DiscussMormonism.com

New York Times wrote:It’s practically an axiom of international diplomacy that you only bring heads of state together at the very end of talks, after lower-level officials have done the dirty work.

Negotiators need to be free to back down from demands. Or to contradict themselves. Or to play good cop, bad cop. Or to walk away. Lower-level officials can lose face or sacrifice credibility for the sake of talks. Heads of state are much too constrained.

Robert E. Kelly, a professor at South Korea’s Pusan National University, wrote on Twitter that, in a more typical process, “there would be a series of concessions and counter-concessions building trust and credibility over time (likely years) eventually rising to a serious discussion of denuclearization.”

Instead, the Trump administration is jumping straight to the last step.

There is little obvious gain in skipping over a process that is intended to lock North Korea into public commitments, test what is achievable and ensure maximum American leverage and flexibility.

There is potentially significant downside, though. Victor Cha, a well-respected North Korea expert, warns in a New York Times Op-Ed essay, “Failed negotiations at the summit level leave all parties with no other recourse for diplomacy.”

MeDotOrg wrote:...In other words, direct nuclear talks between the United States and North Korea.

First of all, in the best of all possible worlds, this is great news. A possible road to the nuclear disarmament of North Korea! Because nuclear weapons are involved, this would be bigger than the Carter's Camp David Accords, and easily the greatest act of diplomacy of the 21st Century.

All that has to happen is a meeting of the minds between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. So what in hell would that entail? The most hopeful school of thought is that because these men are, uh, iconoclastic, that makes a meeting of the minds possible. But it is a high stakes gamble:

New York Times wrote:It’s practically an axiom of international diplomacy that you only bring heads of state together at the very end of talks, after lower-level officials have done the dirty work.

Negotiators need to be free to back down from demands. Or to contradict themselves. Or to play good cop, bad cop. Or to walk away. Lower-level officials can lose face or sacrifice credibility for the sake of talks. Heads of state are much too constrained.

Robert E. Kelly, a professor at South Korea’s Pusan National University, wrote on Twitter that, in a more typical process, “there would be a series of concessions and counter-concessions building trust and credibility over time (likely years) eventually rising to a serious discussion of denuclearization.”

Instead, the Trump administration is jumping straight to the last step.

There is little obvious gain in skipping over a process that is intended to lock North Korea into public commitments, test what is achievable and ensure maximum American leverage and flexibility.

There is potentially significant downside, though. Victor Cha, a well-respected North Korea expert, warns in a New York Times Op-Ed essay, “Failed negotiations at the summit level leave all parties with no other recourse for diplomacy.”

So I guess I see these talks as high risk/high reward. Look at the leaders involved. Are these men you trust in high risk negotiations? What happens if the negotiations are NOT successful? Kim Jong Un has gotten a face-to-face with the President of the United States, something his grandfather and father could not do. If he comes away from that meeting without making concessions, he will have publicly said 'no' to the President of the United States and walked away. For Donald Trump to win, he has to have Kim Jong Un disarm.

Res Ipsa wrote:The North Koreans played Trump like a cheap fiddle.

The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
'T was half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t' other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I was n't there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

The gingham dog went "Bow-wow-wow!"
And the calico cat replied "Mee-ow!"
The air was littered, an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place
Up with its hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I'm only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)

The Chinese plate looked very blue,
And wailed, "Oh, dear! what shall we do!"
But the gingham dog and the calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw—
And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!
(Don't fancy I exaggerate—
I got my news from the Chinese plate!)

Next morning, where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole that pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
(The old Dutch clock it told me so,
And that is how I came to know.)

Markk wrote:This is interesting. Do you believe this is a good idea for Trump to talk with Kim, or not. In other words, if he succeeds, and this leads to successful negotiations, and NK actually disarms...or even leads to a NK/SK unification of sorts, is it worth the gamble?

If he does succeed...would you support a Noble Peace Prize for Trump? If he fails, would you further pile on.

My main question is this, does he have your (Trump haters) support to move forward with meeting with Kim?

Can those that loath Trump, move past their bias and support "the move" that might lead to negotiations that could disarm NK? Is there room in folks hearts to say "nice try" if Kim is just using this moment to grandstand?