I'm no Libertarian, but...

[DrDelirium]

... Rand Paul seems to be one of the few people in American politics talking anything remotely approaching sense on this issue:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-achieve-peace-the-korean-peninsula-22477

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

... Rand Paul seems to be one of the few people in American politics talking anything remotely approaching sense on this issue:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-achieve-peace-the-korean-peninsula-22477

On foreign policy, Rand Paul is fairly sensible. On do estic policy, he's often a complete lunatic.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

That only makes sense if you think that such a proposal would interest China, which it probably wouldn't. Also if you thought China could actually convince N. Korea to cooperate, which at this point they probably can't. N. Korea will attempt to bully/blackmail S. Korea/Japan/US with nukes, and China with the threat of an influx of refugees and collateral damage. In addition to that they now have a great market. This article hits a few of the good points https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/opinion/north-koreas-lesson-nukes-for-sale.html.

 

[DrDelirium]

That only makes sense if you think that such a proposal would interest China, which it probably wouldn't. Also if you thought China could actually convince N. Korea to cooperate, which at this point they probably can't. N. Korea will attempt to bully/blackmail S. Korea/Japan/US with nukes, and China with the threat of an influx of refugees and collateral damage. In addition to that they now have a great market. This article hits a few of the good points https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/opinion/north-koreas-lesson-nukes-for-sale.html.

2013, and the conclusion? "An unambiguously forceful warning, backed up by a credible threat of commensurate force, is the only guarantee that even the zealous, isolated North Koreans would hear."

Obviously this has not worked, never mind that most of it is typical NYT fantasy. On the other hand, Iran, through negotiations, DID stop its nuclear program. This suggests that Paul may be on to something.
His article also clearly describes why China (and even Russia) might be interested in such a deal.
For my own part, I think it is too late for the deal he describes- I don't think NK will 'give up' it's nukes, particularly after what happened to Gaddafi. I think that they might well be willing to freeze their program and open their nuclear facilities to inspection in this kind of framework, and perhaps embrace some kind of step-wise reduction of ALL regional nuclear and military forces. This, with the lifting of sanctions, would greatly reduce the impetus for the kind of technology or material transfer the NYT is afraid of- whereas attempting to economically strangle NK gives them every reason to raise cash any way they can.
If the US, NK and SK agreed to a framework of conventional de-escalation, all parties would save billions of dollars, and this would be of greatest importance to the poorest of them, NK. But this is exactly why the US has refused to take steps in this direction since the armistice.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

2013, and the conclusion? "An unambiguously forceful warning, backed up by a credible threat of commensurate force, is the only guarantee that even the zealous, isolated North Koreans would hear."

Obviously this has not worked, never mind that most of it is typical NYT fantasy. On the other hand, Iran, through negotiations, DID stop its nuclear program. This suggests that Paul may be on to something.
His article also clearly describes why China (and even Russia) might be interested in such a deal.
For my own part, I think it is too late for the deal he describes- I don't think NK will 'give up' it's nukes, particularly after what happened to Gaddafi. I think that they might well be willing to freeze their program and open their nuclear facilities to inspection in this kind of framework, and perhaps embrace some kind of step-wise reduction of ALL regional nuclear and military forces. This, with the lifting of sanctions, would greatly reduce the impetus for the kind of technology or material transfer the NYT is afraid of- whereas attempting to economically strangle NK gives them every reason to raise cash any way they can.
If the US, NK and SK agreed to a framework of conventional de-escalation, all parties would save billions of dollars, and this would be of greatest importance to the poorest of them, NK. But this is exactly why the US has refused to take steps in this direction since the armistice.

More recently...
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...-material-online-UN-panel-says/7911489069793/
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...ts-to-syria-intercepted-in-six-months-un-told

So they are currently selling. Also, the biggest difference between now and then is that they no longer just launch from fixed sites, but also have mobile platforms in the form of trucks and submarines, i.e. a working, survivable nuclear program. In addition, they have announced that they no longer have any need to exploit educational visas, having enough trained physicists to produce more domestically. They have working nukes, the only question is what they can or will hit. We've passed the point of "freezing" anything.

 

[DrDelirium]

More recently...
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...-material-online-UN-panel-says/7911489069793/
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...ts-to-syria-intercepted-in-six-months-un-told

So they are currently selling. Also, the biggest difference between now and then is that they no longer just launch from fixed sites, but also have mobile platforms in the form of trucks and submarines, i.e. a working, survivable nuclear program. In addition, they have announced that they no longer have any need to exploit educational visas, having enough trained physicists to produce more domestically. They have working nukes, the only question is what they can or will hit. We've passed the point of "freezing" anything.

Well, there is still much to freeze. Numbers of launchers and warheads, for instance. It's also the case that while the NKs do have nukes and missiles, the missiles are pretty old-school and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe they have MIRVs or maneuverable re-entry vehicles, which would make them much more dangerous. Nor do they have hyper-sonic cruise missiles a la Russia. So there are worthwhile things to freeze, and if things can be frozen, perhaps some things can be reduced or eliminated. But I very much doubt that NK is going to give up its basic nuclear capability any time soon, given the adamant hostility of the US. Perhaps a few decades of actual peace and effective guarantee mechanism would change their minds.

 

[BotanyBoy]

On foreign policy, Rand Paul is fairly sensible. On do estic policy, he's often a complete lunatic.

Must be a socialist.