Modern day piracy?

[John Hill]

Just what is it that enables the US to legally seize a North Korean ship?

[Capetonian]

Power?
Superiority?

[prospector]

Arrogance??

[John Hill]

It is clearly state sanctioned piracy.

[llondel]

If it's in breach of UN sanctions then they have approval. If it's in breach of unilateral US sanctions then it's piracy.

[Stoneboat]

Ask the crew of the Pueblo.

[BenThere]

It's all part of the US' attempt to keep a lid on nuclear weapons proliferation. Hopefully it will keep working against rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea.

[AtomKraft]

That's it Ben.
While at the same time the US is embarked on a multi billion dollar program to overhaul, expand and enhance its own giant arsenal of nukes...

What's that smell....?

[Rwy in Sight]

That's it Ben.
While at the same time the US is embarked on a multi billion dollar program to overhaul, expand and enhance its own giant arsenal of nukes...

What's that smell....?

Back in the late 80s/early 90's I was taught the difference by a Belgian community college teacher - not really a leftist figure. He pointed out the difference between Israeli and Iraq nukes: it is the stability and "controllability" of each state. South Africa and Israel were/are OK because they were stable countries pro west(ern) who wouldn't use the weapons irrationally. On the other hand, we are not sure whether Iran or Korea would keep the weapons to themselves or sell /offer them to a dangerous group.

If for instance Australia or Brasil decided to develop nuclear technology the reactions would be minimal.

And kindly don't start about whether the Orange guy in D.C. is stable and smart. He is.

[John Hill]

I don't care if Tariff Man is smart but he is obviously no smarter than his predecessors when it comes to ending the seemingly perpetual crisis with North Korea.

[Sisemen]

I doubt whether ANYONE (other than China) has the ability to talk sense into the Norks.

Seems to make a lot of sense to fire off a few test missiles and upgrade your nuclear facilities while “peace” talks are ostensibly going on - not. As Trump says, they don’t really want to negotiate. In the meantime their population continues a hard, hard life.

[John Hill]

You do not seem to grasp Sisemen that the North Koreans have no choice but to continue on their militaristic advance as any weakening would put them in danger of regime change as in Iraq. America on the other hand has a number of options yet insists on continuing the status quo.

Incidentally when we were dealing with the Pyongyang government they were quite uncomplicated to deal with and went to great efforts to ensure their obligations under the contract were met. I tend to suspect that you have no legitimate basis for claiming it is impossible to talk sense with North Korea.

In the meantime their population continues a hard, hard life.

I wonder if Trump's efforts to starve the entire country could have anything to do with that?

[Pontius Navigator]

. . . to continue on their militaristic advance as any weakening would put them in danger of regime change as in Iraq. America on the other hand has a number of options yet insists on continuing the status quo.

1. To continue to develop missiles and nuclear weapons invites a pre-emptive regime change.

2. To maintain the status quo avoids unnecessary loss of life in both sides.

I suggests 1. trumps 2. and increased the risk of 1.

[John Hill]

I expect nuclear weapons are the only thing that keeps America from attacking North Korea.

[Capetonian]

the North Koreans have no choice but to continue on their militaristic advance as any weakening would put them in danger of regime change

Isn't regime change precisely what is needed in NK, to relieve the people from abject misery, starvation, tyranny, and poverty?

[Rwy in Sight]

Unfortunately the necessary pressure to stop the nuke program puts a greater strain to an already suffering population.

[John Hill]

Why do you need to stop the nuke program? Don't you know nuclear weapons are defensive in nature?

[Capetonian]

Why do you need to stop the nuke program? Don't you know nuclear weapons are defensive in nature?

Thanks for the laugh John. It would be even funnier if I thought you meant it as a joke.

[John Hill]

I am pleased you find amusement in this. So am I believe that nuclear 'powers' have nuclear weapons for other than defense? Am I to expect the US will use nuclear weapons in an attack?

It is no far king joke but the hypocrisy of the US against the DPRK is astounding.

[Sisemen]

Even the dumbest animal knows from which corner of the room the smell comes from.