Unpresidented?

Some people have intimated that there has been "for years a softly softly approach" by the USA towards North Korea.

By softly softly I assume no sabre rattling by the past three presidents. Clinton, Bush and Obama

So the first missile was launched by NK in 1993, in response to the collapse of the USSR. NK sought to increase its defence, as it had previously relied on the USSR.
Clinton responded by drawing up an agreement which ensure closure of a nuclear power plant in NK in exchange for oil deliveries. This lasted until 1996, when a Republican Congress failed to support Clinton and refused continued funding for the agreement with NK. This resulted in NK reacting by reopening the nuclear power plant in 1998.
The agreement broke down in 2003.

So here the Republican dovishness by refusing funding and the lack of initial foresight in not insisting that the plant be dismantled meant that this agreement failed.
Next we come to the Bush regime which took an entirely different approach. First it was clear that the USA had learned lessons from experience, and adopted a dismantle first approach.
But largely Bush's hawkish approach primarily sought regime change in NK. Do you remember the "axis of evil" speech?
2003 NK leaves the Clinton agreement and admits that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Talks are initiated between 6 interested countries including the USA, NK, China etc. The Bush administration clung to the dismantle first route as well as an insistence that NK reduce its conventional weapons.
The talks broke down on 2006.
Bush's hawkish approach faired no better than Clintons dovish approach. In fact it could be argued that they faired worse as there was no single positive outcome from this approach.
Now to the Obama presidency.
He initially offered negotiations which was rebuffed by NK with further missile testing.
Obama therefore initiated what became known as "strategic patience" having learned from Clinton and Bush. South Korea was much happier with this approach compared to Bush's hawkish scenario.
Obama's aim was to achieve denuclearisation in the area through patient negotiation.
Until there is a regime change or a coup, which allows positive negotiation, this was probably the best way forward.

Trumps position will from past experience prove just as ineffective as Bush's efforts.

Information taken from a paper produced by Sarah Lohschelder

YPFP programme.

A lot of it's to do with nuclear power.

North Korea said it would dismantle its nuclear arms programme and rejoin the NNPT if it was given light water nuclear reactors. The US withdrew from this, so North Korea continued with its nuclear weapons and did not join the non-proliferation treaty programme.

NK will not give up its nuclear capability. Trump certainly needs to modify his language, particularly as he can't carry out a pre-emptive strike on NK.

Diplomacy in the way Obama dealt with NK is undoubtedly the best way forward. But I'm not convinced that Trump is particularly good at that sort of diplomacy.

If North Korea doesn't stop all the threats about bombing Guam or anywhere else that the US are based who knows what will happen?
It isn't simply that they now have nuclear weapons but the constant open threats that they will ( if they like) use them against America and it's interests.
Probably bluff because they are angry about sanctions, but with a regime like that and a 'crazy emperor' who is constantly being told ( like the Japanese Emperors of old) that they are Gods and can achieve anything they want to by their sychophantic underlings, they could well unleash weapons against the US ( with terrible consequences for themselves and all of South Korea!)

Which is why Trump would do very well to be more circumspect in his language. Language that took all his advisors by surprise, and which is beginning to box him into a corner if he doesn't modify his threats. Ratcheting up the silly rhetoric between two unpredictable leaders is doing nothing to calm alarm.

I understand why people are nervous, but with crazy leaders like Kim who really knows what the right rhetoric really is?
Too much underplaying things by the US and Kim will think he is the one with all the power and then may use it.
Very difficult to get right.

My feeling is that having come back with matching aggression (Trump to Kim) the US could now sit back a bit and let the ball be in N Korea's court.

Not sure that is correct as experience seems to show that underplaying has succeeded in keeping NK from threatening the use of missiles until the latest nonsense from Trump. The reaction is what we have this week. NK will always react to threats. That is why previous presidents understood and reacted the way they did.

And yet North Korea has quietly gone about getting itself a nuclear programme.
There is great hatred of the US by NK, and quite what the US can/will do if provoked we can only imagine, but unless Kim is replaced/dies ( both possible but unlikely) whoever is the President at the time will have to make hard decisions on both rhetoric and action.It's a ticking time bomb.
I think ww that everyone else has now moved to the other thread on this subject.....I can almost see the tumbleweeds blowing through this thread.