate a nuclear bomb, or designing multi-point, explosive detonation systems.

Unlike many other parts of the deal, the provision, known as Section T, makes no mention of the IAEA or specifics of how it will be verified. Russia says that means the IAEA has no authority over it. Western powers and the agency disagree.

“Our tools are limited,” Amano told Reuters when asked if his agency had the means to verify Section T.

“In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T I don’t see any (such commitment).”

Amano said he hoped the parties to the agreement would discuss the issue in the Joint Commission, a forum created by the deal, adding that even a clearer definition of terms such as the technology referred to would be an improvement.

“More clarification would be helpful ... Russia has a different view. They believe that it is not the mandate of the IAEA. Others have different views and discussions are ongoing.”

DIPLOMACY

Trump has hinted that he may not recertify the agreement when it comes up for review by a mid-October deadline, in which case the U.S. Congress would have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the accord, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Amano repeated, however, that Iran was implementing its nuclear commitments under the deal. He said complementary access - often consisting of short-notice inspections carried out under the IAEA Additional Protocol, which Iran is implementing under the accord - was going smoothly.

“Complementary access in Iran is being undertaken without problem and the number of accesses is quite high,” he said.

When asked if a successful Iran deal could help encourage a political solution in nuclear-armed North Korea, to which the IAEA has no access, Amano said the two situations were quite different. But he added: “I also do not say that there’s no comparison, because in the JCPOA’s case, diplomacy worked.”

Further analysis:

Omri Ceren writes to comment on the Reuters story by Francois Murphy reporting that “IAEA chief calls for clarity on disputed section of Iran nuclear deal.” Omri’s commentary on the story — please check it out — should serve as a preview of coming attractions. He writes:

This is pretty close to game over on certification.

Condition 1 of Corker-Cardin requires the president to certify “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement” [a]. One part of the agreement – Annex 1, Section T – prohibits Iran from conducting certain “activities which could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device” [b].

The IAEA has not been able to verify Iran is implementing Section T because the relevant activities would be occurring on military sites and Iran has barred the IAEA from inspecting those sites [c][d][e]. IAEA officials say they won’t even ask for access because they know Iran would say no and it would give the Trump administration an “excuse” on the deal [f].

The policy community has known about this failure for months: in August nuclear experts from FDD and ISIS published a report that concluded “it is likely that some of the conditions in Section T are not currently being met and may in fact be violated by Iran” [g].

Yesterday IAEA chief Amano confirmed the IAEA has indeed been unable to verify Iran is implementing Section T….Here are the Amano quotes:

“Our tools are limited,” Amano told Reuters when asked if his agency had the means to verify Section T. “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T I don’t see any (such commitment).” Amano said he hoped the parties to the agreement would discuss the issue in the Joint Commission.

Advocates of the Iran deal respond that the IAEA hasn’t found any Iranian violations [h]. 1st, that’s not relevant for certification: condition 1 requires the president to certify Iran has implemented all parts of the agreement, not that Iran hasn’t been caught cheating on the parts they have implemented. 2nd, the IAEA hasn’t caught Iran cheating because they haven’t been able to look where Iran is cheating: last week lawmakers on Senate Intelligence suggested to the Weekly Standard they’ve seen classified reports that Iran is violating the deal .

[a] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615/text
[b] https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245318.pdf
[c] https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/69753/us-demand-for-military-inspections-rejected
[d] http://kayhan.ir/en/news/42609
[e] http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=1396052200040
[f] https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1BB1JC-OCATP
[g] http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/verifying-section-t-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal
[h] http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2017/sep/14/debate-nuclear-deal-us
[i ] http://www.weeklystandard.com/cotton-on-iran-nuclear-deal-i-simply-do-not-see-how-we-can-certify/article/2009716

The agency has been unable to verify that Tehran is implementing the deal in it's entirety. The regime has barred inspectors from inspecting many military sites.

