US President Donald Trum-p has become the first US president to set foot on North Korean soil

[Mark Berkowitz]

31 minutes ago, Gary D said:

I guess the local allies like Japan and South Korea don't count either.

Excellent point Gary!

[scott h]

2 hours ago, Gary D said:

Japan and South Korea don't count either.

In todays environment where nationalism is trending in a lot of the world...…………...not a lot I am afraid

[Mark Berkowitz]

46 minutes ago, scott h said:

In todays environment where nationalism is trending in a lot of the world...…………...not a lot I am afraid

It's a sad sad world where everyone is just out for themeselves.  What ever happened to the alliances that were formed after WWII? 

Our NATO pals came to our aid when 9-11 occurred.  I still remember German Air Force planes patroling the skies over New York City and Washington, DC. 

I guess that if things continue in this 'my country first' direction, we (the USA) might be left out in the cold if we ever need allies again.  Just my 2 piso opinon.

[Mark Berkowitz]

On 6/30/2019 at 3:45 AM, Mark Berkowitz said:

Depending on how you look at things, the US may have fully accepted that NK is a now a nuclear power, just as they did back in the 60's when China went nuclear.

In New Talks, U.S. May Settle for a Nuclear Freeze by North Korea

“The concept would amount to a nuclear freeze, one that essentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for.

While the approach could stop that arsenal from growing, it would not, at least in the near future, dismantle any existing weapons, variously estimated at 20 to 60. Nor would it limit the North’s missile capability.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/world/asia/President-kim-north-korea-negotiations.html

[scott h]

A complicated question and one where a person needs to place intellect over emotion, which is very hard to do.

39 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

What ever happened to the alliances that were formed after WWII? 

They are still there, but historically these alliances where really only held to when it was in a member states interest. A good example is France not allowing US planes to fly over their air space. It didn't matter that the US rebuilt western Europe with the marshal plan or that US tanks sat in the Fulda gap for 40 years keeping the ruskis out. Or when Bosnia Herzegovina blew up into ethnic cleansing. The world screamed but only the Brits and the US sent in any serious number of peace keepers. Gulf War #1 was the same, Sadam threatened the worlds oil supply and even though it was an international coalition, again the lions share of troops and equipment was British and US.    

53 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

I guess that if things continue in this 'my country first' direction

The thing is, again with the exception of the Brits and the US this attitude has pretty much been in effect by the rest of the world for years. When there is an international crisis, everyone expects those two to take care of it, they breath a sigh of relief and then criticize them at the UN to keep their population happy 

1 hour ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

might be left out in the cold

Its just that now there is a considerable amount of the US populace (I wont speak for the British) that are leaning towards taking action when it effects US concerns and if the rest of the world wants to come along they can . If they don't, they are on their own. 

7 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

one that essentially enshrines the status quo

Perfect example, the US would be fine with that, as long as they don't develop or at least refine their long range strategic missile systems

[Mark Berkowitz]

11 minutes ago, scott h said:

Perfect example, the US would be fine with that, as long as they don't develop or at least refine their long range strategic missile systems

So the US would be fine with this?

New missile test shows North Korea capable of hitting all of US mainland

The country's state media made the announcement Wednesday, hours after leader Kim Jong Un ordered the 3 a.m. launch of the Hwasong-15 missile, which reached the highest altitude ever recorded by a North Korean missile.

State news agency KCNA called its so-called new missile "the most powerful ICBM" and said it "meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development.

After the launch, Kim said North Korea had "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," according to KCNA.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis said earlier the missile launched demonstrated North Korea had the ability to hit "everywhere in the world."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

P.S.  This is what NK was capable of doing back in 2017.  It highly possible that they could be capable of doing much more harm now... so, it's really ok to go with the 'status quo?'

 

[scott h]

23 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

So the US would be fine with this?

pretty much yes 

24 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

This is what NK was capable of doing back in 2017. 

That is why it is so significant that there have been no further long range strategic missile tests. It takes a lot of tweaking and testing to get these things to work right, between launch, flight, aiming and most important is warhead miniaturization. 

[Mark Berkowitz]

15 minutes ago, scott h said:

most important is warhead miniaturization. 

I'm neither a rocket scientist nor a physicist, but it may have already been done (without the outside world seeing it being done) since 2017? 

[Ram1957]

If a nuke hits any part of the US, NK will be a smoking hole within minutes and they know that. 

[scott h]

9 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

I'm neither a rocket scientist nor a physicist, but it may have already been done

It is quite possible, but it is one of those things that until you "test" it you can never be sure that it works, and the "possibility" of having a working strategic missile weapon system is a lot different than "having" one, when your talking about nuclear deterrence. 

If we keep in mind that the main reason that the NK's want them is as a deterrence against a militarily forced regime change.