If North Korea denuclearizes before the talk with US can start what would be the end goal?

I know this is in General; I think Trump wants a Hotel in North Korea.

If Trump thinks North Korea is going to give up its nuclear weapons then he’s an even bigger moron than I thought.

They will hide the nukes under the usual story. Need the ingredients for power, and medical research. North Korea will have nukes from now on…

The weapons will be hidden, probably underground. Inspectors will need to analyze suspicious places for decades. It’s just not going to happen…

@Darth_Algar I wish I could give you 20 GA’s

Kim jong-un will sign Trumpo up for a massage with supahr dupah-bimbo.

And everything will denuclearizes just ask Trumpo aferwards.

I think the North Korean leaders are at least aware enough of history to realize that their end is more apt to be the same as Nicolae Ceaușescu and his wife than it will be like Boris Yeltsin or Mikhail Gorbachev. That is, a violent and extremely bloody revolt aimed mostly at him, personally, and anyone else connected to him – unless he can manage a pivot to some kind of liberalization of the nation.

Unfortunately for most extreme dictators, there’s no way to “manage” that pivot. The Russians were lucky that the collapse of the Soviet Union and of all of the Sovie bloc in Eastern Europe found the country so enervated that there was no will to that kind of revolt. In Romania, where they had maintained a tight grip on the reins of power – but still tried to acquiesce to public demands “a little bit” – the ruling family was slaughtered.

If Kim doesn’t manage the pivot, that’s his likely fate. He needs American help to achieve it.

There’s a lot more to talk about than just denuclearization. For example: post-disarmament monitoring to ensure they don’t restart their nuclear program, changes in existing sanctions, and changes in official relationships with other countries (including the US and South Korea). Nuclear disarmament may be the biggest issue regarding US/North Korean relations right now, but it’s not the only one.

Indeed, there is much to talk about.
Also, just spending time talking about anything at all helps to set nerves at ease and a general air of cooperation.
I think it is a healthy step.

Giving up the nukes is a pipe dream. It simply can not happen. They could destroy everything physically related to nuclear weapons and it would mean dick.

It is like IKEA furniture. The first time is a real bitch but once you build one bookshelf it is really easy to build the next.

They have the knowledge now. They could spin up a new program in a new tunnel and barely skip a beat. They could ship the brains to Mongolia and make them there. A nuclear North Korea is a reality that will never go away.

I am totes fine with the president talking to them. My worry is it is Trump. I could see them projecting his face on a building and he is so flattered he gives them our Air Force.

To sign a peace treaty and end the war.

@kritiper Which war ? ? ?

Global warming vs. Oil companies/ Coal companies (backe by Trumpo)

oops meant Global change vs anti-solar panel group (backed by Trumpo)

State Department vs Let’s have war with North Korea (backed by Trumpo)

Seriously, @Tropical_Willie? The Korean War, which was only ended with an armistice; a cease-fire, not an actual peace treaty. The North Koreans are still stuck in the Korean War from more than a half-century ago.

Would Trump visit if North Korea simply announced that it has denuclearized?

^But would a peace treaty really change anything? It’ll probably still be the most heavily armed border, in the world. Kim will still be Kim. The NK people will still be heavily oppressed, and brainwashed. As others and myself have opined, there will still be nuclear weapons. And there will be a ridiculously complex task of continuously confirming that the nuclear program is not ongoing. Multiple nations will have to play different roles in this process. Almost all of the surrounding countries have vastly different agendas.

Talks are a start. I’m all for diplomacy. But the characters at play here make any real progress unlikely, to me.

@CWOTUS I think that @Tropical_Willie‘s point is that we are not currently at war with North Korea. And technically, we were never at war with them. It was an undeclared police action, and so it did not require a formal peace treaty to end it. This is not to deny that the North Korean leadership is still stuck in a state of mind dominated by that particular conflict, but that doesn’t mean there is an actual war left to settle.

@Tropical_Willie The Korean War. The fighting only ended with a truce. No permanent agreement was ever signed.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield It is not “we,” the United States of America, but the United Nations that are not CURRENTLY fighting the war that began in 1951. A state of war still exists, as is evident with the heavily armed DMZ.
Even if it doesn’t require a formal peace treaty to end it, actually ending it requires more than a simple cease fire that they (the North Koreans) don’t always honor. If NK were REALLY serious about ending any hostilities, they would talk about this subject.

The only result will be that both Trump and Kim Jung-un get publicity and (apparent) legitimacy. No nukes will be removed or dismantled.

^That’s probably the most realistic view of what’s going on.
The puppets need a stage…

@kritiper “War” is a word that has a legal definition, both under US law and international law. No one is currently at war with North Korea under either definition, and no one on either side of the conflict that started in 1951 ever declared war (least of all the UN, which has no power to declare war). The name “Korean War” is a misnomer. It was not technically a war, and the specific conflict that we call by that name ended in 1953.

Is it really so hard for you to say, “Sorry guys, I guess ‘war’ wasn’t really the right word. I just meant that we could negotiate some sort of agreement that would bring an end to all the international tension and hostility that still exists”? Because you wouldn’t have gotten any push back over that. But digging in your heels when you’re so obviously wrong? That’s just immature, dude.

Since you do seem to be better informed about it than I am, @JeSuisRickSpringfield (and that said with no snark at all), and since I do agree with you that the contretemps between North and South Korea (which also involved US and Chinese troops as well as additional UN troops fighting on the side of the South Koreans), would you mind steering me to an international definition of “war”, please?

I do agree that the US didn’t fight “a war” in Korea. The US has not been involved in “a legal war” since 1945, I think – and that does disturb me somewhat, since we’ve been fighting and dying (as well as killing others, I agree) in great numbers pretty much ever since then.

So what is the legal international definition of war?

@JeSuisRickSpringfield Whatever the exact definition might be, the fact remains that North Korea still has it’s sights set on South Korea. Confounding the issue with what actually constitutes “war” simply clouds, misleads, and sidesteps the real issue .

Both the North, and South, want reunification of the Korean Peninsula under their own leadership. As long as that is the goal, and they obviously share a border, it doesn’t matter if it’s called a war, or conflict or whatever. The tension will remain.

War is war whether you call it that or not.

@kritiper ”Whatever the exact definition might be, the fact remains that North Korea still has it’s sights set on South Korea.”

Literally everyone here agrees on this point. You’re the one who confused the issue, then @Tropical_Willie pointed out your confusion, then I clarified what point he was making. It’s telling, though, that you can’t bring yourself to admit you were wrong and move on.