US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

jimmycrackcorm

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

Ireland should offer to host the meeting of Trump and Jong-un, it would be great for tourism and every time the meeting is mentioned our country would get free advertising. Ashford Castle might suit, bit of golf for the lads afterwards.

I'd say it wouldn't be long before we'd find Kim's great great great grandparents were from Ireland and the be a Jong Un plaza on one of our motorways.

monty_python

Lads. This thread is about North Korea not ww2.
Can we stay on subject??

MadYaker

I've come to gloat about how I was right all along about Kim eventually doing a climb down in return for aid. That's what this will be I reckon. War was never going to happen.

Timberrrrrrrr

MadYaker wrote: »

I've come to gloat about how I was right all along about Kim eventually doing a climb down in return for aid. That's what this will be I reckon. War was never going to happen.

Well done you:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

MadYaker wrote: »

War was never going to happen.

I would not be so confident. The problem with high-stakes bluffs is that eventually, someone is going to have their bluff called. Very few wars have started because they were wanted, they are more stumbled into by someone misjudging or misreading the opposition.

We seem to be stepping back on this occasion. Past success, however, is not guarantee of future resolutions.

monty_python

monty_python wrote: »

Lads. This thread is about North Korea not ww2.
Can we stay on subject??

We're finished talking about it. Still, it does no harm to deviate a wee bit. It's not like we're going to forget to come back to the thread title.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

I've come to gloat about how I was right all along about Kim eventually doing a climb down in return for aid. That's what this will be I reckon. War was never going to happen.

Don't you think it's a bit early to assume that? We are talking about Trump here. He does a U turn on issues fairly often, and Kim doesn't seem to have any qualms about breaking his assurances. That's even assuming that the two major ego driven guys don't break down into a slagging match.

I honestly don't trust the US version of peace anymore. They're being screwed in the M.East, and typically whenever that happens, they go find someone new to mess up. On paper, N.Korea fits the profile for a suitable target to give their military some pride back.

MadYaker

I was joking really. It's too early to say what's going to happen here. One things for certain though, Trumpski will do his best to take all the credit for this despite him being the one who was posting inane rubbish on twitter about how diplomatic efforts were a waste of time and calling Kim rocket man.

I suspect the South Koreans and the US state dept are the ones who really deserve the credit here. Will they really let donald be involved in negotiations that are this important? He's massively unqualified and the nuances of international diplomacy are clearly lost on him.

Gatling

MadYaker wrote: »

I suspect the South Koreans and the US state dept are the ones who really deserve the credit here. Will they really let donald be involved in negotiations that are this important? He's massively unqualified and the nuances of international diplomacy are clearly lost on him.

But his lack of experience when it comes to long standing protocols in international diplomacy makes him unpredictable and dangerous ,
We won't get red lines that are repeatedly broken ,
For some reason I can imagine Donald walking into the room and asking for the "Football" to be placed on the table with his fingers on the button , while quoting Eastwood

Trump is an odd one though. He's had a very wild career in business with plenty of ups and downs. He's no innocent when it comes to major league negotiations, and he has his own experience of Asia (along with Asian culture). I wouldn't cut him short IF he really does want peace to happen. In many ways, I'd trust him to get the job done more than I would Obama (without giving away too much to make that peace happen. Asians only really respect strength.)

Don't get me wrong. I do think he's a muppet, but he's not the complete muppet that the media loves to paint. I wouldn't underestimate him... although he could easily be just going through the motions and not actually interested in peace. I certainly don't believe the US military or major corporations want peace.

cnocbui

MadYaker wrote: »

I've come to gloat about how I was right all along about Kim eventually doing a climb down in return for aid. That's what this will be I reckon. War was never going to happen.

Well I'm quoting this so I can come back and gloat and say that I was right in predicting this is not going to result in anything but more broken promises by NK and a continuation of it's nuclear weaponisation efforts.

Chrongen

Gatling wrote: »

"If" war broke out ,so I'm not wrong


And south Korea has its own indigenous arms programs ,Korean weapons, vehicles , aircraft and so on . they currently export around 30bn worth of Korean military weapons and vehicles

So again I'm not wrong


Next

There's one small detail that you are overlooking and that is that South Korea and the US ARE at war with North Korea. A state of war has existed and still exists since 1951.

The US doesn't need for there to be open warfare for this "state of war" to allow them complete control over South Korea's military.

Chrongen

Gatling wrote: »

Your wrong along with the other one ,

South Korea has command of its own military there is an exception during wartime but it's not so straight forward ,if war does breakout the south Korean president has to agree to ceed control to a US command structure to allow a common defense strategy in the event the south is over run ,

South Korea is NOT independent. It does NOT have control over its military. I don't know why you would want to deny a simple fact. Maybe it doesn't sit with your simplistic worldview that every country is FREE and able to choose their own destiny without American coercion.

Again you choose to see the world not how it actually is but how you want to think it is.

Chrongen

Chrongen wrote: »

South Korea is NOT independent. It does NOT have control over its military. I don't know why you would want to deny a simple fact. Maybe it doesn't sit with your simplistic worldview that every country is FREE and able to choose their own destiny without American coercion.

Again you choose to see the world not how it actually is but how you want to think it is.

https://www.voanews.com/a/south-korea-wants-out-of-us-military-control/4047790.html

"In wartime, the U.S. commander would assume control of South Korean forces as well, but it is not an automatic transfer of command. The South Korean president has to first agree to cede that control."

There has been a de facto state of war with N.Korea but it's a status that could easily be argued by any side that wanted war or didn't want war. There is no assurance that the US could gain control over the military forces... and TBH nothing to stop the S.Koreans from simply refusing any demands. The US forces aren't there in the numbers to enforce the requirement... even if they were told to (which would make a joke of freedom and being there to support democratic nation)

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH nothing to stop the S.Koreans from simply refusing any demands.

Aside from the fact that without US political and military backing South Korea would be completely exposed and thus has no choice but complying with the requests of the entity which it so deeply relies on. I honestly don’t think SK could refuse any adamant American request in terms of military decisions. Their partial military independence is purely up to America’s goodwill and willingness not to look like a foreign occupation force.

Gatling

Bob24 wrote: »

Aside from the fact that without US political and military backing South Korea would be completely exposed and thus has no choice but complying with the requests of the entity which it so deeply relies on. I honestly don’t think SK could refuse any adamant American request in terms of military decisions. Their partial military independence is purely up to America’s goodwill and willingness not to look like a foreign occupation force.

Hypothetical speaking .

But at this moment in time America is not in control of south Korean forces ,
And likely won't in the future

Bob24

Gatling wrote: »

Hypothetical speaking .

But at this moment in time America is not in control of south Korean forces ,
And likely won't in the future

It is not that hypothetical though, this state of complete dependency is where SK is at the moment. Of course neither party has an interest in making it too apparent in public but in effect and right now, any major South Korean military decision can only exist within the boundaries of what is acceptable to the US military. So regardless of who is in command of SK’s armed forces and what laws/treaties say, their apparent freedom of choice only exists within a fairly restrictive sandbox defined by the US and enforced upon SK by the rules of realpolitik and its strategical dependency on its powerfull ally.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Aside from the fact that without US political and military backing South Korea would be completely exposed and thus has no choice but complying with the requests of the entity which it so deeply relies on.

Fact? That's hardly a fact.

They've got over 1/2 million active personnel with another 3 million in reserve. They've been built up for decades to resist an N.Korean or Chinese invasion. The US has funded them for a rather long time, and you really think that will simply disappear if the US was to withdraw? Hardly.

If war was to kick off, the US would expect the Koreans to do most of the heavy lifting work anyway.

I honestly don’t think SK could refuse any adamant American request in terms of military decisions. Their partial military independence is purely up to America’s goodwill and willingness not to look like a foreign occupation force.

Their military independence is part of their constitution which the US guaranteed. The President has the capacity to veto any change of command from the peacetime (korean) to the wartime (US). And Koreans have been debating for a rather long time about their desire for full independence from the US, and as per the article I posted, they're fully aware of the US perception of how the war would go.

As for US goodwill, how would the US enforce their will on the Koreans without losing the confidence of all their other allies in Asia? It's not as if the US has a steller reputation anymore... especially with Trump saying that the US needs to cut back on its commitments abroad, and then retracting his statements, and then say something similar again a few weeks later.

Don't get me wrong. The US is still a powerful military and has a lot of diplomatic collateral... but it's not what it was 10 years ago, and it's allies recognise that 'fact'.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

It is not that hypothetical though, this state of complete dependency is where SK is at the moment.

