In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1019
Online now 1011 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Well, that's a positive step...
from The Wall Street Journal
North Korea Agrees to Nuclear Moratorium, Says U.S.
The U.S. said North Korea had agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and to a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests.
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also said Wednesday that North Korea had agreed to alllow International Atomic Energy Inspectors to verify and monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment and to confirm disablement of its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.
This post was edited by TortugaGrande 13 months ago
they are pretty good at blackmailing us.
NA NA, NA NA!
They are also pretty good at making promises they don't keep.
Problem solved! Thanks, Norks!
At least it's from the WSJ, Hillary baby.
While that's that not ideal, it's just fine with me. Because the last time we had 1/1000th the evidence on some country we didn't like as we do on North Korea, we ended up invading them and getting stuck in a decade-long war.
I'd much rather keep paying North Korea a few million every year than invade North Korea and spend a few trillion and lose a few thousand lives.
Yup, and if we're going to pay them off, I certainly prefer paying them in food assistance.
I wouldn't mind blackmail either if they actually held up their end of the deal. Past history suggests they just pocket the money and go on building nukes anyway.
i agree. it if it actually keeps them from making more nukes giving them some food is a small price in the grand scheme of things.
Which is why IAEA inspectors are a huge deal.
[And for as much as people criticized IAEA inspectors in the past, they didn't really miss anything in Iraq because ... you know ... Iraq didn't actually have WMDs.]
As for uranium enrichment, the only thing I care about is that they don't export it. They already have enough, and enough nukes, to be a big concern. Making more won't make them that much more dangerous unless they send it elsewhere.
Nuclear tests have an environmental impact, which mostly affects NK and surrounding areas, so I would think China and SK would be the most motivated to stop those.
Missile tests should fall more or less into the same category as uranium enrichment. Export is the main concern.
I just have a problem with rewarding them for not being bad, and then they return to their old ways as soon as it's convenient for them. Why don't we demand they actually give up warheads or missile components, which are the source of the *current* threat they pose? Why should we rush over there with a bunch of food to bribe them into behaving properly?
This post was edited by frode 2 years ago
That's true, although as recent experience with Iran shows, IAEA inspectors can only go where the host country lets them. If NK decides to build a secret underground facility somewhere and doesn't tell anyone, IAEA inspectors aren't going to be able to detect that.
Because it's basic game theory 101?
You want to employ the GOP "bomb bomb Iran" strategy with them? And what if/when they tell us to F off? We spend trillions of dollars and maybe thousands of lives getting involved in another military conflict?
They want some money/food. We want them to not go crazy expanding the nuclear threat. We pay them some money. It's a huge win-win. Almost any other way you run the decision-tree, the US ends up worse-off.
This post was edited by terps99 2 years ago
Sometimes we just have no leverage. Simple as that. We'll take what we can get and deal with other more pressing issues.
Yeah, demands to "give up all the weapons you have!" isn't exactly very persuasive, especially when coming from a country that has more of those weapons than anyone else in the world. You've got two ways to make people give up those weapons -- payment of money or use of force.
Preferably in corn and raw eggs.
Here is a really good idea. How about we just bring our troops home and let China, South Korea, Japan and Russia deal with it.
Why do you hate America? Did you miss the memo that North Korea is in the AXIS OF EVIL?
Yes, but neither do they if the country is starving. It's only out of the goodness of our hearts that we're sending them food in return for being lied to. Were we to play hardball with them, we might get more in return.
That's just not true. I mean, those are two ways, but there are ways to pressure a starving, isolated country that doesn't involve quaking in our boots at their ridiculous threats.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. First, we're not paying them "out of the goodness of our hearts." Second, North Korea's leadership doesn't really care if a few more of its people die of starvation. When paying them off costs almost NOTHING in the grand scheme of things, it's absurd to try flexing your muscle and risking war with a nuclear country.
Good foreign diplomacy isn't like a bad western movie and doesn't typically involve a President trying to sound like a tough cowboy. The options aren't limited to either playing hardball or "quacking in our boots."
Having said that, we've hardly been quaking in our boots and this State Dept. has played plenty of hardball. But playing hardball doesn't require ignoring the art of convincing a foreign leader to go along with what we want. Who cares if you have to pay some foreign leader peanuts so it doesn't look like he completely laid down and got run over by the big, bad USA?
Yes, we most certainly are doing it out of the goodness of our hearts. We get nothing in return for the food we send over there, and our humanitarian tendencies are usually the first and best bargaining chip we offer them (and the first thing they jump at accepting). Rarely do we even attempt to ask them to give up their weapons in exchange for an even bigger 'payment'.
They have an interest in maintaining the status quo of blackmail/threats, and we keep choosing that method of making the problem go away for a couple of years. Nothing else has worked because nothing else has been seriously tried.
I'm not even talking about "flexing muscle". You don't need to do any of that with NK.
For what it's worth, I don't limit my reasoning above to North Korea, or indeed, even to the United States. It's the same thing I've said when visiting India and talking to certain people who want to throw the existing govt. out of office because it dared to make some deal with Pakistan that involved throwing them a bone. Who gives a @%*&. Pay them some pittance and keep them out of your way and placated so you don't have to possibly go in and fight a war with a nuclear country.
Yeah, I'm sure that would make things better. China and Russia tell NK they can do whatever the hell they want, and South Korea and Japan start building their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves in the absence of American support.
Yeah we tried this during the Bush administration, so they made a nuclear bomb.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports