Just as a public service reminder, we still don’t have an ambassador to South Korea.
Trump is SUCH an idiot. Good grief. :smack:
That said, we still have communications channels between the US and North Korea (and South Korea for that matter), which was my point. But you are right…we have less channels since Trump hasn’t filled key state department positions, him being an idiot an all.
Don’t career state department folks just take over as a sort of ‘acting ambassador’ in these situations? It’s not like the South Korean government rings the embassy and they get a “sorry we’re out of the office and won’t be back until Trump appoints an ambassador” message, do they?
No idea, but I would assume so. But senior positions like this should have been filled in the first month or so of the presidency. I have read that many key state department positions are STILL unfilled, though I haven’t read much recently about it so perhaps Trump or someone who is marginally brighter on his staff is finally getting around to dealing with this. Most presidents when they come in actually already have this stuff lined up and are ready to go with their transition team, but Trump seems to have decided to just wing it from the get-go. It’s one of the things that most annoys me about the man.
Yeah, look at the date stamp on that…it was from the end of August. And I don’t see anything for a follow up when I do a search, so he still hasn’t been confirmed. Basically, he waited until the end of August to look into it.
I found this article from July on all the top positions Trump still hasn’t submitted candidates for. Look merely at the difference between Obama appointments and Trump appointments to get a feel for why it’s an issue and how Trump was either unprepared for the office or is playing some game. I’m going to go with unprepared.
If there is no ambassador (which is a political appointment), then the embassy foreign service professionals take over his duties. In some ways this is more comforting. Also, modern telecommunications have made ambassadors somewhat obsolete for communicating with foreign leaders.
:smack:
Yes apart from NK’s increasing capability to launch a nuclear war, and that they’re increasingly engaging in risky actions (like firing missiles over Japan), nothing’s changed.
Why are people behaving as though the situation is becoming more dangerous!?
I would say that’s a pretty significant change, particularly when upped their capabilities means that they can now present a clear and present danger to the homeland. But Trump himself is different: they simply don’t have any idea what to expect from him. What they do know is that Trump can order the destruction of their country. What they don’t know is whether to believe Rex Tillerson or James Mattis on any given day. Does the United States want diplomacy, or do they want war? So whatever diplomatic channels you think we might have don’t really matter much because nobody around Trump really knows what the hell he is thinking at any moment.
What we can reasonably sure of, however, is that Donald Trump probably has little or no aptitude for appraising the situation in North Korea. It is also fair to assume, based on how apparently little he cares about people living in Puerto Rico, he cares little about anyone beyond his base of white christian nationalists who fawn over him. So it’s very unlikely that he would consider the destruction of cities abroad much of a cost. On the other hand, there is every indication that he would love nothing more than a distraction from his impending legal troubles and a national emergency that would strengthen his hand and his ability to just make Robert Mueller and all of his other tormentors just disappear.
What a pile of ignorant bullshit.
An official ambassador, contrary to what some might think, is more than just a ceremonial position; the person who occupies that role presumably is the one person in that office who has the most direct knowledge of what’s on the president’s mind. Given all that we apparently know about the downgrading of career bureaucrats in the Dept of State since January, what makes you believe that any career diplomat in Korea has even the slightest idea what to tell his counterparts on the Korean peninsula? When Trump threatens war, when Trump tweets, what official message do any of these staffers tell Korean diplomats? “Don’t worry guys, he’s not serious about bombing North Korea – oh wait, maybe he is. Let me get back to you.”
This is the same president who openly talks about America First (read: America only). This is the president who talked about taking the military out of Asia and letting countries up their own military capabilities. This is the president who on the one hand talks about defending South Korea and Japan while simultaneously threatens a trade war with them. What exactly do American diplomats tell South Korean and Japanese diplomats?
North Korea was never Iraq, but both the United States and North Korea both understood until recently that while they always had the ability to bombard South Korea and Japan, the United States mainland was out of reach. And this is important to understand because America’s nuclear umbrella has up to this point had a few fundamental assumptions:
-
the United States absolutely will defend South Korea and Japan (now uncertain)
-
in the event of war, the United States will exercise its nuclear superiority to completely demolish North Korea (still pretty certain)
-
The United States itself will probably pay very little in direct costs in a war with North Korea (now also increasingly uncertain)
So we have two out of three fundamental assumptions of the nuclear umbrella that are now in question. This is what has changed. What’s worse now is that you have a president who is so unqualified that he quite obviously has no ability to reckon with the dangers of a war, and yet he has every reason to use a war as a distraction from his own personal problems at home. Moreover, none of his advisors can agree on what he is saying. You’re just plain wrong if you think nothing has changed. Everything has changed.