Complete dependency? I think our understanding of that phrase is rather different.

In any case, prove it. Give me the (relatively recent) articles/evidence that shows that without US support/leadership S.Korean forces would buckle like soft tissue.

So regardless of who is in command of SK’s armed forces and what laws/treaties say, their apparent freedom of choice only exists within a fairly restrictive sandbox defined by the US and enforced upon SK by the rules of realpolitik and its strategical dependency on its powerfull ally.

The US encouraged the rules under which both the Koreans and the US are bound by. Rules. Law. Are you missing the point?

While they may accept US leadership in a war, they have the legal right which is guaranteed by international law (and agreed by the US) to refuse US leadership. Their alliance is not dependent on US leadership... unless you have some links to show otherwise?

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

Fact? That's hardly a fact.

They've got over 1/2 million active personnel with another 3 million in reserve. They've been built up for decades to resist an N.Korean or Chinese invasion. The US has funded them for a rather long time, and you really think that will simply disappear if the US was to withdraw? Hardly.

If war was to kick off, the US would expect the Koreans to do most of the heavy lifting work anyway.



Their military independence is part of their constitution which the US guaranteed. The President has the capacity to veto any change of command from the peacetime (korean) to the wartime (US). And Koreans have been debating for a rather long time about their desire for full independence from the US, and as per the article I posted, they're fully aware of the US perception of how the war would go.

As for US goodwill, how would the US enforce their will on the Koreans without losing the confidence of all their other allies in Asia? It's not as if the US has a steller reputation anymore... especially with Trump saying that the US needs to cut back on its commitments abroad, and then retracting his statements, and then say something similar again a few weeks later.

Don't get me wrong. The US is still a powerful military and has a lot of diplomatic collateral... but it's not what it was 10 years ago, and it's allies recognise that 'fact'.

Deleted User wrote: »

Complete dependency? I think our understanding of that phrase is rather different.

In any case, prove it. Give me the (relatively recent) articles/evidence that shows that without US support/leadership S.Korean forces would buckle like soft tissue.



The US encouraged the rules under which both the Koreans and the US are bound by. Rules. Law. Are you missing the point?

While they may accept US leadership in a war, they have the legal right which is guaranteed by international law (and agreed by the US) to refuse US leadership. Their alliance is not dependent on US leadership... unless you have some links to show otherwise?

The SK army alone could resist a North Korean attack with no problem (although there would be a blood bath) and probably even strike back deep into NK's territory if it wanted to. They have a very strong army relative to the size of their country. But if you are saying they have enough firepower to resist China we will agree to disagree (I assume we can at least agree to say China is developing new military capabilities much faster meaning the more time passes the more SK's military position weakens relative to China's?).

Their problem is that there is a lot more than the two Koreas involved in the balance of power of the Korean Peninsula and several global superpowers have some sort of involvement (either providing official or unofficial political support to one of the Koreas and/or being potential belligerent in the event of an armed conflict because these have some sort of interest in the outcome).

So yes unless they find another powerful ally, I maintain that American political and military backing is something South Korea cannot do without and fully depends on; as without it its political and military capital wouldn't be strong enough to maintain 100% credibility with other stakeholders who mostly look at balance of power to make decision (not to mention SK's heavy reliance on American military technology). Hence my point that regardless of which person/entity assumes control over Korean military, in practice any publicly agreed cooperation rules will not matter if there is the slightest worry in SK that a decision or refusal to accept a US decision might trigger a disengagement from the US (and in that case the US point of view will always be the last word).

Agreed the US military dominance in the area is not what it used to be though, but still they are very powerful and are probably the only option available if you want to be taken seriously and to some extend feared by Russia or China (and even to some extend by Kim who of course always has America I mind when he things about potential conflicts with the South).

Chrongen

Gatling wrote: »

Hypothetical speaking .

But at this moment in time America is not in control of south Korean forces ,
And likely won't in the future

Christ, you're still at it, trying to educate people as to the complete and sovereign independence of the South Korean army.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

The SK army alone could resist a North Korean attack with no problem (although there would be a blood bath) and probably even strike back deep into NK's territory if it wanted to. They have a very strong army relative to the size of their country. But if you are saying they have enough firepower to resist China we will agree to disagree (I assume we can at least agree to say China is developing new military capabilities much faster meaning the more time passes the more SK's military position weakens relative to China's?).

