Trump: It is a waste of time to negotiate with North Korea

noisycats

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2010
771
857
The 'ham. Alabama.
Ready? No. We’re late already. Much will depend on China, hopefully they’ll do about something about this however they know they messed up.
Time for talk is over is simple. As of now NK seems uncapable to deliver nukes and has a very limited stockpile if any at all.
Once they have five or ten, and once they can deliver them with precision and without risk, God help us all.
[doublepost=1506889302][/doublepost]

It’s not a good idea, but I think - and hopefully I will be proven wrong - we’re in a phase of damage containment now. I fear - and truly fear - that the prevention phase is over.
Great! Thanks for explaining. So the time for talk is not over.

You had me concerned there for a moment.
[doublepost=1506891904][/doublepost]
NK is confused and China is shutting them out slowly. Trump has made more progress on this than his predecessors.
Excellent point if true.

No bombs have been dropped nor shots fired, yet you say we are making progress.

That must mean talk is working. Talks with NK...talks with China.

Seems we should try this talking thing a bit longer.
 
Last edited:

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
]

Excellent point if true.

No bombs have been dropped nor shots fired, yet you say we are making progress.

That must mean talk is working. Talks with NK...talks with China.

Seems we should try this talking thing about longer.
Talk doesn't work unless there's a backstop, NK knew Obama wasn't going to do anything.
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,847
5,966
New Hampshire, USA
Maybe so, Cheeto Hitler but grownups use diplomacy first and up until the very moment you can't use it anymore. These Twitter tantrums of his are damaging to the diplomacy efforts and the US' reputation on the international stage. Someone needs to take the Dolt In Chief's phone away from him and lock him in an asylum somewhere. This is not what I wanted to see in my newsfeed on a Sunday. If we do end going to war because of Trump, then his children should be placed on the front lines.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/353314-trump-it-is-a-waste-of-time-to-negotiate-with-north-korea



The Tweets are at the link.
It's sometimes a good negotiation ploy to say that working with someone is a waste of time.
 

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
It's sometimes a good negotiation ploy to say that working with someone is a waste of time.
Often, that is also a bad negotiating ploy. That is, if continued negotiations are what you are looking for. If you're looking for the other side to pick up their ball and go home, it's a perfect ploy.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
Talk doesn't work unless there's a backstop, NK knew Obama wasn't going to do anything.
I just finished up an 18-hour marathon (over several days) watching the Ken Burns/PBS documentary about Vietnam. So maybe I'm particularly sensitive to all the things that can go drdreadfully wrong with a decision to go to war with a small Asian country. Usually in an attempt to achieve goals that are simply not attainable at any reasonable cost.

The US military is almost unimaginably powerful. It has tremendous, almost unheard of capabilities. And yet all of the generals and planners have told this President (and those who went before him) that there simply is not an acceptable military solution to the problem of North Korea.

Now, you certainly can make the argument that prior Presidents made a critical mistake when it came to the PRK: The overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Khaddafi told Kim Jong-Un that not having a nuclear capability was an invitation for the US to engineer (by one means or another) your downfall and death.

But I fail to see what capabilities or options Donald Trump has that would magically remove the PRK's existing nuclear infrastructure through purely military means.

The only Presidents, in recent years, who have successfully persuaded countries to give up their nuclear capability would be Barack Obama (who got the Iranians to give up theirs) and Bill Clinton (who was President when Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to send their nuclear weapons to Russia.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
I just finished up an 18-hour marathon (over several days) watching the Ken Burns/PBS documentary about Vietnam. So maybe I'm particularly sensitive to all the things that can go drdreadfully wrong with a decision to go to war with a small Asian country. Usually in an attempt to achieve goals that are simply not attainable at any reasonable cost.

The US military is almost unimaginably powerful. It has tremendous, almost unheard of capabilities. And yet all of the generals and planners have told this President (and those who went before him) that there simply is not an acceptable military solution to the problem of North Korea.

Now, you certainly can make the argument that prior Presidents made a critical mistake when it came to the PRK: The overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Khaddafi told Kim Jong-Un that not having a nuclear capability was an invitation for the US to engineer (by one means or another) your downfall and death.

But I fail to see what capabilities or options Donald Trump has that would magically remove the PRK's existing nuclear infrastructure through purely military means.

The only Presidents, in recent years, who have successfully persuaded countries to give up their nuclear capability would be Barack Obama (who got the Iranians to give up theirs) and Bill Clinton (who was President when Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to send their nuclear weapons to Russia.)
Iran didn't have a nuke, Obama traded them billions of dollars to hide their programs for 10 years while they perfect their ballistics capabilities.
 

Zwopple

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2008
118
494
Yeah because it started with Trump. Or Obama.
The day that the US (and China) let the North Koreans have nuke is the day that pushed us towards nuclear winter.
Uhm North Korea already has nukes as evidence by their 6 successful nuclear tests observed by the USA, and they're probably not far off mounting one on an ICBM that can reach anywhere in the USA.

