In partnership with CBSSports.com
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.
There are geo-strategic implications involved. We are certainly not doing it "out of the goodness of our hearts". Besides do you really think Un or Il care more about feeding their people then we do about limiting nuclear proliferation?
1. I don't really know what to say if you think we give North Korea aid "out of the goodness of our hearts."
2. I don't understand what you mean by "we get nothing in return for the food we send over there." I thought your whole point was that we shouldn't have to pay them to get concessions on nuclear proliferation. Is getting concessions on nuclear proliferation "nothing?"
3. And I don't know what you're suggesting by saying we haven't attempted "to ask them to give up their weapons in exchange for an even bigger payment." A small payment is bad, but an even bigger payment may be preferable?
Right. At that point they spend their money on National defense and we spend ours any other way we want that doesn't include protecting some of the richest industrialized countries in the world.
While I agree with some of your underlying sentiment, I'm not sure you're going to get many Americans comfortable with the idea of having Japanese nuclear subs patrolling the Pacific...
We are giving them food and getting nothing tangible in return. What we give them is surplus, and we do it because the only reason they ever come to the negotiating table is specifically for food aid. We are responding to a weapons threat with food for their people because they need it. If you can't see that this is purely a humanitarian thing and not because we expect them to do anything real, I don't know what else to tell you.
They still have the same amount of weapons they had, and they always return to production of either nuclear materials, warheads or missiles. This is a perpetual band-aid that solves nothing. They are also so opaque that they get away with lying through their teeth all the time, meaning we're "winning" concessions even less than we think we are.
What I'm suggesting is this: when they offer to negotiate and go through the same demands they always do, we wait them out. They make threats, their humanitarian situation gets worse, and then their government knows they can't play us and the region for fools.
Then, when the starvation problem gets worse, China gets involved because they're always the ones who have to deal with the humanitarian fallout. That's when we step in and up the stakes...offer not just food but other, real things that their government knows they can use. In return, we ask for real tangible concessions (weapons and materiel). As it stands now, we negotiate from a position where we treat them as a mere inconvenience, whereas they try to convince us they're more than that, and round and round we go. It's not a solution by any means.
I hope that clears it up, because I don't feel like recounting all this stuff over and over again. This isn't going to amount to any real solution to anything.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by frode 2 years ago
1. I almost stopped reading after the first sentence or two out of frustration. What we give them is surplus? Read that again. You want to play hardball with a nuclear country over something we don't even need.
2. How's that "let's just wait to starve them out" plan working out in Cuba?
3. North Korea, of course, is not Cuba. North Korea has nuclear technology. Instead of negotiating with us if we're being assholes, you know one other idea they might come up with sooner or later if they really need money? Selling some of that nuclear technology.
4. And this situation gets magnified because they're more likely to continue with their nuclear plans and get even more leverage while we wait around for them to just come to their senses and voluntarily just give up nuclear weapons out of some concern for their starving population.
I have no idea why on earth you think whatever solution we'd find would be cheaper/easier if we just wait around for a decade and leave them unchecked.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by terps99 2 years ago
2. Or in a larger sense, post-WWI Germany.
No, I want to play hardball with them because of who they are, what they have, and what they're sending to other countries. The food is of no consequence. If I gave the impression I gave a shit about surplus food, sorry.
We're not engaging in any starvation strategy with Cuba or North Korea, so I don't even know what you're saying here. But it's a well known fact that NK comes to the table when they're desperate to have the world solve their shitty supply and market conditions. Part of smart diplomacy is realizing your advantages and leveraging them for REAL results. We are not doing that.
NK sells their technology whether we negotiate with them or not. I don't know why people still cling to the fantasy that they're honest brokers in negotiations. They aren't, and never have been.
What's more, we have a pretty good track record of intercepting their shipments and turning the screws on them. That's one form of hardball we need to increase.
Sorry, but I just don't subscribe to the 'pat yourselves on the back for being played by them, because we should just be thankful they're not behaving even worse" school of diplomacy.
Global leadership necessarily implies that some nations with resources will essentially be free riders and enjoy the benefits of the stability provided by the superpower without taking on a commensurate portion of the burden. However, abdication of global leadership and retreat into an "every man for himself" outlook carries risks and costs as well, such as nuclear proliferation as I've already argued. Throughout history, periods characterized by multipolarity have not exactly been stable or peaceful.
I don't know why you think our country has such a fragile ego and is embarrassed so easily that we can't stand giving an opposing country even an inch in negotiations. You yourself admit that this doesn't really cost us anything and you don't give a shit about food surplus. SO WHO GIVES A *%&. Why all the rhetoric about "quaking in our boots" or "getting played by them" and the like.
Who cares if "playing hardball" and "sounding tougher" has a small chance of getting a better result, when the downside risk is much, much, much, much greater. We throw them some food we don't even need ourselves and get to send in international monitors and get them to at least minimize, if not stop, their proliferation efforts. That's a win.
This post was edited by terps99 2 years ago
We just need to find out whichever over the hill Hollywood starlet Kim Il Loonytunes III is hot for, and ship her over. God knows those chicks get irritating as hell when they get older anyway, so win-win.
looks like they set one off tonight
The U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday it had detected a magnitude 4.9 earthquake in North Korea, but neither Pyongyang nor Seoul confirmed if North Korea had conducted its nuclear test.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BrotherAbstract 17 months ago
They're going to be sorry when the strongly worded UNSC resolution hits them.
What are the chances they just nuked themselves, and this wasn't a test?
Hey, we can't keep the power on more than 6 hours a day but look, go boom!
Estimated 3-10 kiloton explosion...Hiroshima was 16kT. Yawn.
Do you have any idea how FUCKING BUSY they are?
Damn you, Hans Brix!
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
The world should be so lucky.
They just detonated a fucking nuke. Fuck these fuckers!
Wow. This is NOT roomy!
#UN Security Council diplomat says there has been a #nuclear test in #NorthKorea: http://aje.me/Y8gT8Z
I am relaxed and I know how they operate. I just simply hate it. I fear that if we let Iran get their nuke, this exactly what they'd do. In addition to that, I'm not sure our nuclear umbrella in the Near East is going to be enough for Egypt, the Saudis, and so on and they will want to get their own nuke. That'd trigger a scary nuclear arms race.
Well they didn't do that the first time a state in MENA went nuclear.
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea apparently conducted a widely anticipated nuclear test Tuesday, strongly indicated by an s National Defense Commission said Jan. 23 that the United States was its prime target for a nuclear test and long-range rocket launches. North Korea accuses Washington of leading the push to punish Pyongyang for its December rocket launch.Last October, a spokesman from the commission told state media that the country had built a missile capable of striking the United States, but did not provide further details. A missile featured in an April 2012 military parade appeared to be an intercontinental ballistic missile, but its authenticity has not been verified by foreign experts.___Associated Press writers Youkyung Lee in Seoul and Yuri Kageyama in Tokyo contributed to this report.
"It's just so hard," Greivis said. "It's my heart, my love. Maryland made me who I am."
Lindsay Lohan IS available for export, according to her agent.
It's pretty well known that Iran and NK are working closely together, and we've confirmed in the past that some of the tests NK has run with missiles and other systems were for Iran's benefit and observation. A nuke test is a pretty big deal, so I'm skeptical NK is doing it as part of their regularly scheduled saber-rattling. There has to be more purpose to it than that.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports