U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the Capella Hotel on Sentosa island in Singapore in this picture released on June 12, 2018 by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency. KCNA via REUTERS/File Photo
Reuters: Explainer: What will it cost to denuclearize North Korea?
VIENNA (Reuters) - At a summit in Singapore in early June with U.S. President Donald Trump, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un pledged to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”.
Follow-up talks between U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and North Korean officials are due to be held, and Trump said last week, “It will be a total denuclearization, which has already started taking place.”
Assuming denuclearization of North Korea does take place, what would it look like and how much would it cost?
Read more ....
WNU Editor: To denuclearize .... billions of dollars. To convince North Korea that it is in their best interests to denuclearize .... tens of billions (and maybe more).
12 comments:
North Korea no longer has nuclear weapons. The president said so in a tweet.
Personally I don't pay much attention to POTUS'S tweets preferring to focus on actual results. Can you provide the exact text of tweet as well as the context?
Look at what West Germany shelled out to re-integrate East Germany, then times 2.
Less than rebuilding Hawaii,Guam, or LA
Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
2:56 AM - 13 Jun 2018
Problem solved.
If this is the quote, he did not say that NK no longer has nuclear weapons. He stated that they are no longer a threat to America. As of today, this is probably correct. At least the threat has,lessened. There is still much that can go wrong.
While sound progress has been made, I wouldn't have used the language POTUS used here. He does tend to get ahead of himself on his tweets. I tend not to focus on them choosing to focus more on actual results.
Stating that there is no longer a nuclear threat and stating there aren't nuclear weapons is different. For example, France has nuclear weapons but they aren't considered a nuclear threat to America.
Is POTUS correct Here? While tensions are decreased significantly, he may have spoken prematurely. With that said his critics went into hysteria mode over the very common sense suspension of military drills and the "salute." Had the salute not been returned, this would've likely been worse. I would tend to trust the judgement of POTUS and his team over such people.
Do you honestly think he makes these distinctions or is as thoughtful as you seem to be?
Troll learn the language but lack sense of humor
Post a Comment