Even Senate intelligence has surmised that they have evidence that Iran is violate the rules [i]as written. Hence why I think there are some debate, that does have merits imo, that we ought to stay in the Iran Deal and try to enforce it to the letter of the agreement. The problem with enforcement, is that it takes the other countries to agree with enforcement... you think Russia will go with that? Hey... we've been told that there's this love affair between Trump and Russia, so who knows... might happen? Shall we hold our breath?

By hey... Iran got billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief Tehran has gotten under this deal, including, strangely pallets stacked with cash worth billions.

If *I* were North Korea, I'd want the same thing that Iran got. Seems like Iran is getting best of both worlds: Sanction relief for a toothless nuke accord.

I'd rather be forking honest and just paid Iran (and potentially NK) for all of their nuke stuff. Make 'em fabulously wealthy... sure, it'd be expensive but at least WW3 doesn't come close to fruition.

**d-usa**

If the "stacks of Billions" bs comes up again we can lock this thread because this story has been covered in every single locked politics thread.

Edit: and it has gak all to do with North Korea.

**whembly**

EDIT: kinda side comment, but man, the Institute for Science and International Security has a really unfortunate acronym eh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

Edit: and it has gak all to do with North Korea.

...eh, tangently. My point was I don't think that happens w/o the Iran deal.... and the makeup of the Iran deal certainly germane to this thread as it would be the absolute starting point for North Korea.

**Spetulhu**

whembly wrote:
By hey... Iran got billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief Tehran has gotten under this deal, including, strangely pallets stacked with cash worth billions.

Well, that seems to be reparations from a decades-old failed weapons deal, in effect Iranian money frozen when the US-backed puppet Shah was overthrown. If there's no sanctions left to freeze it the money should be payed out, no? Keeping your agreements is one of the key factors in making a nation a trustworthy international dealer.

That goes for Iran too. They have gotten some sweet foreign currency and trade for the nuke deal, and they want to keep that up. Breaking the deal would cost them, the people might actually get angry with the regime and oh, it would be a proper cause for much harsher sanctions or even military strikes. And they are heavily outclassed.

**d-usa**

Here is what happened:

- Pre-revolution Iran gave us money for arms.
- The revolution happened and we decided not to deliver said arms to the new regime.
- We did however decide to keep the money they paid us.
- We agreed to mutual arbitration on what to do with that money.
- It was arbitrated that Iran’s money is actually Iran’s, since we never delivered what they paid us for.
- The US managed to take the money it had already agreed to pay back, and get something else in return for it simply by giving Iran’s money to Iran.

According to some, the US got royally fethed in that deal.

Every locked thread has had this exact same conversation.

I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Here is what happened:

- Pre-revolution Iran gave us money for arms.
- The revolution happened and we decided not to deliver said arms to the new regime.
- We did however decide to keep the money they paid us.
- We agreed to mutual arbitration on what to do with that money.
- It was arbitrated that Iran’s money is actually Iran’s, since we never delivered what they paid us for.
- The US managed to take the money it had already agreed to pay back, and get something else in return for it simply by giving Iran’s money to Iran.

According to some, the US got royally fethed in that deal.

Every locked thread has had this exact same conversation.

Because you seek out "one sentence" in attempt to derail the whole thread in attempt to re-litigate the "in's and out's" of said statement just to prove my opinion contains "wrong thoughts".

I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.

I didn't say Trump didn't start a Twitter war? Jebus that's what he does! You're projecting quite a bit.

But, to get the conversation back to North Korea, they would probably want the same Iran Deal if there's going to be any deal. The US backing out of that isn't going to change it... as it buys them time to do what they want. (ie, kick the can further down the road).

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.

Same, and same. The heckler's veto always works here.

Anyway, I don't think any deal whatsoever is possible with North Korea, and if I were NK, I sure wouldn't bother attempting a deal with the US, which has as of recent shown very little interest in honoring it's word. What's the point of making a deal with Rex Tillerson, who might not be speaking on behalf of the POTUS, and who might be countermanded at any point?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I had hope for the return of a politics thread after the (mostly) civil gun thread. Then we got the return of the same bs and hand waving away of facts today (Trump didn’t start a Twitter war and Corker is the one that was throwing a fit; we gave Iran bundles of cash), and I’m reminded why it’s a good thing that it is gone.