Which is not what I said. I said that the US has been funding their defense budget making them capable of holding out against N.Korea. You originally suggested that without the US, the South would be incapable of stopping the North. Completely dependent? In a war with China, the US would want S.Korea as a base of operations, which it is perfectly suited to be.

Their problem is that there is a lot more than the two Koreas involved in the balance of power of the Korean Peninsula and a lot of global powers have some sort of involvement (either providing official or unofficial political support to one of the Koreas and/or being potential belligerent in the event of an armed conflict because these have some sort of interest in the outcome).

It's a problem and it's a boon. China has little interest in encouraging a US presence in S.Korea and would favor the South if they reduced US influence there. That's a useful bargaining chip.

So yes unless they find another powerful ally, I maintain that American political and military backing is something South Korea cannot do without and fully depends on;

Only against China. Against N.Korea it has the capacity to hold and probably preserve a stalemate. Invading the North is highly unlikely and doing so would just encourage Nuclear strikes against them.

They could easily form an external alliance with other Asian countries, like Japan, for mutual defense. There's little need to whore themselves out to a major power since China would take that as a threat.

The point stands though. The US have guaranteed the constitution and the laws of Korea, which set the tone for military control. There is a growing movement by Korean people to distance themselves from the US, and to refuse US control in a time of war. Nothing you have said disproves that they can do so if they wish it.

Agreed the US military dominance in the area is not what it used to be though, but still they are very powerful and are probably the only option available if you want to be taken seriously and to some extend feared by Russia or China (and even to some extend by Kim who of course always has America I mind when he things about potential conflicts with the South).

I think some protections aren't worth selling yourself for. The US of the 50s/60s held themselves up to a higher standard. They were worthy of trust. The US of 2000 holds themselves up to whatever they damn want. Guantanamo bay, the lies told to justify Iraq, the abductions of foreign civilians, etc all point to a nation that no longer values it's founding ideals. I see very little reason for any Asian country to trust that the US will come to their rescue in a war with China. Promises/agreements made 50 years ago aren't going to bind them.

Chrongen

Chrongen wrote: »

Christ, you're still at it, trying to educate people as to the complete and sovereign independence of the South Korean army.

Care to prove him wrong? As opposed to just voicing an opinion?

All the evidence I've seen points to independence until they choose to pass control over to the US.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

You originally suggested that without the US, the South would be incapable of stopping the North. Completely dependent? In a war with China, the US would want S.Korea as a base of operations, which it is perfectly suited to be.

No I did not say that. Any quote?

What I said is that without American support they would be exposed as they are a rather small power given all the global superpowers involved. Hence their complete dependency on US backing to remain a credible player which means their military sovereignty is very relative (very short summary of a very complex issue, refer to my previous posts for a slightly more detailed rational behind this).

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a problem and it's a boon. China has little interest in encouraging a US presence in S.Korea and would favor the South if they reduced US influence there. That's a useful bargaining chip.

Yes agreed, with US troops gone from SK China would be more at ease (although I think it would still like to have NK as a buffer with a country which is fairly aligned with the West and also could have more cultural influence if it had a land border). But going back to our discussion SK knows that and clearly isn't seriously considering asking the US to leave in the short to medium term, the most obvious explanation being that they know they currently can't manage without US backing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only against China. Against N.Korea it has the capacity to hold and probably preserve a stalemate. Invading the North is highly unlikely and doing so would just encourage Nuclear strikes against them.

They could easily form an external alliance with other Asian countries, like Japan, for mutual defense. There's little need to whore themselves out to a major power since China would take that as a threat.

They would also struggle against Russia if Putin felt like getting involved (not saying he would be it can't be completely discarded).

But yes China is the main external stakeholder they need the US for (but again as I said previously an other use of the US for SK is that it also conditions how Kim behaves, which is not to be neglected).

An alliance with Japan certainly couldn't be formed "easily" though and on the countrary is almost science fiction. Firstly because it would be agains't Japan's national interest to openly become the ally of South Korea (which involves openly becoming an enemy of North Korea, a rogue country very close to Japan which has many ballistic missiles - possibly some with nuclear warheads - which it would not hesitate firing at Japan if needs be - why would Japan get itself into that mess?). And secondly because knowing Asian geopolitics Japan and Korea are not exactly the best friends in the world.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point stands though. The US have guaranteed the constitution and the laws of Korea, which set the tone for military control. There is a growing movement by Korean people to distance themselves from the US, and to refuse US control in a time of war. Nothing you have said disproves that they can do so if they wish it.

