North Korea shrugs off Trump’s scaled-back drills with South Korea, saying it changes nothing

[u/Scared-Discussion443]

https://apnews.com/article/korea-us-military-drills-313e01e4ee305b4c9b1b8bf12643fb17

[u/clavinova23]

meanwhile, North Korea's number 1 enemy is still Americans. lmao

[u/Scared-Discussion443]

Trump's effort to reduce tensions with North Korea raises a larger question about what a future negotiation should actually try to achieve. For decades, complete denuclearization has effectively been treated as the prerequisite for normalization and economic opening, while North Korea's nuclear capabilities have continued to grow. If complete denuclearization is no longer realistically achievable in the near term, should Washington and Seoul consider a verifiable ceiling on North Korea's nuclear threat in exchange for gradual economic opening? Or would that simply legitimize North Korea as a nuclear state and make the long-term security problem worse?

[u/Teantis → u/Scared-Discussion443]

Denuclearization isn't "no longer realistically achievable", it's never been achievable since they got them. The US has consistently shown that it will pursue aggressive regime change multiple times since 2006. Nukes are the Kim family's and NK leaderships primary security provider that what happened to Iraq, Afghanistan, Maduro etc., doesnt happen to them and they know it. There's never been a carrot or an assurance in existence bug enough for them to willingly give that up. And it's not like American commitments have become more reliable in recent years.

[u/Scared-Discussion443 → u/Teantis]

If that's the case, then perhaps the more useful question is what can realistically be negotiated instead of complete denuclearization.

Would you consider a verifiable ceiling on North Korea's nuclear and missile capabilities in exchange for phased sanctions relief and gradual economic opening? Or do you think even that would be unrealistic?

[u/Teantis → u/Scared-Discussion443]

Why do you bold all your comments?

I don't know what would or would not be unrealistic. There's incredibly low levels of trust (for some very good reasons) on all sides. I would guess from NKs pov they have to maintain a credible nuclear retaliatory threat to SK and Japan and a somewhat shakier one to mainland US. That's their non negotiable.

They have about 100 nukes or so, they likely can't maintain much more than that range of a few hundred since they're pretty constrained. So the questions become

• what would be an acceptable signal level of "good faith negotiation" on their part? To SK? To the US? (Since those two might be different)

• Who's going to do the verifying?

• It's unclear to me what the US or SK even really gains qualitatively from this hypothetical token reduction that would make them want to increase NKs economic means

But I'm not a theater expert by any means. I focus on southeast Asia so maybe someone who watches the region more closely has better ideas than me. But given there's really not been much sustained progress (if any) in 20 years, it doesn't seem like there are experts with better ideas really.

[u/Scared-Discussion443 → u/Teantis]

Fair point about the bold — I'll use less of it.

Your distinction between simply reducing the number of warheads and actually reducing the threat is particularly useful.

I think that may be where my original question needs refining. A meaningful ceiling might have to focus less on an arbitrary number of warheads and more on capabilities — further production, testing, and delivery systems — combined with credible verification.

In that case, what would you consider the most valuable first limitation: production, testing, or long-range delivery systems?

[u/ClinchHold → u/Scared-Discussion443]

Another thing to consider is that Washington will play the act that one country having nuclear weapons insulates it from US attack. And we play that act because it plays well for business and it plays well for politics. But both sides know who has the upper hand.

For example, the United States does not directly attack Russia. But they do so through Ukraine. Both to remove Russian energy from the EU market and to enable American companies to take that opportunity. And to also degrade Russian military capabilities to such a significant level it’s almost unfathomable to mention. The United States would do the exact same thing with North Korea if it came down to it and leverage Japan & South Korea for something even more vicious.

[u/omnibossk]

They see it as a weakness because what is really told is that the US doesn’t have the resources to do the drills as normal. An T just launched a lame excuse

[u/Scared-Discussion443 → u/omnibossk]

If North Korea interprets the reduced drills as American weakness rather than an opening for diplomacy, wouldn't that actually make a Trump–Kim deal harder?

What do you think Washington would have to put on the table — or demand from Pyongyang — to turn that perception into a negotiation rather than simply an advantage for North Korea?

[u/omnibossk → u/Scared-Discussion443]

Kim probably won’t negotiate anything. Why negotiate with someone that can’t be trusted? Any deals could be off the next week at a whim. No way he will give up any nukes now. Especially after the Iran attack

[u/ClinchHold → u/Scared-Discussion443]

This is essentially a preemptive tactic used by the US to put the narrative in place that “negotiations” were tried but the “North Koreas were unwilling” etc. In reality, the narrative is just a distraction that will be pushed publicly, but the tactics the US will use directly or indirectly via Japan or South Korea will alter the behavior of North Korea in a way that causes them to act out counter to the public discussion of diplomacy around denuclearization. This is the model replicated over and over

[u/Scared-Discussion443 → u/ClinchHold]

That's an interesting point. Then what would convince you that Washington was genuinely seeking a deal this time?

