The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-27-2017, 09:17 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Can you say "PR for the rubes"?
I don't know about the "for rubes" part, but it was definitely a PR exercise. As someone else noted, carriers are generally used to "show the flag" while subs remain stealthy and hidden. Having it stop in port in South Korea is a good way to let NK know that it's lurking out there nearby (once it sails out of port).
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #202  
Old 04-27-2017, 12:57 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 37,971
"We have this hidden submarine. Here, take a look at it!"

Jesus. There are U.S. submarines all over the oceans. North Korea assumes one or more are nearby, because that's the only logical assumption and, anyway, they're paranoid.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 04-27-2017, 02:17 PM
davida03801 davida03801 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
After reading a number of posts in this thread I am thinking the "Trump is a mad man theory" is only a theory of mad men.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 04-27-2017, 11:50 PM
AnalogSignal AnalogSignal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely," Trump told Reuters.

How nice to have the fate of the world in the hands of two unstable idiots - Trump and Kim Jong Un.

If we are going to have a war, we should do it bigly with nuclear. Think of the TV ratings!
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 04-28-2017, 08:22 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Labeling Trump 'mad man' is not appropriate

Perhaps a 70 year old clueless, impulsive adolescent, but not a mad man.

'could have major, major conflict with North Korea - Absolutely'

Could have absolutely? Does it mean anything? Nobody takes him seriously, but he has his finger on the button.

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 04-28-2017, 09:24 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 18,780
I'm no fan of Trump, but I think some folks are overreacting here.

It is undeniably true that the US/SK could switch to hot war with NK at any time. This has been strictly true since the armistice in 1953 but has been more true since the 1970s. So that's 40 to 60 continuous years of forces on alert depending on how you want to keep score.

The likelihood on any given afternoon ebbs and flows based on diplomatic, economic, and military considerations. And on politics, both domestic in each country and their allies and internationally between them. As such the alert posture of forces also ebbs and flows.

The stated policy of every President from Eisenhower to Trump has been the same: "We don't want a hot war with NK today. But we're fully ready & willing to have one if the NK's act bad enough. One that we will win decisively. And don't you (=NK) forget it."


Trump, in his inarticulate 140-character brain is saying effectively the same thing. "If the NK's bring it, we're definitely in bigly. So plan accordingly Mr. Kim. You too Mr. Joe Lunchbucket US citizen."

Notice this sentence includes both an absolute "we will definitely be in" and a conditional "If the NK's". There is no logical inconsistency here and anyone finding one is being silly or deliberately obtuse / hostile.

The fact lots of Joe Lunchbuckets love tough talk from their Vigilante Avenger in Chief just encourages Trump to make these noises less diplomatically than the cooler, but no less determined, Obama did.

Might that recklessly encourage a war of words that eventually turns into a tussle of wills then weapons? Yes. Some. How much? Not much IMO.


We're stuck with Trump for another 3-3/4 years. Best not to be doing the Chicken Little routine every time he says something blunt or crude. The boy who cried wolf effect is real. Thoughtful observers should remember that. The 45th time you shriek "but this time it's really a crisis" there will be nobody, and I do mean nobody, left listening to you. Even if it later turns out you were right that time.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 04-28-2017, 10:13 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
I believe that is known as the Sadaat doctrine. And like old Anwar, what happens if Lil Kim(or more likely his generals) decides to set his sight a little lower. Advance 15 km and stop and dig in. Don't try and occupy all of S Korea?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 04-28-2017, 10:33 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 18,780
Even under a less volatile US administration I believe the US & SK will wargasm no matter how limited NK claims their objectives to be.

A critical difference between warfare in the 1950s and now is how much more quickly and effectively attacks can be done into the strategic rear areas. Even if, by some miracle, the NK's kept 100% of their troops and weapons effects within e.g. 15km of the border, there's no way the US/SK will show similar restraint. And once a lot of the rest of NK has been struck, the NK government will be trapped into an "in for a penny; in for a pound" scenario. US stated policy for decades has been that any open warfare in the Korean peninsula will end with NK regime change. Period. IMO most of the reason NK hasn't acted already years or decades ago is precisely because we've affirmatively rejected the idea of fighting to some negotiated stalemate as we did in the 1950s.


