NK - USA Summit?

[togor]

What does North Korea want? What is its long game? Any guesses here?

[rkohut]

What does North Korea want? What is its long game? Any guesses here?

IMHO NK has had a hard time dealing with the disaster they started in 1950. Blustering and threatening ever since has only resulted in them becoming a pariah state. And now their only ally China, has had enough of them. NK is hurting and is going to be asking for true aid, not the aid they've been receiving thru threats over the last 60 years. I think they're ready to truly negotiate.

Interesting, the hospital ship USNS Mercy left San Diego a few days ago to deploy to the western Pacific for "an exercise"

https://health.mil/News/Articles/2018/03/01/USNS-Mercy-deploys-in-support-of-Pacific-Partnership-2018

Side note; NK is one of only three countries left in the world that doesn't have a Rothschild owned or controlled Central Bank. The other two being Iran and Cuba.
In 2000 there were eight countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria.
Then the Afghan conflict, then the Iraq conflict, then the Libya conflict, then the Syria conflict........

[Allen]

So buy him a train ticket from Pyongyang to Washington, DC.

Amtrak will kill him just as fast. Don't need all that water and stuff.

[togor]

NK wants the UN (read US) armed forces out of the south so that they can pursue reunification on their own terms. They'll do this through a combination of bluff and infiltration, trying to destabilize SK civil society, much as the the Russian trolls are sent to destabilize US civil society. Open societies are more vulnerable to this sort of propaganda in the age of the internet, a fact that the dictatorships have figured out.

Next question: Are SK, Taiwan and Japan vital to US defense? Put another way, is the military expenditure to keep these countries operating as open multiparty societies worth it or not?

[JB White]

Next question: Are SK, Taiwan and Japan vital to US defense? Put another way, is the military expenditure to keep these countries operating as open multiparty societies worth it or not?

It's not as though anyone over there wants total control of some of the busiest shipping lanes on the planet. Right? It's only world trade and who wants to have total control over that?? Nothing much to defend because nobody is willing to fight for it.
If anyone started anything, I'm sure all the rest would let us use their bases and ports in an emergency. I think the only ones who didn't let us use their air space in recent times was France.

Tog, I'm surprised you even asked that. Normally you ask things that require a little thinking first.

[rkohut]

NK wants the UN (read US) armed forces out of the south so that they can pursue reunification on their own terms. They'll do this through a combination of bluff and infiltration, trying to destabilize SK civil society, much as the the Russian trolls are sent to destabilize US civil society. Open societies are more vulnerable to this sort of propaganda in the age of the internet, a fact that the dictatorships have figured out.

That's always been their plan. I think they now see Trump in for perhaps seven more years and they realize, along with China potentially causing them problems, that they won't be able to continue this.

We'll see if this meeting comes about and how Trump handles the inevitable politics. They may try bait-and-switch, get hopes up and then pull out in the last minute and attempt to blame Trump, hoping to gather the support of organized crime, er...I mean MSM. But I don't think they're that stupid.

Next question: Are SK, Taiwan and Japan vital to US defense? Put another way, is the military expenditure to keep these countries operating as open multiparty societies worth it or not?

You bet. Also include the Philippines and potentially Vietnam.

[togor]

It's not as though anyone over there wants total control of some of the busiest shipping lanes on the planet. Right? It's only world trade and who wants to have total control over that?? Nothing much to defend because nobody is willing to fight for it.
If anyone started anything, I'm sure all the rest would let us use their bases and ports in an emergency. I think the only ones who didn't let us use their air space in recent times was France.

Tog, I'm surprised you even asked that. Normally you ask things that require a little thinking first.

I asked the question to see if anyone else understands the deeper issue.

When it comes to national security, the reason cited for Steel/Aluminum tariffs, my reply is pretty much, steel-schmeel. Sure our military uses both, but what gives it the edge isn't our steel but our silicon. And guess where many many many of the IC fabs are located that make the electronic eyes and ears of our military are located? Bingo, SK, and especially Taiwan. Undiscussed at this forum but nonetheless happening right now in the real world is a huge consolidation wave across the semiconductor industry. Broadcom and Foxconn (Taiwan) are on buying sprees, as are multiple PRC firms, fanning out across silicon valley to see what they can buy. The Broadcom hostile takeover of Qualcomm has been put on hold by the government, an action to which I heartily approve.

If Trump swaps a temporary reprieve from NK nukes for withdrawl of US forces in SK, it represents a major unforced strategic retreat, saying that the US is not prepared to defend its vital interests in Asia. The notion that we can "reoccupy bases in an emergency" that we willingly abandoned in better times is false, and everyone knows it. Leaving is leaving, and Trump has offered enough "we're not making any money on deal XXXX" rhetoric that this is a legitimate possibility that he will go this route. Once we pull out of SK, you think the PRC won't take note about Taiwan?

Again, like it or not, our military is deaf, dumb and blind without silicon coming out of Pacific Rim IC fabs.

[JB White]

I figured you knew something of what was happening. I wasn't aware the silicon industry was in the mix that thick though. Thanks for the added enlightenment there.

[S.A. Boggs]

I don't see a withdrawal of arms in SK then in Europe as the American military will have a thing [publically] to say about this. Meet where we always meet, not on the NK leaders terms. Personally it is "Trust but verify!" in this situation as this is a game of chess and one must remain the King, not an expendable pawn. We are possibly dealing with a psychotic North Korean leader who wants world recognition. Just because the US listens doesn't me we need to act on what is wanted only on what is needed. Militarily NK is a fly but flies bite and we need to take this into account, not so much for our nation but for those closest in that AO. None of NK's neighbor's want a nuclear "situation" occurring there as too many people will be affected with death and destruction with the fallout going further out into the Pacific as the winds carry it aloft. Certain parts of Eastern Russia will also be affected as well as Alaska and Canada. One of our subs that is now off of Korea can and will lay waste in 30 minutes after the launch code is transmitted from Cheyenne Mountain...something no sane person wants to see happen. It won't hurt for our President to talk to their Dictator, who knows maybe something good will come of this.
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, Hillary Clinton says a meeting is a bad idea -- and you can't go wrong ignoring her advice.