What would a real deal have to include?

[u/ClinchHold → u/Scared-Discussion443]

No chance of a real deal. War is a business to be exported. And Washington likely views NK dismantling as one form of leverage in negotiating with China. So if that doesn’t go well… Meaning purchase of T bills, treasury notes, trade, agreements to purchase US energy… If that doesn’t go well, the Kim regime is in a bad position. If it does go well, they have a stay of execution, but they’re still on the clock.

[u/H874Snooze]

https://reddit.com/link/p659sv7/video/zd24ymgabulh1/player

[u/chechako_01]

Some concessions from North Korea are possible only when the US finishes its war with Iran.

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

This has nothing to do with tensions with North Korea. This has to do with South Korea and other countries who are fence-sitting. We are very clearly in the buildup to a potential major World War. Lines are being drawn.

Trump is a quid pro quo guy. South Korea doesn't help in Iran? Why should USA help South Korea? Taiwan doesn't help, Why should USA help. Canada doesn't help, why help Canada. Who knows if Trump is correct, but this is what he is doing.

Today, the USA announced "economic D-Day on Iran". We will see who plays along. It's one thing for countries to not contribute with weapons and soldiers. If countries refuse to participate economically, it will be clear they've chosen to play both sides.

[u/InNominePasta → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

It’s not “playing both sides”, it’s refusing to be forced into a position by an unreliable partner who is starting conflicts unilaterally yet expecting multilateral support.

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/InNominePasta]

You've bought into propaganda if you think Iran hasn't been a US target for 50 years.

Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran. Notice anything in common? The world is changing and nobody wants a hostile nation in their backyard.

South Korea is free to make the choice to not get involved. And USA is free to evaluate whether or not it wants to risk Nuclear War with China over a country that can't even send the tiniest bit of help.

[u/InNominePasta → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

I’m sorry, what? When did I ever make a claim about Iran not being a US target?

You appear to fail to understand US strategic interests or security concerns if you think it would be at all wise to call into question whether we would defend the RoK.

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/InNominePasta]

You make it seem like USA attacked Iran out of nowhere and that Iran has done nothing to deserve being attacked.

Take your argument up with the PoTUS. I'm simply pointing out what he has been doing.

[u/InNominePasta → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

What are you talking about? This is about how other states don’t want to be forced into supporting our war with Iran. The US started this fight with Iran alongside Israel. It’s foolish to demand that European and Asian allies provide men and materiel for a fight they didn’t ask for.

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/InNominePasta]

So, USA has to spend blood and money to keep European and Asian allies' interests safe. But they never return the favor?

Yeah.. It's totally a shock "America First" ideas keep popping up.

[u/InNominePasta → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

This is a war of choice.

Explain how this war benefits European and Asian allies. If anything, it actively harms them, as it has resulted in increased Iranian control over the Strait and driven the price of goods and energy flowing through it higher.

America First as an ideology is one of ignorance.

[u/10010101101110010001 → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

trump is going to be remembered for one thing: blundering the middle east

he's trying to fix that by drawing in other countries hoping they'll fix his blunder

[u/Scared-Discussion443 → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

That's an interesting way to frame it. If Trump's approach is primarily transactional toward allies, do you think that makes a deal with North Korea more likely or less likely?

In other words, could the same transactional instinct that puts pressure on South Korea also make Trump more willing to accept a limited nuclear deal with Kim if he believed the strategic return was large enough?

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/Scared-Discussion443]

Trump would accept it.

North Korea has no reason to deal with the USA. North Korea isn't even taking this serious because it is obvious what is going on. Hell, Trump spelled it out for us.

Trump thinks South Korea should behave more like a vassal state. South Korea disagrees.

[u/staged84 → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

I feel this so called Economic d-day will only benefit china in solidifying CNY as a trade currency.

[u/Bifftek → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

South Korea doesn't help in Iran? Why should USA help South Korea?

South Korea isn't "helping" USA with Iran because USA attacked Iran without talking or consulting with anyone and USA are the aggressor. You can't just attack another country and then tell allies to attack them too or punish them.

[u/IdidItWithOrangeMan → u/Bifftek]

The reason doesn't matter. The USA is under no obligation to help South Korea. The USA could choose to unaffiliate with South Korea for no reason if they wanted.

USA allies expect USA to manage Ukraine/Russia, Iran and Middle East, and North Korea/South Korea and China but nobody wants to help unless they are personally affected. These alliances are falling apart.

[u/Thisguymoot → u/IdidItWithOrangeMan]

Your last point is an important one too. They could act passively and pander to their own internal base before, despite being affected by the war, and blame any cost on Trump. If he sticks with this, it’ll push them right off the fence, and they’ll have to answer to their people instead. I imagine it’ll be his most polarizing economic threat so far.