Same, and same. The heckler's veto always works here.

Seriously?

Anyway, I don't think any deal whatsoever is possible with North Korea, and if I were NK, I sure wouldn't bother attempting a deal with the US, which has as of recent shown very little interest in honoring it's word. What's the point of making a deal with Rex Tillerson, who might not be speaking on behalf of the POTUS, and who might be countermanded at any point?

Yeah... can't imagine that Tillerson would want to stay now because of that... in fact, I'm surprised he hasn't left already.

**Ouze**

My money is on Tillerson being gone within a month, and maybe as little as 2 weeks. I've read Mike Pompeo is being groomed for the role. How will that affect relations with NK? Pompeo seems like not much of a hawk, although how that contrasts with Tillerson is unknown, since no one really knows where Tillerson is.

**d-usa**

I don't know that it really matters what anyone's stance on anything is because we don't have any kind of unified diplomatic message anyway. Why anybody should negotiate with us on anything is beyond me, because who would they even be negotiating with?

And that's before we get into the whole "we can cancel anything we negotiated in the past for any reason at any time" mess.

**Frazzled**

What's to negotiate?

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Whatever we would like North Korea to stop doing?

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.

Corker is speaking his mind now that he isn't seeking re-election and isn't worried about upsetting the Trump portion of his own state.

Mark Meadows response to Corker is quite telling, "It's easy to be bold when you're not coming back." So you'll note that Meadows, who's made a public display of aligning himself with Trump, doesn't even try to disagree with Corker. Instead he just explains that people like himself who are looking to remain in the senate have lots of reasons to be cowardly and pretend Trump isn't a disaster.

Later on Meadows realised he had let his actual opinion of Trump be known, and so he made another statement that everythign Corker said was false. But you know, what happened is obvious. I mean, if Corker said "Trump is an alien from Grabnar IV and he's here to steal our precious brain juices', Meadows wouldn't reply with 'It's easy to be bold when you're not coming back'. He would have said "That's not true, Corker is lying." Saying its easy to be bold when you're leaving is what you say when someone is telling a truth that others can't say because of the consequences.

Yeah... that's a disturbing trend. Especially since Trump isn't he only one who doesn't want to kick the can down the road again...

"Kicking the can" is just a negative spin on "containment". Containment until political normalisation is the only way to resolve this without getting hundreds of thousands of SK people killed at the very least.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Evidently many (ie, IAEA) saying it's not working.

This is Iraq all over again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Oh?

Yes. You made a claim that the IAEA said the deal wasn't working. In response to a direct quote from the chief of the IAEA stating that the deal is working, you post a story talking about a dispute on the technical limitations of the deal, and nothing even close to a statement or conclusion that the deal wasn't working.

You said a thing that is not true. Retract it.

By hey... Iran got billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief Tehran has gotten under this deal, including, strangely pallets stacked with cash worth billions.

This is not acceptable. You have had this explained to you dozens of times. You know the 'strange pallets' were the US releasing money to Iran as a direct result of arbitration that the US agreed to finding that the US had to return money that Iran had paid to it. The 'strange pallets' is the US honouring a legal finding. Pretending you don't know this is a lie, and you should apologise and never do anything like that ever again.

Seems like Iran is getting best of both worlds: Sanction relief for a toothless nuke accord.

The only person saying the nuclear controls are toothless is Trump. You've bought in to some crazy stuff from some very stupid and very dishonest people in your time, but I really doubt you want to rely on Donald fething Trump for your opinion on the Iran nuclear controls.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

In exchange for allowing some level of trade, the international community would require NK to give up some portion of its weapons program and require inspections of NK facilities to ensure compliance. How is this a question? How do you not know how these deals operate?

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?

they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.

Iraq all over again.

**NinthMusketeer**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?

I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?

**Grey Templar**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?

Kim has posed with military computers, for propaganda photos, that look like the most advanced thing they could play is Pong.

