Hold the Nobel Peace Prize | National Review

Cpl Tom Surdi - Can there be peace if Israel has nukes?

Cpl Tom Surdi - Interesting considering how many nations have nukes and the world is still generally at peace. If you want "true peace" then every nation including the US needs to get rid of their nukes but we know that will never happened. Many thought there was going to be a nuclear war when Pakistan and India achieved nuclear capability. So how about we give peace in Korea a chance.

MAJ James Woods - Alright. Well, what are they giving in return for the lifting on sanctions. Are they going to stop oppressing their people? Maybe stop executing people in incredibly violent ways? I know, they are going to stop all cyber attacks on other countries! They are just going to open up their borders and let all who want to leave, go.

The DPRK have given overtures of peace in the past, that have knocked down cold silos, closed down test sites. And what happened, they just kept on doing it even though sanctions had been lifted.

Do you really think that signing a piece of paper an saying "Hey, the war is over" is going to accomplish anything? Or do you think the DPRK will just revert to form and keep on doing what they have always done? Do you really have that much trust in NK?

So tell me, how can we achieve peace if only one side honors any agreement? Or should we just trust that NK will honor it?

Cpl Tom Surdi - Now you're seeing the problem. The only thing Trump Admin has stated for demands is total denuclearization in return for lifting sanctions. We've seen this all before in past administrations. The discussion has never been about ending human rights violations, smuggling operations, cyber attacks, or ending the war. So the real question is what will N. Korea demand also? One time the US gave access to technology for non-nuclear power plants. Another time it was an infusion of food supply to the country to help with the hunger issue. And of course, lifting of sanctions; so imagine what a country that didn't have nuclear capability before will be asking for now they have the capability. Who has the leverage in talks this month?
You have to separate the nuclear position and the state of war issue. Which is preferred: 1) officially ending the war with a nuclear capable power in order to expand diplomatic ties or 2) ending a nuclear program while remaining at a state of war? Right now we have two sides looking to honor a treaty and they are the only two sides that matter, the Korean countries. S. Korea doesn't need the US permission to end the conflict. Remember, S. Korea didn't sign the armistice; they are a sovereign country; and they can kick us out anytime they want. So again, who has the leverage in talks this month?

Do you truly believe every peace treaty in the history of wars wasn't signed without a bit of concern that either side wouldn't hold up to the terms?