The only way I see the US/SK counteroffensive halting in the event of limited NK aggression is if the Chinese come in real aggressively from the git-go and decapitate the NK leadership while telling the US/SK they'll get the NK forces back out of SK, and maybe a bit more. But only if the US/SK give them the breathing room to safely do so. With the warning that the Chinese will escalate into SK themselves if the US/SK doesn't take this offered easy way out.

That would be very advanced strategic diplomacy coming from any nation. My sense is the Chinese don't yet play the game at that level. I doubt the US could play at that skill level either for more than a few years now and then since 1945. The US certainly can't play at that level today.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 04-28-2017 at 10:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 04-28-2017, 01:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
I believe that is known as the Sadaat doctrine. And like old Anwar, what happens if Lil Kim(or more likely his generals) decides to set his sight a little lower. Advance 15 km and stop and dig in. Don't try and occupy all of S Korea?
They get wrecked. The first 15 km includes some of the most heavily-defended terrain on the planet.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 04-28-2017, 02:04 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogSignal View Post
How nice to have the fate of the world in the hands of two unstable idiots - Trump and Kim Jong Un.
At the risk of understating how serious a war with North Korea would be, I don't believe it rises to the level where the fate of the world is at risk.

I imagine it would be roughly within an order of magnitude of something like the Korean War (~35,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands or millions of dead Koreans) or Vietnam (~60,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands or millions of dead Vietnamese). That's a big messy shitshow, but the fate of the world doesn't really come into question.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 04-28-2017, 02:45 PM
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,353
Until China decides they don't like American military interventionism.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 04-28-2017, 03:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Until China decides they don't like American military interventionism.
I'm pretty confident that China has already decided they don't like American military interventionism, but are you expressing a concern that they'd go to war with us to defend North Korea?
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 04-28-2017, 05:56 PM
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,353
To "defend North Korea", of course not. "To protect Chinese interests", yes. And "protecting Chinese interests" may, in fact, come in the form of "defending North Korea".
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 08-10-2017, 08:23 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
When this this thread was launched the President's approval was above 44%. Today it is under 38%.

Trump is seen, internationally, as an empty suit. He needs something, anything, to bolster his image.

Eliminating N. Korea as a military threat would improve Trump's PR. An all out war would not.

Is there a path that Trump could thread successfully? Is Trump smart enough to choose it?

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 08-10-2017, 09:19 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 25,569
NK made an awfully specific threat (according to the news) about sending 4 missiles immediately off the coast of Guam in mid August.

That'd be far, far greater of a provocation than anything they've done so far.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 08-10-2017, 09:28 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Is there a path that Trump could thread successfully? Is Trump smart enough to choose it?
Possible but unlikely, and not a chance.

It's impressive to me how he managed to get Russia and China to agree in counseling calm and get Kim Jong Un to call him a loony toon, though.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:28 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I don't know if anyone can "thread a path".

But why does Trump suddenly need "something, anything to bolster his image"? That sounds like an argument in search of a proposition.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:28 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
For the record, I don't think Trump is wrong to put pressure on NK if there's a strategy that involves talks. I happen to agree with Rex Tillerson's comments months back in which he said that the era of strategic patience hasn't really yielded any benefit - I think that's fair to say. We can talk about how we've gotten to this point and find fault with US policy, but hoping that NK suspends its provocations and nuke programs isn't really much of a strategy. In fact it weakens American credibility in the sense that only now, when the US mainland faces the potential consequences of a war with NK, does the US decide to draw a red line. It sends a terrible message to Japan and South Korea that it has to sit by and tolerate missile test after endless missile test while all of the experts calmly sit on their hands and say "Oh don't mind the DPRK, that's what they always do."

