Trump wants Kim to commit to disarmament timetable in Singapore

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-06/trump-wants-kim-to-commit-to-disarmament-timetable-in-singapore

 

so kju learns he can make promises he won't make, and possibly get a prestige boosting summit at Mar-a-Lago. A win win.

[bcking 3,157]

My biggest issue with this summit is I don't get how we will set up a monitoring system that our administration will deem sufficient and North Korea will agree to. I doubt North Korea will give us 100% access 24/7 without notice to every single location in their country.

 

Without that level of access, we can't be entirely sure that they are complying with any disarmament timetable. They could be duping us. If less access wasn't sufficient for Iran, it shouldn't be sufficient for North Korea.

[Dashinka 23,230]

40 minutes ago, bcking said:

My biggest issue with this summit is I don't get how we will set up a monitoring system that our administration will deem sufficient and North Korea will agree to. I doubt North Korea will give us 100% access 24/7 without notice to every single location in their country.

 

Without that level of access, we can't be entirely sure that they are complying with any disarmament timetable. They could be duping us. If less access wasn't sufficient for Iran, it shouldn't be sufficient for North Korea.

Can you say Iran?  Besides, I really doubt there is going to be a ready to sign disarmament agreement that comes out of next Tuesday, but hopefully it will lead to something more than what we have today.  KJU wants to do anything to sustain himself and his murderous regime, the ROK and Moon want to soften tensions and potentially head toward re-unification, and I think the Trump play is obvious, he wants to show that he gets things done.

 

As with everything, only time will tell.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Can you say Iran?  Besides, I really doubt there is going to be a ready to sign disarmament agreement that comes out of next Tuesday, but hopefully it will lead to something more than what we have today.  KJU wants to do anything to sustain himself and his murderous regime, the ROK and Moon want to soften tensions and potentially head toward re-unification, and I think the Trump play is obvious, he wants to show that he gets things done.

 

As with everything, only time will tell.

Can I say it? I said it in my last sentence.

[Dashinka 23,230]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

Can I say it? I said it in my last sentence.

Apologies, did not see that.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Apologies, did not see that.

Even without saying it I'm pretty sure it was clear that I was making a comparison. I think it is perfectly relevant to make a comparison. They are two countries that we don't want with nuclear weapons (though at different stages of development/availability of the weapons).

 

A major complaint that has been lodged against the deal with Iran has been concerns around whether we can truly "trust" that they are abiding by the agreement. We don't have 100% 24/7 access to everywhere in the country, so they could be hiding their development programs in places we aren't looking. If that was a concern for Iran, it should be a concern for North Korea. So I would expect a full scale 100% 24/7 surveillance system as part of the agreement, otherwise we can't be entirely sure. If that was reason enough to pull out of the Iran deal, it should be reason enough not to cut a deal with North Korea. 

 

It puts us in a tough position because I don't think North Korea (or really any Nation) would allow for that level of surveillance. 

[jg121783 3,907]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Even without saying it I'm pretty sure it was clear that I was making a comparison. I think it is perfectly relevant to make a comparison. They are two countries that we don't want with nuclear weapons (though at different stages of development/availability of the weapons).

 

A major complaint that has been lodged against the deal with Iran has been concerns around whether we can truly "trust" that they are abiding by the agreement. We don't have 100% 24/7 access to everywhere in the country, so they could be hiding their development programs in places we aren't looking. If that was a concern for Iran, it should be a concern for North Korea. So I would expect a full scale 100% 24/7 surveillance system as part of the agreement, otherwise we can't be entirely sure. If that was reason enough to pull out of the Iran deal, it should be reason enough not to cut a deal with North Korea. 

 

It puts us in a tough position because I don't think North Korea (or really any Nation) would allow for that level of surveillance. 

The thing with the Iran "deal" is there was never actually a legally binding deal. It was simply Obama agreeing to something he didn't have the authority to agree to. If there was an actual deal voted on by Congress I am sure that situation would have been handled differently.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

The thing with the Iran "deal" is there was never actually a legally binding deal. It was simply Obama agreeing to something he didn't have the authority to agree to. If there was an actual deal voted on by Congress I am sure that situation would have been handled differently.

Gotcha so hopefully Trump comes back with an agreement that he can get 2/3's of the US Senate to agree to.

[Dashinka 23,230]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

Even without saying it I'm pretty sure it was clear that I was making a comparison. I think it is perfectly relevant to make a comparison. They are two countries that we don't want with nuclear weapons (though at different stages of development/availability of the weapons).

 

A major complaint that has been lodged against the deal with Iran has been concerns around whether we can truly "trust" that they are abiding by the agreement. We don't have 100% 24/7 access to everywhere in the country, so they could be hiding their development programs in places we aren't looking. If that was a concern for Iran, it should be a concern for North Korea. So I would expect a full scale 100% 24/7 surveillance system as part of the agreement, otherwise we can't be entirely sure. If that was reason enough to pull out of the Iran deal, it should be reason enough not to cut a deal with North Korea. 

 

It puts us in a tough position because I don't think North Korea (or really any Nation) would allow for that level of surveillance. 

One other thing to consider, Iran is the 17th largest country by area as compared to the DPRK which is 97th.  Much easier to hide stuff in Iran.  Regardless, making the comparison is valid, and my apologies for missing it, but at least it gave Jacques a laugh which is so important.