That is only true if you assume it is not a vital strategic interest for South Korea to preserve its US backing. What I have argued is that today and in the short to medium term it would be a wrong assumption to make.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think some protections aren't worth selling yourself for. The US of the 50s/60s held themselves up to a higher standard. They were worthy of trust. The US of 2000 holds themselves up to whatever they damn want. Guantanamo bay, the lies told to justify Iraq, the abductions of foreign civilians, etc all point to a nation that no longer values it's founding ideals. I see very little reason for any Asian country to trust that the US will come to their rescue in a war with China. Promises/agreements made 50 years ago aren't going to bind them.

The thing is, there are situations where you don't exactly have a choice.

The US is of course not 100% reliable and is first and foremost defending its own interest. But again unless it wants to spend 15% of GDP in its army or can find another strong ally (both unlikely), South Korea needs them.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

No I did not say that. Any quote?

Nope. My bad. I misunderstood your point. I thought you meant that without US support they would collapse.

What I said is that without American support they would be exposed as they are a rather small power given all the global superpowers involved. Hence their complete dependency on US backing to remain a credible player which means their military sovereignty is very relative (very short summary of a very complex issue, refer to my previous posts for a slightly more detailed rational behind this).

I'm curious. Why do they need a superpower to watch over them?

Yes agreed, with US troops gone from SK China would be more at ease (although I think it would still like to have NK as a buffer with a country which is fairly aligned with the West and also could have more cultural influence if it had a land border). But going back to our discussion SK knows that and clearly isn't seriously considering asking the US to leave in the short to medium term, the most obvious explanation being that they know they currently can't manage without US backing.

Can't manage what?

China is not going to invade them. China has a list of countries that are much easier and more desirable considering the political face they've invested over the last 30 years. Where is the threat? N.Korea? You've already stated that they can hold N.Korea. Kim is unlikely to invade the South without the threat of invasion directed at him.

They would also struggle against Russia if Putin felt like getting involved (not saying he would be it can't be completely discarded).

The terrain would chew up Russian forces, and bring China into the conflict. Russia is looking west, not east.

An alliance with Japan certainly couldn't be formed "easily" though and on the countrary is almost science fiction. Firstly because it would be agains't Japan's national interest to openly become the ally of South Korea (which involves openly becoming an enemy of North Korea, a rogue country very close to Japan which has many ballistic missiles - possibly some with nuclear warheads - which it would not hesitate firing at Japan if needs be - why would Japan get itself into that mess?). And secondly because knowing Asian geopolitics Japan and Korea are not exactly the best friends in the world.

Knowing Asian history... Japan hates China far more than it does Korea.

As I said earlier, the US is becoming more unreliable. You might believe that countries are set in stone and will always honor their agreements, but I don't. I also have seen the wave of anti-western feeling that has swept Asia over the last decade with most of it directed against the US.

But, it's pure speculation. I see the possibility of it happening, and you don't.

That is only true if you assume it is not a vital strategic interest for South Korea to preserve its US backing. What I have argued is that today and in the short to medium term it would be a wrong assumption to make.

And I repeat. The Koreans have the ability to block US leadership. Whether they do or don't do it, is entirely up to them.

The thing is, there are situations where you don't exactly have a choice.

The US is of course not 100% reliable and is first and foremost defending its own interest. But again unless it wants to spend 15% of GDP in its army or can find another strong ally (both unlikely), South Korea needs them.

Why not?

Let's consider Asia. China is the major power and has been flexing it's muscles taking small areas of territory it feels entitled to. It has a number of historical or political targets that they really want, and they've just decided to make their president into a king for life. Xi tends to talk mostly against Japan, but recognises that China is nowhere close enough to take them on. The Chinese military has been gutted by falling standards in recruits, substandard equipment (even for China), and social unrest within the military itself. Xi has always wanted and promised the reintegration of Taiwan into the PRC, and will likely push for that to happen before messing with other Asian nations.

So where is the threat to S.Korea? N.Korea is the only realistic threat to them, and China will only step in, if the US get too heavily involved.