The danger that I see at this point is one that's been discussed on other threads, which is that Trump's administration really seems to lack any kind of preparedness in terms of diplomatic channels and seems to be of the mind that the military can just deal with it if the threat crosses a certain line. The problem with that is that you need diplomacy, diplomatic strategy, and lines of communication (diplomatic and militarily) to establish what those lines are and what the consequences of crossing those boundaries will be. As it stands now, it's not even clear that the Trump administration is even thinking in unison. It's not even clear that the people who ought to be communicating about this are even talking to each other, and even if they are, would Trump go along with their strategy, or would he override them at some point and just act out on his own.

Perhaps the greatest danger, though, is what we've known all along: Trump's temperament in a situation like this is unpredictable, unstable, and highly prone to being rocked at some perceived psychological wound. In my view, one of the key statements of the last few days was made by General Mattis, and it contradicted the statement made by Rex Tillerson. I think it's fair to say that Mattis is closer to the president and his statement reflects Trump's thoughts a hell of a lot more than Tillerson's, who seems to be saying what he knows anyone in a position of his responsibility really ought to be saying. This is not to say that Mattis' comments were irresponsible; he's relaying what's on the president's mind and I think his purpose is to send very clear warnings to NK that it's time to stop playing games. But is Donald Trump also going to stop playing games and behave like a president? That is the question of the hour.

The gravest problem of all is that Trump really doesn't trust his experts as much as he trusts himself, which has been the recurring theme everything that happens in his White House. Of all the experts Trump has, save his immediate family and Wall Street inner circle, he seems to trust his military staff the most. These are the few experts who have any sort of influence over Trump. I suspect the generals are telling him to remain calm and to wait it out and to give North Korea time to go to the bargaining table. North Korea might ultimately do that, which could be a huge win for Trump's administration. But the concern I have is that North Korea doesn't do that and that rather than negotiating, they continue to escalate the tensions. The real danger, the nightmare, is that Trump begins to feel disrespected, unmanly, humiliated, and then decides to say "fuck the experts, fuck the generals" and then decides on his own to deliver his response to North Korea. And that, I'm afraid, is a very real possibility. The odds of that happening are still probably on the low side, but nobody can look at Trump's behavior and say that's not a possible outcome. It absolutely is. And even his own supporters in his own party know that, which is why McCain and others are really starting to shit their britches. They don't want to see him get emotionally involved in this.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:30 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Some one was bound to test Trump. It appears that it will be NK.

Firing missiles into international waters around Guam is highly provocative but harmless. Trump has to respond but in a way that raises the ante and is equally harmless.

It will be a good test of the administration.

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:35 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
asahi,

The military will give Trump options from which to choose. If Trump refuses to choose, and requires instead, some plan of attack or invasion, will the military obey or refuse?

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:52 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
asahi,

The military will give Trump options from which to choose. If Trump refuses to choose, and requires instead, some plan of attack or invasion, will the military obey or refuse?

Crane
I have no idea, but I wonder if Trump does something that compels Mattis or McMaster to resign.

Re: firing missiles at Guam...that would be a terribly provocative move and I can't imagine NK actually following through with it unless they're miscalculating Trump's will to respond. That's one of the many problems with this current conflict. It's not just Trump but also Kim Jung Un who for whatever reason has determined that he has to be even more daring, ballsy, deranged, and scarier than his father, probably as a way to fend off senior military or political opponents in NK who might have been tempted to test his strength being that he is so young. It's not just Trump, it's Trump and Kim and the interplay between these two that makes this combustible.

Last edited by asahi; 08-10-2017 at 10:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 08-10-2017, 05:45 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
I obviously don't want a war either, but do we just wait (a very short time) until NK can hit San Francisco with an ICBM?
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 08-11-2017, 07:29 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
NK is a very long way from deploying reliable ICBMs that are capable of delivering nuclear warheads to San Francisco.

The fact is, they don't need to. Trump is handing them their goal of being recognized as a major player in world politics. Trump is treating them as an equal.