**tneva82**

Ouze wrote:
This is salient to the thread at hand. The blatant misrepresentation and base dishonestly on display with Iran means that there is literally zero reason for North Korea to attempt any kind of deal with the US.

Who ever thought US can be trusted anyway?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
In exchange for allowing some level of trade, the international community would require NK to give up some portion of its weapons program and require inspections of NK facilities to ensure compliance. How is this a question? How do you not know how these deals operate?

What weapons though? Nukes? That's just same as giving carte blancet for US to invade them sooner or later. It's not even IF US invade but WHEN.

**motyak**

If I see anyone mention Corker again they'll need a damn good explanation for me as to why, which they can send to me via pm because they won't be in the OT to post it. We've made our points about the Iran deal and been inevitably derailed with that as well, so that's done for this thread as well.

We're back to sticking to the topic of NK now.

**sebster**

tneva82 wrote:
What weapons though? Nukes? That's just same as giving carte blancet for US to invade them sooner or later. It's not even IF US invade but WHEN.

No. NK hasn't had nukes for the last 70 years, and the US never invaded. Nor is it in the interest of the US to invade, it'd set off a giant humanitarian disaster and upend the entire stability of the region for absolutely no gain at all.

It's quite interesting that Fraz was just trying to argue that Iran can't be trusted to keep to a deal, and now you're arguing that the US can't be trusted. You're both wrong, nations stick to most deals. Not because any nation is full of honourable people who will do anything to make sure they stick to the terms of any deal they make, but because most people in most countries can be counted on to stick to their own best interests, and that means they'll keep to deals when the alternative really sucks. This means Iran won't break the nuclear deal because they will be hammered by a return to the sanctions, and it means the US won't invade NK for the same reason very few people put their genitals inside bee hives*.

*Possibly Trump excluded. But am I talking about Iran or the beehive?

**jhe90**

Grey Templar wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?

Kim has posed with military computers, for propaganda photos, that look like the most advanced thing they could play is Pong.

True.. But even then older systems can be used dangerously.

A old fashioned artillery barrage on Seoul is just as effective as it was decades ago. Americas Iowa class while old, created heavy and maybe outdated can still aniliate any surface or land target inside of range.

Older tech is older. But often very proven and reliable.

If you had no anti tank gear, a T34 would be a dangerous opponent still. Even a MkV UK Ww1 heavy could be dangerous if you did not have gear to face em.

The point is in right situation than older machines and weapons can be dangerous.

**Frazzled**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?

In stalinist Korea, StarCraft plays you!

**Iron_Captain**

Grey Templar wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
What's to negotiate?

Give up nuclear ambitions?

Be allowed to participate in the Starcraft e-sports games?
they aren't going to. Anyone thinking they will is living in a fantasy world.
What else?
I'm aware technological access is low for the average North Korean but to flat out deny that they will ever participate in StarCraft is a bit much. Surely they have computers able to play the first one?

Kim has posed with military computers, for propaganda photos, that look like the most advanced thing they could play is Pong.

They also got their hands on more advanced hardware though, It looks like the soldier in this picture is using Windows 98!

By now, elite units might even be using XP already. Certainly we are doomed.

**Mr. Burning**

Text based adventures. The future is now!

Really though, you don't need much tech to drop a few thousand artillery rounds into downtown Seoul.

And apparently a few outdated Compaqs are enough to defeat Starcraft playing wizards.
[url]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41565281[/url]

