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.

 feeder wrote:
I don't think Trump's awfulness can take credit for this one. The Kims now have a working nuke. They don't need the constant war footing to avoid being toppled by outside forces.

Hopefully this is the real deal and the people of North Korea can achieve a better basic standard of living.

Honestly?

If this peace holds, and he wants to take credit for it - undeserved as it may or may not be - I won't much care.

Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides, or the slow collapse of their economy, or Trump making a wish on the Blue Fairy - it is a chance for North Korea to move forward for the first time in longer than I have been alive.

It is worth celebrating.

The Auld Grump

I agree. I despise Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, but I was delighted when they helped to negotiate the peace in Northern Ireland. Peace is always a good thing. The Korean war has been an ongoing tragedy and threat to the entire region. If we get peace, it will absolutely be worth celebrating.

 Ouze wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.

I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.

True, but this is assuming that A) North Korea is honest, B) never planned to do this if they had successfully developed nukes without Trump and C) that a deal actually gets made. Trump meanwhile is taking credit for ending the Korean War, that isn't even over. Meanwhile Moon is doing all the actual work.

So far what we have is some showy symbolism, but nothing concrete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides

Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides, or the slow collapse of their economy, or Trump making a wish on the Blue Fairy - it is a chance for North Korea to move forward for the first time in longer than I have been alive.

It is worth celebrating.

Yup, pretty much this. Who owns which piece of it isn't really important. Of course, as DoF said below, lets see if the deal actually holds. We've seen this before and it's gone nowhere.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides

Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.

Small correction - that is still a loss, if only temporary.

The program is more than just the development of the bomb, testing and delivery packages are just as much a part of the program as making the bomb - and loss of the testing site loses them the program until they can create and maintain a new testing site.

Semantics - but important. Losing the site after demonstrating the capability to create nuclear weapons actually makes them more vulnerable, as there is cause and a deadline to move against them.

They went from something their neighbors might ignore to something that has become a viable threat.

The Auld Grump - in addition, the nuclear tests are themselves used as a means of intimidation - it is possible that NK has been testing each of their bombs following completion, with no appreciable arsenal in reserve.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides

Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.

Small correction - that is still a loss, if only temporary.

The program is more than just the development of the bomb, testing and delivery packages are just as much a part of the program as making the bomb - and loss of the testing site loses them the program until they can create and maintain a new testing site.

Semantics - but important. Losing the site after demonstrating the capability to create nuclear weapons actually makes them more vulnerable, as there is cause and a deadline to move against them.

They went from something their neighbors might ignore to something that has become a viable threat.

The Auld Grump - in addition, the nuclear tests are themselves used as a means of intimidation - it is possible that NK has been testing each of their bombs following completion, with no appreciable arsenal in reserve.

It a loss of the site, not the program as you said. This isn't demonstrating the capability, they showed that capability years ago. What they have been testing is bigger devices. Miniaturization and the placement on warheads of such devices doesn't need that test site. Note that Pakistan, India and Israel developed full fledged nuclear capabilities with the same number of tests NK has now conducted. The assumption that NK doesn't have the capability now is very risky.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.

I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.

True, but this is assuming that A) North Korea is honest, B) never planned to do this if they had successfully developed nukes without Trump and C) that a deal actually gets made. Trump meanwhile is taking credit for ending the Korean War, that isn't even over. Meanwhile Moon is doing all the actual work.

So far what we have is some showy symbolism, but nothing concrete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides

Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.

In the Korea scenario though. I think its right, symbolism means everything at this point. This is the largest gesture that's posetive in decades.

The previous have all been hostile. This is the first early movements to thr Oposite.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its amazing how he can take credit for things he didn't even participate in. Still though, nothing concrete.

I think it's impossible to quantify to what extent Trump was responsible; saying he didn't have any responsibility seems a but too far. I think the increased pressure and possibility of military action had to have been a factor, along with that mountain collapsing.

True, but this is assuming that A) North Korea is honest, B) never planned to do this if they had successfully developed nukes without Trump and C) that a deal actually gets made. Trump meanwhile is taking credit for ending the Korean War, that isn't even over. Meanwhile Moon is doing all the actual work.

So far what we have is some showy symbolism, but nothing concrete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Whether it was because of the loss of their nuclear program to landslides

Small correction, NK hasn't lost its nuclear program, on the contrary it has developed nuclear weapons. The only thing lost is the ability to test even heavier devices for now, hence Kim declaring an end to nuclear testing in public.

