Easy E wrote:
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!

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we discovered the problem. We need to airdrop millions of handheld video games and turn NK into a nation of couch potatoes!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we discovered the problem. We need to airdrop millions of handheld video games and turn NK into a nation of couch potatoes!

And how will they use those without electricity? They probably don't have couches either... Or enough potatoes.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think we discovered the problem. We need to airdrop millions of handheld video games and turn NK into a nation of couch potatoes!

And how will they use those without electricity? They probably don't have couches either... Or enough potatoes.

We air drop in some solar chargers and ikea catalogues?

If there all stuck locating missing Allen's keys or bolts they cannot Nuke us.

 Easy E wrote:
Yes.

(snip the deal itself)

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!

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yes.

(snip the deal itself)

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!

Thankyou for that. I had memories of a Clinton deal where they gave energy to offset the nuclear program NK was pretending was for energy, that Bush scuttled. I wanted to use it in this thread to make much the same point that you did, but I wanted to confirm my memory of the detail before posting and I wasn't actually able to find anything on the deal itself. Probably because I was looking for a treaty and the Clinton deal wasn't a treaty. Thanks for bringing that in, and for reminding me of a lot of the details.

And yes, it is a bit rich for people to say nothing has been done by anyone on this issue, when a deal to end NK's plan was made and an inspection regime established, only for a latter US government to walk away from that deal.

 d-usa wrote:
By the time they made it through the store they will be to tired to cause any trouble.

nareik wrote:
Can always make up over an ice cream or hot dog.

In England they even give you free tea to deal with the stress.

 whembly wrote:
Is this unusual?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/politics/uss-ronald-reagan-duel-carrier-training-korea/index.html

Seems ominous...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, we do loads of naval exercises over in SEA, especially with Korea and Japan. Really cool stuff to be honest, and Japan's new Asahi-class ASW DD just launched so that will be cool to see.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, we do loads of naval exercises over in SEA, especially with Korea and Japan. Really cool stuff to be honest, and Japan's new Asahi-class ASW DD just launched so that will be cool to see.

Navies are always undertaking exacises, training an such. The Pasific allies. Nato, EU and others regularly perform and trained. Together.

There important. They allow to test new tech. To put systems or see for example if a different crew layout is more effective.
Also develops new tactics for new ships Ie Japan's new ones.

Perfect chance to refine how you deploy them..

Training is very handy tool. It's not just a game with NK.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.

Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.

Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.

Can we remember that people both died in the collapse and would die from a release of highly radioactive dust in the atmosphere. The current governments are the reason the issue is not being resolved (acting like big bullies in the playground doesn't help), the people that would be affected will not be such people.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
There were reports not long ago that China was concerned about NK's underground tests, as the mountain was showing signs of instability and if there was a significant collapse, a lot of bad stuff would get into the air and float into China.

Potential for the proverbial nuclear chickens coming home to roost, methinks.

Can we remember that people both died in the collapse and would die from a release of highly radioactive dust in the atmosphere. The current governments are the reason the issue is not being resolved (acting like big bullies in the playground doesn't help), the people that would be affected will not be such people.

As those fatalities are axiomatic to the articles just posted and being discussed, I really don't think anyone has forgotten.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What terrorism is North Korea a sponsor of?

Oh, it's something Trumpo has said.

Well, hopefully that is a big step forward in solving the political nuclear problem that NK presents.