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 offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,361
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: 37,486
"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: 1,308
"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: 17,800
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: 17,800
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 offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,361
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 offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,361
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 online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,090
Until China decides they don't like American military interventionism.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 04-28-2017, 03:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
2016 Election-from-Heck RnnrUp
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,361
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 online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,090
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
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 09:32 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.