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 08-11-2017, 07:35 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 37,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
asahi,

The military will give Trump options from which to choose. If Trump refuses to choose, and requires instead, some plan of attack or invasion, will the military obey or refuse?
Why would refusing even be considered a possibility? The military is not in the business of disobeying the legal orders of the Commander in Chief. You can't seriously think the United States armed services is going to engineer a coup, which is basically what refusing the President's orders would amount to.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 08-11-2017, 07:55 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Borrowing shamelessly from the Bard's Macbeth:

Trump & KJU are but a walking shadows, poor players
That strut and fret their hour upon the stage
And then are heard no more. It is a tale
Told by idiots, full of fire and fury,
Signifying nothing.


These two ass clowns are nothing but internet tough talking cowards. Sending public missives at one another in a comical exchange of empty threats. Neither one willing to throw the first punch because they are actually too afraid of the consequences. As they should be. It would be funny if it wasn't such a pathetic display of weakling rhetoric by intellectually deficient tinpot despots.

The pox on both their houses.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 08-11-2017, 07:57 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
The military is in the business of providing the President with viable methods of achieving his goals.

The US military is pledged to protect the Constitution from all threats. That includes a mentally unstable President.

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 08-11-2017, 08:21 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Borrowing shamelessly from the Bard's Macbeth:

Trump & KJU are but a walking shadows, poor players
That strut and fret their hour upon the stage
And then are heard no more. It is a tale
Told by idiots, full of fire and fury,
Signifying nothing.


These two ass clowns are nothing but internet tough talking cowards. Sending public missives at one another in a comical exchange of empty threats. Neither one willing to throw the first punch because they are actually too afraid of the consequences. As they should be. It would be funny if it wasn't such a pathetic display of weakling rhetoric by intellectually deficient tinpot despots.

The pox on both their houses.
Did you get that quote idea by clicking here ?

The same group gets ideas from Gilbert & Sullivan and, best of all, Gioachino Rossini.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 08-11-2017, 08:43 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
NK is a very long way from deploying reliable ICBMs that are capable of delivering nuclear warheads to San Francisco.

The fact is, they don't need to. Trump is handing them their goal of being recognized as a major player in world politics. Trump is treating them as an equal.

Crane
Whether it is 1 year or 20 years, is it wise to keep up the Clinton/Bush/Obama method of sanctions when we can see that there will come a time in the near future when NK has such a capability and that military strike is no longer an option?

And that is the best case: We have a second cold war and hope we don't get nuked. Worse case is that the guy is a madman and will nuke us for the hell of it.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 08-11-2017, 08:52 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 31,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Whether it is 1 year or 20 years, is it wise to keep up the Clinton/Bush/Obama method of sanctions when we can see that there will come a time in the near future when NK has such a capability and that military strike is no longer an option?

And that is the best case: We have a second cold war and hope we don't get nuked. Worse case is that the guy is a madman and will nuke us for the hell of it.
Millions of potential dead today as well as potentially trillions in destroyed or otherwise lost treasure, verse uncertainty in the future, a future that might end in the same way the old Soviet Union went out, despite having orders of magnitude more weapons that North Korea will ever have. Yeah...I think that's a better option. Probably why those presidents kicked the can down the road instead of taking on the regime head on and precipitating what will be a major conflict with a major loss of life.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 08-11-2017, 08:58 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Did you get that quote idea by clicking here ?

The same group gets ideas from Gilbert & Sullivan and, best of all, Gioachino Rossini.
I swear to og I did not. But I'm not surprised that my betters beat me to it.

I did see the Figaro bit. Very good, very funny.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 08-11-2017, 10:46 AM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
I'm no fan of Trump, but I think some folks are overreacting here. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Even under a less volatile US administration I believe the US & SK will wargasm no matter how limited NK claims their objectives to be. ...
Hard to reconcile the second of these with the first unless believes that a "wargasm" is not a very frightening thing.


That said I also do not see too many great choices that any administration would have.

It certainly does not help to have an American president setting himself up like in a bad cartoon, but at some point a not-response is even more dangerous than a response. It also does not help that we have an administration that has undermined the diplomatic corp at State and lost many of the career staff.

The only hope one can have is that China recognizes that their best interests are served by their putting their full weight behind getting NK to stand down. The last UN vote and China's subsequent statement that they saw the situation coming to a "crisis point" can be read as that recognition occurring.

