Talk about a broad swing in headlines about NK

[Siwsan]

From Huffington Post:

Trump And Kim Sign Joint Agreement As Historic Singapore Summit Closes
The agreement doesn’t appear to contain firm promises but opens the door to further discussions.

From The Daily Mail:

'Kim Jong-un commits to 'complete de-nuclearisation' as he and President Trump 'decide to leave the past behind' to sign historic document during extraordinary summit in Singapore

As a side note and IMHO, anyone who truly believes that NK will ever completely "de-nuclearise" has worms in their brain.

[ok_cpu]

1. We both agreed to no nukes in the peninsula

Isn't that a huge gift to Russia and China? I think SK has already agreed to not nuclearize but we had strategic weapons there until the 90s or so, didn't we?

[Siwsan]

3. When someone completely lack morals and ethics, their signed written word is useless

And here we have two miscreants in the mix.

[Lee-Lee]

4. We haven't had any there since 1991 and the ones there were small ones, no threat to China or Russia

What the US did have and does not any longer were nuclear artillery shells, short range low yield rockets and other small warheads.

These were designed and intended as weapons of last resort during the era when it was feared greatly outnumbered US units would face huge Soviet armored attacks so they made these small nuclear artillery shells.

They were already old, maintenance intensive designs when the Cold War ended so they quickly withdrew them all from service, including in Korea.

So we did it out of what was logistically best for us, since the weapons actually on the peninsula were ones we wanted to retire.

We didn’t have any treaty that took them away, so by right we could return them. But the reality is we don’t have any now it would make sense to have on the ground there as we no longer have any nuclear weapons that are ground based and managed/employed by the Army.

So us agreeing to give up the ability to base nuclear weapons in the ROK would by symbolism only.

[ok_cpu]

5. Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful reply! N/T

[Lee-Lee]

6. No problem. Our nuclear forces are all long-range now

And it makes more sense for us to not base them in the peninsula anyway. There any place they are based is more vulnerable to DPRK attack anyway. With them being submarine launched and based on US bombers that can fly from anywhere in the world, and probably some of our surface ships have them on cruise missles as well and it’s posisble to base them on carrier aircraft as well, there is much more security and also much better command and control.

The command and control is a big factor- it would be assumed that if the North launched a huge attack there would be cyber attacks and radio jamming and even having our commanders on the ground there in reliable contact with US commanders outside Korea would be in doubt. Having nuclear weapons there would mean lack of command over them to the highest levels.

[duforsure]

2. He knows

This is all BS and only for PR.