The objective is win-win not win-lose: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2018/june/12/who-won-at-the-summit-trump-or-kim/
@MichaelAgreed.It worries me that so many seem to be more concerned with extracting concessions from NK than with actual detente.
I am not yet sold that a de-nuclearized North Korea is good for peace. If that ever actually happened, any US president, egged on by the neocons, could view taking down this regime as a much less costly proposition than is the case now, and we know what happens when the neocons believe regime-change is a piece of cake.I believe that more guns = less crime, both domestically and in foreign affairs. If you think that the US government is more dangerous at home if the population is disarmed, why wouldn't you also think that the US government is more dangerous abroad if an alleged enemy is effectively disarmed?The only real chance for relative peace is if the US brings the troops in South Korea home, and lets the two Koreas sort things out for themselves.
@The NAPsterI remain a little torn on this issue. On one hand, the deterrent effect of nukes is undeniable. On the other, their deployment virtually guarantees indiscriminate slaughter.
Agreed. However, empirically, it seems like the deterrent effect has been quite powerful globally, in favor of those who have kept nukes and to the detriment of those who have given them up (or given up the pursuit of nukes).The chief aggressor globally since WWII has been the US government. Both for the sake of other nations, and our own domestic liberties (which are suffocated to support the state's warfare), it seems like we should be rooting either for mutual disarmament (which will never happen) or parity.