The price would be China being seen as the sane and stable partner in the region, not the United States, with no NK regime change and still having some nuclear capacity, just frozen at current levels. But on balance a very small price in comparison to any likely other.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 08-11-2017, 11:23 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 18,780
Those two quotes of mine were from April.

The point of the former post then was folks were whipping themselves into a frenzy that NK was going to attack this very week or DJT was going to preempt this very week. It's been 4 months and essentially nothing has changed IMO. Actual hostilities are not imminent IMO. It's now historical fact that hostilities were not imminent in April 2017.

The point of the latter post was that once hostilities do start, NK is toast. The US will not settle for another 75-year stalemate across a DMZ. That was true in e.g. 1970 and 1990, and is certainly true in 2017. I expect it will still be true in 2025 while NK continues much as they have been.

If hostilites commence, how exactly NK ceases to exist and how much of their former territory is controlled by China and how much by SK is very much an open question. IMO an independent country on the land formerly known as the DPRK is not gonna happen. Neither major power wants that.

I'm not seeing those as terribly inconsistent perspectives.


Agree with the rest of your analysis. DJT has slowly painted us deeper into a stupider place. China has an opportunity to step up and be a real statesman here. Not for our sake, but in the legit pursuit of their own long term objectives intelligently defined. Which may have the effect of saving the US from the worst consequences of the unstable leadership we elected.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 08-11-2017 at 11:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 08-11-2017, 02:16 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Millions of potential dead today as well as potentially trillions in destroyed or otherwise lost treasure, verse uncertainty in the future, a future that might end in the same way the old Soviet Union went out, despite having orders of magnitude more weapons that North Korea will ever have. Yeah...I think that's a better option. Probably why those presidents kicked the can down the road instead of taking on the regime head on and precipitating what will be a major conflict with a major loss of life.
But if we attack now, we can guarantee that we will not get nuked. We cannot guarantee that in a few years.

As I said, I am not in favor of war yet, but are we sure that NK is just bluffing and blustering or will they attack given the first real chance? Yes, that would be suicide for them, but can we trust that we are not dealing with a true madman over there?
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 08-11-2017, 02:27 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 31,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires
But if we attack now, we can guarantee that we will not get nuked. We cannot guarantee that in a few years.
If by 'we' you mean only the US, well...that's probably true. We certainly would mitigate it somewhat...at the cost of 10's of thousands and potentially millions of lost lives and a major economic downturn globally.

As for your second point, we 'guarantee' that we don't take a nuke exactly the same way we ensure Russia (who has 2 orders of magnitude more nukes than NK does) or China (who has 10 times more) doesn't nuke us...by MAD. I don't personally believe that lil' Kimmy 3.0 or his merry men will just fly off the handle and nuke the US or anyone else. What I think is that Kimmy et al believe that nukes will be a magic wand for them...having them will ensure that they don't go out like the Kaddaffi Duck or Saddam. But that's the wrong lesson to have learned, IMHO.

Quote:
As I said, I am not in favor of war yet, but are we sure that NK is just bluffing and blustering or will they attack given the first real chance? Yes, that would be suicide for them, but can we trust that we are not dealing with a true madman over there?
No...just like we don't trust those guys in charge of China or Russia. Anyone who would trust Putin OR Xi (or Trump for that matter) is an idiot. Trust doesn't come into it. The assurance that NK WILL be destroyed if it uses a nuke should be enough. The only way I can see this not being the case is if, once things really start to go TU for the NKs, the regime feels there is nothing it can do and they are inevitably going down, someone might decide fuck it...might as well go out in the blaze of glory. But I see that as a lower probability than there is a regime change due to a popular uprising or one of Kimmy's generals (or someone else) taking him out and a transition to something else happens. At this stage even if it were 50/50 that NK would go out in a blaze of glory it's a better bet to wait, continue to kick the can down the road and hope for the best than to unleash what it would take to get rid of the regime by force of arms today.