In the Korea scenario though. I think its right, symbolism means everything at this point. This is the largest gesture that's posetive in decades.

The previous have all been hostile. This is the first early movements to thr Oposite.

Symbolism means very little when it comes to real discussions and deals. This is the third time in the last three decades that NK might come to the table for serious talks. Both times it actually got into serious talks and deals those efforts collapsed a few years later. So no, its not the first positive gesture in decades. Don't count your chickens before they hatch this time around.

 whembly wrote:
Huh... there may be an end of armistice on the Korean peninsula.

That's good right?

Also: House Intelligence Committee Republicans release final Russia report...

Chairman Devin Nunes should be all you need to know that it is a farce

After all this talk about the liberal left, it’s the GOP Speaker of the House getting rid of a Christian Clergy for praying and expressing his religious opinions.

And admitting that the tax cuts weren't ever intended to help ordinary Americans. Otherwise why object to the prayer?

Sorry...not sorry for doing this...

I would be zero percent surprised to see almost exactly that on a store shelf in a few months...

 d-usa wrote:
After all this talk about the liberal left, it’s the GOP Speaker of the House getting rid of a Christian Clergy for praying and expressing his religious opinions.

But cakes for gay weddings, D!



Not to be confused with butt cakes for gay weddings.

 ScarletRose wrote:

Huh... there may be an end of armistice on the Korean peninsula.

That's good right?

I saw part of the ceremony on CNN last night while I was at work, it honestly felt like the sort of thing that'll be in history books. The war's over and it seems like they have a shot at fixing things.

And all it took was for the US to become so unreliable/irrational that they couldn't be counted on anymore.

Actually it took nk nuke experience go wrong enough that mountain collapsed threatening china with radioactive fall. That made china VERY angry.

And nk is unlikely to give up nukes as that's accepting eventually whatever they do usa invades them

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Thing is, Seb, there's a difference between the US leading the world and the US simply telling the world what to do. A boss isn't the same as being a leader, and far too often our politicians today just want to be the boss.

This is a much better way of putting what I was thinking into words.

Well, when you're in a respected position for a long time, it's easy for a sense of entitlement to creep in and to forget that the respect isn't the natural order of things, it was something that needed to be earned.

I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

The correct thing to do would simply be uninvite Pence, that way everyone can be armed, as is the usual. But at the same time they don't want to show disrespect to their executive protectors. Its a giant crap sandwich, and the NRA is gonna have to take a bite.

Symbolism means very little when it comes to real discussions and deals. This is the third time in the last three decades that NK might come to the table for serious talks. Both times it actually got into serious talks and deals those efforts collapsed a few years later. So no, its not the first positive gesture in decades. Don't count your chickens before they hatch this time around.

This is correct. It would be completely consistent behavior for the DPRK to exploit the world’s hopes, get some concessions, and then go right back to thumbing its nose at the rest of the world.

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

Odd, I was told a armed society was a polite society. Isn't creating a gun-free zone just creating an open invitation to an armed madman?

 Ouze wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

Odd, I was told a armed society was a polite society.

It's almost like the NRA doesn't believe that if a shooting occurs it is good to have a load of armed "good guys" around to stop it and that such an environment would not be utter chaos and impossible to manage for law enforcement trying to respond.

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

The NRA knows/believes that guns cause gun violence; for years they've lobbied millions of dollars to prevent research being done on the topic. They just SAY otherwise for business reasons.

In the US there is a stong underlying mentality of 'if it makes money morality doesn't matter' that is rarely stated outright but can be seen as a subconscious thread through a lot of society's behavior.

On a related note, to cause the beggest mass shooting in US history without even injuring anyone just go to a gun show, throw a few smoke grenades, shout something in arabic, and shoot several blanks into the ground. Then hit the deck because it's gunna get bloody.

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

It says right in the article that this is a requirement imposed on the NRA by the Secret Service because Pence is speaking there. It is not being done because the NRA doesn’t want people to be armed at the convention it’s because they don’t want to cancel Spence’s appearance for the sake of ideological purity. On days when Pence isn’t there you can be armed at the convention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

The NRA knows/believes that guns cause gun violence; for years they've lobbied millions of dollars to prevent research being done on the topic. They just SAY otherwise for business reasons.

