What Was Your Reaction, If Any, To Trump's Un Speech?

[ichkeria]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/donald-trumps-first-speech-united-nations-full/

[ludwig]

I agree with both of these things from Ichkeria.

// the problem with all this is that it is easy for tin pot dictators like Kim, Maduro, Putin, or the shadowy mullahs of Iran to sound plausible when they criticise him //

// What he should have said was "destroy the regime" -- we'd all agree with that I am sure. But not the whole country: that sort of cack-handed gaffe only forges a relationship of solidarity between Kim and his benighted people that has no right to exist) //

[Ellipsis]

The reality of North Korea is that it cannot exist without China. China will not let North Korea fire nuclear weapons, not least because it's on its doorstep, so any reciprocation would literally have severe fallout.

North Korea is a useful buffer between China and the USA-friendly South Korea, and that's why China both tolerates it and will not tolerate its invasion. The status quo is perfectly good for China. Should North Korea do anything really stupid, the likelihood is that China itself would invade to stop its destruction by the USA - and that's why Trump's public statement that the USA would destroy North Korea is useful. It's not a direct threat, it's an indirect one. Do anything stupid and you could find yourself invaded and deposed by your massive neighbour.

[jim360]

I haven't heard the entire speech but it seems to have been one of his more coherent ones. I'm troubled by the idea of wiping out an entire country as opposed to just the regime, although in practice it's just bluster anyway. But then that's rather the point I'm trying to make. Why bother making grandiose statements that you either can't or don't really intend to follow through on? North Korea et al see right through it, it makes Rouhani look surprisingly reasonable, and it doesn't actually change anything.

The thing that bothers me is that Trump seems to be advocating a UN as not so much of a U as it's meant to be. Not that it is now, but actually talking about an approach where the UN is 190-odd nations only interested in pursuing their own agendas rather than working together, or trying to, seems to be a step backwards.

I think he has put his points across about as clearly as he's ever managed, but I don't agree with him (obviously). It saddens me that this sort of nationalistic rhetoric is catching on rather these days.

[Peter Pedant]

reach for the off switch

depressing lack of cohesion
I put 'murica first and so should you - your country I mean
and ooops we are at the united nations which means sinking differences and finding common ground- and so 'murica is gonna lead you all AND put itself first and foremost
and give up paying
you lucky lucky people

god you so lucky the 'murican people elected me

[jim360]

That's an interesting suggestion Ellipsis but isn't the opposite problem about as plausible? Why would China invade its effective ally? The last time the US invaded North Korea the Chinese joined in on NK's side (oh, and Russia helped) and that led to a rather bloody stalement that we were rather lucky didn't turn into a more serious war, and while US-China relations are better these days it's obvious that there's still a fundamental disagreement about how to deal with North Korea between the two. At any rate, I think you're doing Trump a little too much credit. So far all of his "fire and fury" threats have been empty, and treated as such, and look like they aren't measured and considered.

Any strike on North Korea designed to wipe out the entire country, particularly a nuclear strike, would certainly have effects on South Korea and China, either through retaliation or just because that's what nuclear radiation does.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah BA for jim
well put

[Ellipsis]

> Why would China invade its effective ally?

If North Korea had done something really stupid, or was in imminent danger of doing something really stupid, sufficient to prompt a post-event or pre-emptive strike or invasion by the USA and/or South Korea. Until then, I would suggest that China is quite happy with the way things are.

"Ally" may be overstating the relationship. Why does China need North Korea?

[jim360]

I just don't see China unilaterally invading North Korea. As a joint operation with the US, South Korea etc, sure. On its own? No, can't imagine that as remotely likely.

On the other hand, I *can* see scenarios in which China responds to a pre-emptive strike by the US etc in taking North Korea's side. More likely that they'd remain essentially neutral but there you go.

It's a delicate situation, anyway. But North Korea is just as filled with bluster as Trump is, and all their talk of aggressive action has remained as talk. The warning shots are awful but there's no reason for North Korea to go beyond that. I don't think there's a reason to suppose this will change; I'm fairly confident that the missiles launched to pass over Japan would not have been launched had they been likely to *hit* Japan.

[ludwig]

//I'm fairly confident that the missiles launched to pass over Japan would not have been launched had they been likely to *hit* Japan.//

Stuff happens though jim, and sometimes flying things come down where they're not supposed to. It's a very dangerous game they're playing.