....Hackers from North Korea are reported to have stolen a large cache of military documents from South Korea, including a plan to assassinate North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un.
Rhee Cheol-hee, a South Korean lawmaker, said the information was from his country's defence ministry.
The compromised documents include wartime contingency plans drawn up by the US and South Korea.
They also include reports to the allies' senior commanders.
The South Korean defence ministry has so far refused to comment about the allegation.
Plans for the South's special forces were reportedly accessed, along with information on significant power plants and military facilities in the South.
Mr Rhee belongs to South Korea's ruling party, and sits on its parliament's defence committee. He said some 235 gigabytes of military documents had been stolen from the Defence Integrated Data Centre, and that 80% of them have yet to be identified.
The hack took place in September last year. In May, South Korea said a large amount of data had been stolen and that North Korea may have instigated the cyber attack - but gave no details of what was taken.
North Korea denied the claim.
Trump: 'One thing will work' with N Korea
North Korea-US tension: How worried should we be?
Inside the world's most secretive country
South Korea's Yonhap news agency reports that Seoul has been subject to a barrage of cyber attacks by its communist neighbour in recent years, with many targeting government websites and facilities.
The isolated state is believed to have specially-trained hackers based overseas, including in China.
North Korea has accused South Korea of "fabricating" the claims.
News that Pyongyang is likely to have accessed the Seoul-Washington plans for all-out war in the Koreas will do nothing to soothe tensions between the US and North Korea.
The two nations have been at verbal loggerheads over the North's nuclear activities, with the US pressing for a halt to missile tests and Pyongyang vowing to continue them.....

**Easy E**

Please do not make fun of N.K. computers. They have managed to do some damage via hacking int he past, so they obviously have a cadre of people with the equipment and the skills.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Easy E wrote:
whembly wrote:

To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.

Isn't walking away from a nuclear deal what got us into this problem with N.K. to begin with?

No.

Yes.

The Facts

Clinton’s deal was called the Agreed Framework. In contrast to the detailed and lengthy agreement negotiated in 2015 under President Barack Obama intended to restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Agreed Framework, struck in 1994, was only a few pages long.

Essentially, an international consortium planned to replace the North’s plutonium reactor with two light-water reactors; in the meantime, the United States would supply the North with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil every year to make up for the theoretical loss of the reactor while the new ones were built.

North Korea’s program was clearly created to churn out nuclear weapons; the reactor at Yongbyon was not connected to the power grid and appeared only designed to produce plutonium, a key ingredient for nuclear weapons. The theory of the deal was that, with the plant shuttered and the plutonium under the close watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), North Korea would not be able to produce a bomb. There were also vague references in the text to improving relations and commerce.

The deal was hugely controversial in Congress. Just as with Obama’s Iran negotiations, Clinton structured the agreement so that it was not considered a treaty that would have required ratification by the Senate. As with Iran, there was also an international component, with South Korea, Japan and a European agency joining with the United States to create an organization to implement the accord.

As Iowa State University professor Young Whan Kihl noted in an article exploring the political ramifications:

Since the “Agreed Framework” took the form of a presidential “executive agreement,” rather than a formal treaty (such as SALT I & II), the U.S. Senate did not need to give “advise and consent” under the U.S. Constitution. However, the terms of the agreement are controversial and subject to scrutiny by the Republican-dominant U.S. Congress that began a series of congressional hearings in mid-January 1995. Some congressmen and senators demanded that the “agreed framework” be treated as a formal treaty; this move was resisted by the Clinton Administration but, because of the budgetary and appropriation clauses of the agreement, the U.S. Congress was inevitably drawn into the process of implementation and verification of the agreement.

So how did North Korea get its hands on the nuclear material? George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was even slapped down when he suggested the administration would follow the path set by the Clinton administration. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and spent months trying to develop its own policy.

The rest is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/09/history-lesson-why-did-bill-clintons-north-korea-deal-fail/?utm_term=.9c6a43ac0aba

So basically, the Republicans scuttled the NK deal around Nuclear Weapons and is now complaining about "kicking the can" down the road. Wow. Short memories indeed vis-a-vis nuclear deals and what happens when you break them. People just make nuclear weapons.

Maybe that is what they want? I do not know. Trump did talk about expanding the number of nuclear weapons in the world on the trail, and many people seemed pretty happy with the idea so the US wouldn't need to be the "world police" anymore. In that context, this policy of proliferation could make sense. However, then escalating with a country that does have Nukes seems a bit of an odd way to show the proliferation is a good idea.

Maybe no one actually has a policy or plan after all!