In the US there is a stong underlying mentality of 'if it makes money morality doesn't matter' that is rarely stated outright but can be seen as a subconscious thread through a lot of society's behavior.

On a related note, to cause the beggest mass shooting in US history without even injuring anyone just go to a gun show, throw a few smoke grenades, shout something in arabic, and shoot several blanks into the ground. Then hit the deck because it's gunna get bloody.

Guns are inanimate objects they are inert and cannot cause any actions to happen. The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications. Not sure what moral position you think the annual hunter safety class I take through the NRA violates.

That's deliberately obtuse.

The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications.

And the foreign donors and industry kickbacks of course.

But otherwise I'm sure they're paragons of virtue holding up the rights of inanimate objects that totally aren't used for interpersonal violence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That's deliberately obtuse.

It’s as obtuse as your argument. Guns cause gun violence the same way swimming pools cause drownings. Higher saturation rates of gun ownership rates will lead to higher usage rates of guns for good and bad purposes. Please show me where the NRA is refuting that? Nobody has been shot by one of my guns and nobody has ever drowned in my pool. If I had neither then the odds of either happening would obviously be much lower but there is no causal relationship that makes it inevitable. If everyone in my town had a pool and a gun then shootings and drownings would increase even though the likelihood of either happening to a given individual wouldn’t be any greater. Not sure why you think we need congressional studies into basic math.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

It says right in the article that this is a requirement imposed on the NRA by the Secret Service because Pence is speaking there. It is not being done because the NRA doesn’t want people to be armed at the convention it’s because they don’t want to cancel Spence’s appearance for the sake of ideological purity. On days when Pence isn’t there you can be armed at the convention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I'm amused. Guns are banned as a safety precaution at the NRA convention.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-convention-bans-guns-protect-012331621.html

The NRA knows/believes that guns cause gun violence; for years they've lobbied millions of dollars to prevent research being done on the topic. They just SAY otherwise for business reasons.

In the US there is a stong underlying mentality of 'if it makes money morality doesn't matter' that is rarely stated outright but can be seen as a subconscious thread through a lot of society's behavior.

On a related note, to cause the beggest mass shooting in US history without even injuring anyone just go to a gun show, throw a few smoke grenades, shout something in arabic, and shoot several blanks into the ground. Then hit the deck because it's gunna get bloody.

Guns are inanimate objects they are inert and cannot cause any actions to happen. The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications. Not sure what moral position you think the annual hunter safety class I take through the NRA violates.

Which is funny given their almost month long no statement when one of their own members got gunned down by the police, but he happened to be black so they just kinda shrugged and moved on. Quit trying to paint the NRA as some sort of benevolent organization, they lost that a long time ago

 ScarletRose wrote:

The NRA generates income through membership dues from its 5 million members and providing services like gun safety courses and range safety officer certifications.

And the foreign donors and industry kickbacks of course.

But otherwise I'm sure they're paragons of virtue holding up the rights of inanimate objects that totally aren't used for interpersonal violence.

The NRA doesn’t believe that guns themselves have rights. The NRA advocates for the right for people to own guns. The NRA gets donations and ad revenue from the firearms industry but if you have any evidence of actual kickback schemes with manufacturers I’d love to see it. The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) is a registered lobbyist group and follows all of the rules and laws that govern such groups. In terms of spending on lobbying the NRA-ILA falls pretty far from the top. The NRA’s influence on US politics comes from their large membership and the tendency for gun owners to be motivated voters.

Guess what...those 'donations' ARE kickbacks. Plus the NRA are hypocrits. Anyone else who no one be armed in an area gets shouted down. But they're more than willing to do it for Pence.

 skyth wrote:
Guess what...those 'donations' ARE kickbacks. Plus the NRA are hypocrits. Anyone else who no one be armed in an area gets shouted down. But they're more than willing to do it for Pence.

Donations aren’t kickbacks.

The NRA is acquiescing to the security protocols of the Secret Service. This does not mean that the NRA believes in gun free zones, this is not a security protocol that the NRA endorses it is one that is being imposed on them. Pence is still going to be surrounded by armed people they’ll just be Secret Service members. Since we value the office of the Vice President we protect the Vice President with armed guards. We also value the lives of our children so the NRA supports the policy of protecting them with armed guards.