Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday August 05 2018, @12:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the words-are-cheap dept.

North Korea continuing nuclear programme - UN report

North Korea has not stopped its nuclear and missile programmes, violating UN sanctions, a report commissioned by the UN Security Council says. It also says Pyongyang has resorted to a "massive increase" of illegal ship-to-ship transfers of oil products and has been trying to sell weapons abroad.

The confidential report by a panel of independent experts was submitted to the UN Security Council on Friday. North Korea has so far not commented on the document's findings.

Last week, US officials said Pyongyang appeared to be building new ballistic missiles despite recent warming ties with US President Donald Trump's administration and pledges to denuclearise. Unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that spy satellites had spotted continuing activity at a site that has produced ballistic missiles.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 06 2018, @04:58PM (1 child)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday August 06 2018, @04:58PM (#717899) Journal
    "I think he's saying that dropping our defenses in the region on the promise of denuclearization that isn't happening is a poor deal indeed."

    What "defenses" do you imagine we've dropped?

    The troops stationed in South Korea are replacements for replacements for replacements ad nauseum for those left there as human shields in '53. They deserve better, and so do the American taxpayers. There is *some* humanitarian logic to their placement - it has served as something of a deterrent, but that role was probably overstated to begin with and it's come to be little more than a perverse talking point for those who profit from war. North Korea has no capability to threaten the mainland USA, and despite some more bombastic claims may not even be capable of doing that. What they have put a huge amount of effort into is a deterrent capability of their own - the ability to hit closer targets, targets that they see as directly threatening to them. South Korea, where a lot of those US troops (and their South Korean counterparts) are in range to be annihilated in the initial salvo; Japan, and of course Guam. They're very keen to be able to knock out Guam because Guam is where the nuclear bombers we threaten them with are based.

    The only 'defenses' that would be relevant to drop (and we haven't dropped any yet so far as I know) would be defenses intended to improve survival rates of those deployed around the DMZ, which obviously would be an unnecessary expense once the troops themselves are withdrawn. Again, none of that has happened yet, it's what might happen down the road, possible long term outcomes of the process and would happen after South Korea's security concerns are satisfied.

    So again, what are these 'defenses' you think we've dropped?

    You should read your own link.

    /cited=//www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/06/12/trumps-proposed-troop-moves-in-south-korea-raise-concerns-for-lawmakers/
    He also noted that the United States has thousands of service members stationed in South Korea that “I would like to be able to bring them back home” but said those troops withdrawals aren’t part of negotiations right now.
    /cited/

    That's what Trump said, he'd eventually like to bring them home (good for him!) but that isn't part of the current talks.

    Then you have some interesting responses.

    /cited=//www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/06/12/trumps-proposed-troop-moves-in-south-korea-raise-concerns-for-lawmakers/
    “No moving troops,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “As far as moving troops off the Korean Peninsula, we need to stay there. We don’t just move our troops, no.”

    Fellow committee member Lindsey Graham echoed that sentiment in an appearance on “CBS This Morning.”

    “I don’t mind putting these exercises on hold. Over the arc of time, the exercises won’t matter,” he said. “But the one thing I would object to violently is withdrawing our forces from South Korea.

    “China is trying to play president Trump through North Korea. China’s goal for decades is to drive us out of Asia. If we withdraw our forces, and that’s part of a deal, I can’t support the deal.”
    /cited/

    Now, there are two possible ways to read this. Either Senators Ernst and Graham don't understand English, even English as simple as Trump speaks, or they're 'violently opposed' to withdrawal of US troops from the Korean peninsula under *any* circumstances whatsoever. That last line strongly implies it's the latter.

    This is an unabashedly warmongering pose, one that is opposed to peace on principle but logically demands eternal war, one that treats Korea and Koreans as pawns in a great game against China, with no regard whatsoever for their humanity or sovereignty. It's a despicable posture, and it deserves a stronger denunciation than my own command of the English language is capable of. If Trump did absolutely nothing sensible aside from this in his entire term it would still be a good thing - and if the warmongers here in the Senate and elsewhere manage to hamstring him on foreign policy, the South Koreans may well take the decisions out of our hands and give us the boot anyway.

    /cited=//www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/06/12/trumps-proposed-troop-moves-in-south-korea-raise-concerns-for-lawmakers/
    “I don’t want any troop drawdown unless there is a repeatedly verifiably and irreversible denuclearization. Period,” Wittman said, adding: “I understand backing off the exercises, but I don’t think if you’re going to be effective in this — in keeping North Korea’s feet to the fire — that you can in any way shape or form pull back any of our presence in the region.”
    /cited/

    Wittman is more sensible. He's making 'tough' noises for his constituents that are riled on the issue, without using absolutes that would paint us into a corner. I'm no fan of his but at least he doesn't come off as a complete ass here.

    Anyway your article goes on and on but it's more of the same. Apparently the idea that the Korean war will eventually end and the US won't need to keep troops there anymore is rather controversial in the imperial capital, I don't suppose that really surprises anyone, but even Congress can't stop the tides.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @09:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @09:23PM (#717987)

    I think the idea is that the war has simmered for 50 years, and it is unlikely to end in any verifiable way in the next 10.

    Then again, pulling out our troops would make SK a tempting target with Kim knowing that Trump, commander in chief, is loath to help out allies. Without our troops there to make the US respond to an attack, the US will sit back and let SK fall to NK.