Last edited by XT; 08-11-2017 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 08-12-2017, 12:28 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Trump is handing [NK its] goal of being recognized as a major player in world politics. Trump is treating them as an equal.
Perhaps Trump and Kim are equals. Trump is antagonizing Kim, and turning his attention away from Germany and other countries led by adults, because he wants to fight in his own weight-class.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 08-12-2017, 01:10 PM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Who will be President 2021? Karachi Auction in Game Room!

Trump's approval is still almost 40%. He can use a suspenseful or military diversion in Korea to increase that to 44% at least. That will be plenty to win elections given gerrymandering and on-going voter suppression policies.

(Trump could win another one, but is getting old. Who will be President next time? Is Pence the strong favorite?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
On Thursday, the conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh praised President Trump on his radio show for his display of machismo, contrasting him with his predecessor, Barack Obama.

We dont have a pajama boy who wears mom jeans who can barely throw a baseball, a first pitch, at a Nationals game, as president, he said. We have somebody out there whos no-nonsense, and whos not going to take this.
...
Jennifer Scott made preparations for an animal auction at the Morgan County Fair in Brush, Colo. I think we have to go guns blazing and let them have it, she said, referring to North Korea.
America, bless its heart, is with Trump. I assume some adults have whispered to Xi of China "Don't worry, we won't let him get out of hand. Play along, will you? Let's not make this any more embarrassing for the whole world than we have to." Or ... is Xi delighted to see the U.S. led so haplessly? North Korea's Kim is delighted of course, and I'm pretty sure Putin is as well.

Now that the existence proof is on the table that America will elect a demagogue politics may get worse and worse. Everyone has been saying "Trump makes me like Bush-43 better." If the GOP can elect a more competent tyrant, our children may be saying "Trump was better than this."
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 08-12-2017, 02:20 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 31,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Trump's approval is still almost 40%. He can use a suspenseful or military diversion in Korea to increase that to 44% at least. That will be plenty to win elections given gerrymandering and on-going voter suppression policies.

(Trump could win another one, but is getting old. Who will be President next time? Is Pence the strong favorite?)



America, bless its heart, is with Trump. I assume some adults have whispered to Xi of China "Don't worry, we won't let him get out of hand. Play along, will you? Let's not make this any more embarrassing for the whole world than we have to." Or ... is Xi delighted to see the U.S. led so haplessly? North Korea's Kim is delighted of course, and I'm pretty sure Putin is as well.

Now that the existence proof is on the table — that America will elect a demagogue — politics may get worse and worse. Everyone has been saying "Trump makes me like Bush-43 better." If the GOP can elect a more competent tyrant, our children may be saying "Trump was better than this."
Xi has his own problems, and he'd be rather a guy with a glass country throwing stones at glass houses if he thought our system was dysfunctional. I doubt anyone is telling him to play along....or that what he's doing aren't for his own, internal reasons. Right now, he's focused on the bloodletting for the upcoming congress, where (he hopes) heads will roll, and they won't be his or his factions.

Last edited by XT; 08-12-2017 at 02:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:14 PM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm pretty confident that China has already decided they don't like American military interventionism, but are you expressing a concern that they'd go to war with us to defend North Korea?
NPR was saying the other day that China theoretically has a mutual defence pact with North Korea, so yes, in theory they have a legal obligation to defend North Korea.

That being said, China is run by people who are a lot more reasonable than either The Donald or The Kim, so I suspect if push came to shove they'd abrogate the treaty.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:22 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
The military is in the business of providing the President with viable methods of achieving his goals.

The US military is pledged to protect the Constitution from all threats. That includes a mentally unstable President.

Crane
What if the President's goal is regime change in North Korea? One way to achieve that is through "some plan of attack or invasion". Of course the military would obey. I'm sure his advisers would counsel him about the consequences, and give as realistic estimates as they can on costs and casualties, but at the end of the day if the President decides it's worth it, and gives the order to proceed, then they will.

IMHO, war with North Korea is still, at present, the worst outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:19 PM
etasyde etasyde is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector_St_Clare View Post
That being said, China is run by people who are a lot more reasonable than either The Donald or The Kim, so I suspect if push came to shove they'd abrogate the treaty.
I doubt it's so clear cut. China's between a rock and a hard place. They despise that treaty, but they can't just walk out on it or all of their mutual defense and military related treaties are thrown into chaos.