They won't use them, they're not dumb if they use them China and Russia will join in in wiping them off the map (they have said they would). They have them because their sick and tired of the USA bullying them into a corner.

There's absolutely no solution militarily at this point that doesn't immediately end with 10 million people dead in a matter of days, we're not talking years we're talking about NK utterly flattening Seoul in a matter of hours if anyone dares to attack them.

Talking is the best thing we can do, it's a crappy position but unfortunately for the USA for once the enemy holds all the cards no matter how much you want to think that they don't.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,027
10,110
Bets on the Oval Office having a Twister board of agendas they spin weekly to roll with?
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,027
10,110
Iran didn't have a nuke, Obama traded them billions of dollars to hide their programs for 10 years while they perfect their ballistics capabilities.
Pretty sure that was their money we seized. Iran's been developing Nukes since 1985 according to leading experts. 32 years later, there is no such weapon. Endangering the Iran deal will ruin a 5B Euro deal with France that Iran has, and a combined 32B Airbus and Boeing have with the company. This is really bad because Boeing makes a lot of planes here and that's a lot of jobs for American workers. Airbus opened up a factory in the south two years ago. The recent stupid decision POTUS made to tariff Bombardier more than the original amount asked by Boeing will only hurt the Canadian economy and American workers, as I've read that a large portion of the avionics and other non-essential equipment is made by American companies. I believe you were actually annoyed by POTUS' decision on this a week ago.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
I

The only Presidents, in recent years, who have successfully persuaded countries to give up their nuclear capability would be Barack Obama (who got the Iranians to give up theirs) and Bill Clinton (who was President when Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to send their nuclear weapons to Russia.)
I feel ashamed that the US betrayed the Ukraine regarding the latter agreement, in a failure of appeasement that ranks up there with the Allies allowing Germany to take over Czechoslovakia before WWII. I wonder if this is one of the reasons NK appears to have come to the conclusion that they could ignore the US in terms of developing nukes. I worry that NK has reached the same conclusion about the US's commitment to the defence of SK.
 

ItnStln

Suspended
Aug 29, 2017
192
255
Yeah because it started with Trump. Or Obama.
The day that the US (and China) let the North Koreans have nuke is the day that pushed us towards nuclear winter.
The North Korea issues can all trace back to a democrat president. However, President Trump is the only President who has stood up to North Korea.
 

duffman9000

macrumors 68000
Sep 7, 2003
1,887
5,363
Deep in the Depths of CA
The North Korea issues can all trace back to a democrat president. However, President Trump is the only President who has stood up to North Korea.
lol... did you forget that the Republican and Democratic parties have both changed significantly in the last 60 years? Wow, if a lawyer tried to pull that in court the judge would have ridiculed and laughed the lawyer out of court.
 

throAU

macrumors 603
Feb 13, 2012
5,284
2,276
Perth, Western Australia
Trump says he won’t fail. So that’s what he needs to be held to.
Worrying about whether or not trump lives up to his promises is the least of our worries at the moment.

I’d be more concerned about whether or not global nuclear war erupts personally.


edit:
Long term, NK having nukes has probably done more for potential stability in the region than not having them. It will prevent another Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria/etc.

Nuclear MAD doctrine works so long as the players are not insane/suicidal.

Unfortunately right now the two players involved are Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un.

Neither is a great guy to have in this situation, but I’m not so sure that Kim is the nuttier one.


Also, negotiation doesn’t work if you leave the other guy no choice.

if it comes down to it, and Kim feels sufficiently threatened that “negotiation is over”, what Kim wants has no chance of coming to pass, and Trump is keen to wipe him off the map (as he has been implying), then what has Kim got to lose by striking first?

Going down this rabbit warren is a pretty dangerous game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sorcery

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,029
PDX
The North Korea issues can all trace back to a democrat president. However, President Trump is the only President who has stood up to North Korea.
Are you referring to Truman? Also, by "stood up to" do you mean "poked with a stick"? A Cavalier attitude does not make good Diplomacy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,834
I just wish they'd sort it out, I want to go to Seoul for xmas, but won't be doing so if I think there's any possibility of getting nuked.
 

T'hain Esh Kelch

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2001
5,065
4,349
Denmark
The North Korea issues can all trace back to a democrat president. However, President Trump is the only President who has stood up to North Korea.
How is Twitter messages 'standing up' to anything?

The only thing he has achieved is more sanctions, which, there already were many of. And they will likely be just as effective as the previous ones, hence nothing has really happened under Drumpf.
 

ItnStln

Suspended
Aug 29, 2017
192
255
lol... did you forget that the Republican and Democratic parties have both changed significantly in the last 60 years? Wow, if a lawyer tried to pull that in court the judge would have ridiculed and laughed the lawyer out of court.
How about you watch me in court and see what happens. In the year I've been practicing law I've always been on the winning side.