S.Korea has little true need for the US anymore.

cnocbui

Bob24 wrote: »

It is not that hypothetical though, this state of complete dependency is where SK is at the moment. Of course neither party has an interest in making it too apparent in public but in effect and right now, any major South Korean military decision can only exist within the boundaries of what is acceptable to the US military. So regardless of who is in command of SK’s armed forces and what laws/treaties say, their apparent freedom of choice only exists within a fairly restrictive sandbox defined by the US and enforced upon SK by the rules of realpolitik and its strategical dependency on its powerfull ally.

You appear to be a bit confused as to the actual situation. The US has operational command of SK military forces, because the South Koreans want it that way. The US has tried hard to withdraw from this arrangement, but the South Koreans have almost got down on their kness to beg them to maintain it.

Neither side is trying to hide this from the public - there is no secret conspiracy, it's all in the open with news articles about it.

The situation is that South Korea has complete freedom of choice. Your portrayal and attempts to put spin on it as if the US is pressuring South Korea to enforce this situation is absolutely hilarious as it's the exact opposite of the true situation, which is that the US is desperately trying to end the arrangement and the South Koreans are desperately trying to maintain it, despite the humiliation involved.

It's a bit like the US are a couple parents wishing their 20 something child would move out of the house and get a place of their own.

For years, Washington has been trying to persuade the South Korean military to take operational control of its own forces in wartime, ending a six-decade arrangement during which US commanders have retained that authority over South Korean troops. Although supportive in principle, a succession of governments in Seoul has repeatedly delayed the command transfer, reinforcing doubts about whether the South Korean military is capable of operating without US leadership.
...
South Korea has wielded command of its troops during peacetime since 1994 and has steadily upgraded its military capabilities. But the US armed forces remain better equipped to deal with the threat of nuclear, ballistic missile or cyber-attacks.
...
In May, South Korea first floated the possibility of keeping its forces under US wartime command beyond 2015. Since then, Seoul has become more vocal in stating its request.

In August, defence minister Kim Kwan-jin raised the issue with Hagel during a meeting in Brunei. Afterwards, Kim told the South Korean parliament that there was "a consensus" in his government that sticking with the December 2015 deadline was no longer "appropriate", according to the state-run Yonhap news agency. But he acknowledged that the Americans didn't necessarily agree.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/korea-south-north-us-military-chuck-hagel

Cheerful Spring

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would not be so confident. The problem with high-stakes bluffs is that eventually, someone is going to have their bluff called. Very few wars have started because they were wanted, they are more stumbled into by someone misjudging or misreading the opposition.

We seem to be stepping back on this occasion. Past success, however, is not guarantee of future resolutions.

Agreed, too early to tell if the talks will be fruitful.

Manic Moran

Bob24 wrote: »

An alliance with Japan certainly couldn't be formed "easily" though and on the countrary is almost science fiction. Firstly because it would be agains't Japan's national interest to openly become the ally of South Korea (which involves openly becoming an enemy of North Korea, a rogue country very close to Japan which has many ballistic missiles - possibly some with nuclear warheads - which it would not hesitate firing at Japan if needs be - why would Japan get itself into that mess?). And secondly because knowing Asian geopolitics Japan and Korea are not exactly the best friends in the world.

Mmm. There are certainly perception issues to be concerned about, and I agree that the idea of Japanese troops being invited to fight on the Korean peninsula againt the DPRK is going to go across like a wet fart in church.

That said, Japan is definitely not on good terms with North Korea. All those missiles flying overhead, the kidnappings, the exchanges of fire between ships...

The practical reality is that though the RoK and Japan are not going to rise to the level of a full military pact, they most certainly are working together. I would not be surprised to see Japanese Naval and Air power involved in any future conflict on the Korean peninsula if it were deemed necessary. It's not as if they haven't been practicing working together. https://i.imgur.com/leNqG7F.jpg

Cheerful Spring

Trump and Kim talks don't work what happens next? The diplomatic solution can only work if both men can agree on a way forward. I bet the hawks inside Washington are hoping the talks fail.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Trump and Kim talks don't work what happens next? The diplomatic solution can only work if both men can agree on a way forward. I bet the hawks inside Washington are hoping the talks fail.

More sanctions and likely some kind of naval blockade would likely be suggested