From what I understand, the calculus actually works out to favor maneuvering for a limited war with the United States. It sounds strange given the modern proclivity for total war, but we managed for hundreds of years to fight wars by negotiated rules (where and when to fight, even what weapons to use in some cases), so it's entirely possible that belligerents like the United States and China could agree to settle their differences without debellatio, annexation, or regime change in either party as an objective.
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old 08-13-2017, 01:11 PM
Hector_St_Clare Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
I doubt it's so clear cut. China's between a rock and a hard place. They despise that treaty, but they can't just walk out on it or all of their mutual defense and military related treaties are thrown into chaos.

From what I understand, the calculus actually works out to favor maneuvering for a limited war with the United States. It sounds strange given the modern proclivity for total war, but we managed for hundreds of years to fight wars by negotiated rules (where and when to fight, even what weapons to use in some cases), so it's entirely possible that belligerents like the United States and China could agree to settle their differences without debellatio, annexation, or regime change in either party as an objective.
Does China have a lot of treaties with other allies? I know they have trade partners but I didn't realize they had a stable of military allies.

Anyway, I don't see why abrogating a treaty due to grossly irresponsible behavior by NK would mean that *all* of their mutual defense treaties are thrown into chaos.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 08-13-2017, 11:05 PM
Olfatbut Olfatbut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Seems I missed most of the fun here (NK is so two days ago) but NK is no existential threat. Even if they did have a nuke that could reach SF, LA, or Miami they wouldn't be the first hostile country to have that tech. They know that bombing the US would result in a swift and epic flattening.

As others have said, it's an attention game played with empty threats and our awesome leader has given them an equal seat at the twitter table.

I love the Jon Stewart line "Congrats on your nuclear scientists finally getting this, btw our guy rode to work on a horse!" (paraphrasing, referring to RJOppenheimer)
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 08-15-2017, 08:46 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Tweeking the Dragon's Tail

US expansion of the military facilities on Guam does present a viable threat to China and North Korea.

Kim Jong Un's goal is to gain a seat at the table of international politics. The NK military's strategy of launching ICBMs into international waters around Guam may accomplish that goal. The act is highly provocative but harmless. It is akin to the military exercises that the US and SK conduct adjacent to NK territory.

The US will not attack NK because missiles are splashed into the ocean. Trump will further demonstrate that he is an empty suit while Kim Jong In gains a voice in Pacific politics.

Crane

Last edited by Crane; 08-15-2017 at 08:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-15-2017, 08:56 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 31,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane
US expansion of the military facilities on Guam does present a viable threat to China and North Korea.
Clearly, the addition of some Marines changes the entire equation and dynamic of the Pacific. Seriously, they were talking about adding a Marine base and a few thousand Marines to the island...I don't think either China or North Korea is going to be overly worried about that.

Quote:
Kim Jong Un's goal is to gain a seat at the table of international politics. The NK military's strategy of launching ICBMs into international waters around Guam may accomplish that goal. The act is highly provocative but harmless. It is akin to the military exercises that the US and SK conduct adjacent to NK territory.
It would rightfully be seen as an attack. The waters around Guam aren't international waters. KJU isn't going to get a 'seat at the table of international politics' through this or anything else he does. It's not harmless. Your use of the term 'It is' seems to be the only thing close to correct in this paragraph, but then you go off the rails with 'akin to the military exercises that the US and SK conduct adjacent to NK territory', which is just laughable.

Quote:
The US will not attack NK because missiles are splashed into the ocean. Trump will further demonstrate that he is an empty suit while Kim Jong In gains a voice in Pacific politics.
You certainly have an interesting, in the Chinese sense of the word, viewpoint on this stuff. Keep on keeping on, man.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 08-15-2017, 09:46 AM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Well, good XT, you may be correct.

