Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post Kim-Trump Summit: Will Kim Give Up His Nukes?
Created by John Eipper on 06/17/18 5:33 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


Kim-Trump Summit: Will Kim Give Up His Nukes? (Istvan Simon, USA, 06/17/18 5:33 am)

Thanks to David Krieger (June 15) for his analysis of the Singapore summit, a topic I started and had hoped would catch on.

Like David and much of the world, I would like the de-nuclearization of the entire world, not just the Korean peninsula. But unlike David, I have been very skeptical that it can be ever achieved. In fact, I do not believe that Kim Jong Un will give up his nukes, even though he just signed his intention to do so.

Trump wants to give security guarantees and economic aid for Kim to give up his nukes and rockets. But what are his guarantees worth, when just weeks before the summit his administration was so tone-deaf that two high officials, Pence and Bolton, mentioned the Libyan model? Clearly Kim Jong Un would be foolish to give up his nukes, for unlike Gaddafi he has actual nukes not just a nuclear program.

The very reason why North Korea was so determined to get nukes, willing to starve its population and even defy China to get them at any cost, is our invasion of Iraq and that determination was surely reinforced by the overthrow and killing of Gaddafi. But it gets worse. The credibility of the United States is zero in the world because of Trump's irresponsible actions. He withdrew the United States from the Paris accords, he abrogated the Iran nuclear deal, he unilaterally imposed tariffs on our allies. If he treats our allies with such disdain, how can any enemies trust him? The answer is they cannot, should not, and so this entire effort is doomed to fail, never mind all the smiles, or Trump saluting a general of North Korea with whom the United States is still formally at war!

I would like to finish this post with another important point. Let's suppose that I am wrong and that Kim Jong Un actually will destroy his nukes in spite of my skepticism. Secretary Pompeo has been harping at the word "irreversible." I claim It is meaningless and useless. Since Kim has actual nukes, even destroying them would not ever be irreversible, because he has the knowledge and technology to build new ones at any time.

JE comments:  Who can walk us through the technology here?  Let's suppose Kim gives up his nukes and the machinery to enrich uranium.  How long then would it take him to re-boot and build a new bomb, should he desire to?  Months?  A year or more?

A technicality:  the US and North Korea cannot still "formally" be at war, if there never was a declared war to begin with.

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (0)
Informational value0%

Visits: 80


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (40463 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who