However, Guam is the point of the spear for the US in the Pacific. Guam gained major strategic importance due to our loss of bases in Okinawa. It's not just a 'few thousand Marines'. It's B1s, B2s, B52s, Global Hawks and Nuclear submarines.

If Kim Jong Un can precipitate an international crisis over Guam, China will step in as the mediator. The result may be that NKs nuclear capability is reduced in proportion to the US reducing it's military investment in Guam. In that case Kim Jong In will be the lead guy, not Trump.

Crane

Last edited by Crane; 08-15-2017 at 09:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 08-15-2017, 09:51 AM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 31,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Well, good XT, you may be correct.

However, Guam is the point of the spear for the US in the Pacific. Guam gained major strategic importance due to our loss of bases in Okinawa. It's not just a 'few thousand Marines'. It's B1s, B2s, B52s, Global Hawks and Nuclear submarines.

If Kim Jong In can precipitate an international crisis over Guam, China will step in as the mediator. The result may be that NKs nuclear capability is reduced in proportion to the US reducing it's military investment in Guam. In that case Kim Jong In will be the lead guy, not Trump.

Crane
The Naval and Air Force bases have been there for decades. The only new thing is the proposed addition of a Marine contingent on the island...everything else is pretty much what it's always been wrt infrastructure. Sometimes we deploy more units there, sometimes less depending on the climate in the region. I'm guessing we have more there now due to this dust up, but fundamentally it's not a big change, nor will it unbalance the equation in the region, which is what you were saying.

KJU couldn't lead a boy-scout troop to a Denny's. He's not going to lead or even participate in regional politics. That's even if he stops being a crazy asshole at some point and decides to allow North Korea to join (not rejoin) the community of nations. It's pretty sad when your country makes the Chinese look sane and rational.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 08-15-2017, 12:41 PM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Never underestimate your enemy

Actually the US has put 10 billion dollars into expansion of the Guam facilities in the last ten years. The addition of the Global Hawk base is significant to NK and China.

Comparing Trump to KJU, I'd say KJU is the one with a consistent strategy and reasonably stable position. Currently Trump does not have the backing of the US Congress or the US citizenry. KJU is managing his confrontation with the US very well. Trump is likely to lose. KJU has the initiative.

Crane
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 08-15-2017, 01:15 PM
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 31,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane
Actually the US has put 10 billion dollars into expansion of the Guam facilities in the last ten years. The addition of the Global Hawk base is significant to NK and China.
To add a contingent of 5000 Marines...yes, I know. They also updated some of their facilities. They didn't unbalance the region, however. You have any idea what China has spent on building its artificial 'islands'? Probably not, as they haven't disclosed it. It's a lot more than $10 billion, however.

Quote:
Comparing Trump to KJU, I'd say KJU is the one with a consistent strategy and reasonably stable position. Currently Trump does not have the backing of the US Congress or the US citizenry. KJU is managing his confrontation with the US very well. Trump is likely to lose. KJU has the initiative.
Trump is an idiot. But what you think KJU is can best be described as fantasy. He's neither in a reasonably stable position nor is his strategy consistent, except consistently stupid. He has one faction in China supporting him, but it's a faction that is currently being targeted by Xi and HIS faction for 'corruption'...and Xi et al is no friends of theirs, especially with NK and KJU's recent antics. And depending on how the party congress goes in November it could a very bad thing for NK and lil' Kimmy 3.0. I seriously doubt Xi will be the one purged in the end. KJU is not managing his made up a confrontation with the US in any way, shape or form. Hell, even freaking RUSSIA signed off on sanctions, and that is staggering. KJU is an idiot of practically epic proportions and has painted himself and his country increasingly into a corner...and he's done so with a guy who, while the president of the most powerful nation on earth is ALSO an idiot of epic proportions. Like I said, you have to really be on a fucked up merry go round when China looks like the voice of reason and sanity.

Last edited by XT; 08-15-2017 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 08-15-2017, 02:46 PM
Crane Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Poor Donald, his troubles haven't even begun. KJU will tweek him at will while the others wait in line for their turn.

I assume both sides will use this years war simulation to create opportunities for confrontation.

Crane
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.