Hitler was years in the making. He was made possible by the erosion of public trust in its democratic government and a desire to replace it with authoritarianism. I would say we are well on are way there ourselves. A democracy can turn into an authoritarian regime with probably as little as 20% of the support of the voting-eligible public. It’s just a matter of timing and circumstances.
Except they have always engaged in risky behavior. In the past they sunk a South Korea warship, kidnapped South Korean and Japanese citizens from their home countries, raided across the border with assassination teams into the DMZ and into South Korea and shelled South Korean villages…as well as small things like doing nuclear tests, firing missiles and the like.
Honestly, because people are ignorant of most of the above, having paid attention or followed along and just don’t know anything more about this situation than they are seeing right now today, and so are scared by the exchange of rhetoric between Trump and the US and Kim and North Korea.
Except they aren’t a clear and present danger to ‘the homeland’, by which I presume you mean the US. Even if we take their demonstrated capabilities at this time at face value they aren’t an existential threat to the US or even South Korea or Japan. Doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous, or that they couldn’t do a lot of harm (estimates I’ve seen for a war with North Korea has South Korean death tolls in the 100’s of thousands to the millions…with North Korean death tolls starting in the millions and going up from there).
As for the rest here, again, I ask you…what’s ACTUALLY changed wrt the US stance? You talk about Trump sending tweets, but that’s not a change in the US stance. Has the US moved assets into position in Korea for an attack? That would be an indication that the US wants or thinks war is likely. AFAIK, all of the US movements have been purely defensive thus far, and we haven’t redeployed major ground assets, say, or major Air Force assets…or even moved another fleet into position. We moved a few fighters over, have moved some ships capable of shooting down some missiles to South Korea and Japan (and Guam I think) and that’s about it.
So, list for me all the things you think the US has done to actually change its stance wrt North Korea. Can you name a few that indicate to you with actual hard data (as opposed to feelings about tweets) that the US has changed its stance and wants war? As a hint, you can look at the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts as a guide. THAT is how the US prepares when they think they are going to war. What you saw in Iraq, you’d need to multiply by several times, since there is no way we are going to invade North Korea with only 150,000 men…not if we expect to actually do anything. If we even THINK we MIGHT be going to war, you’d start to see that sort of force being assembled somewhere. Do you?
I don’t think any of this is real to Trump. That’s my personal assessment. He doesn’t want war and doesn’t think war is likely (and apparently the professionals in chard don’t think it’s likely either, or they would be moving US assets to the region). My own WAG on this is that Trump thinks he can bully the North Koreans with the supposed threat of war into doing what he wants, giving him a cheap victory. The trouble is, unlike you, the North Koreans can look and see that the US isn’t actually building up for a war and has done little to change it’s actual stance towards North Korea…meaning that, really, we aren’t looking for war nor preparing for it, and thus don’t really intend to do anything unless we or our allies are attacked. And, based on our stance, we really don’t expect to be attacked.
You certainly make lots of interesting assumptions.
Embassies get their direction from the State Dept. There has been no breakdown in communications between the two. The S Koreans and Trump just held talks in NYC. Any direction from the Pres to an embassy goes Pres->Sec State->Amb. And many ambassadorships are filled by political allies as a reward for support.
Your Germany/Trump comparison has no basis in fact:
Germanys Weimar Republic was imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles thus born in illegitimacy in the minds of many Germans.
The twenties were filled with international instability and the rise of communism. The thirties with the Depression. Instability was everywhere.
Germany was returning to an autocratic government (that had been booted by foreign powers) from only 14 years prior. There is no comparison between Weimar and the USA.
Hitler was also favored by some in Germany because he was believed to be the only party able to contain the Communists. There is no parallel threat in the USA.
Germany was racked by unemployment and national humiliation. There are no parallels between Germany and the USA.
The Nazis and The Communists had their own armed wings which constantly battled on the streets of German cities. American political parties do not have armed wings and do not engage in political violence.
The German Army was well respected in Germany and had great influence in politics. The US military has no influence in politics.
Your idea that America can become authoritarian in the German example is silly.
I didn’t say they have never engaged in risky behaviour, I said that they are *increasingly *doing so – and it’s in both frequency and scope.
And as we’ve both said, their nuclear capability is very clearly advancing (and I’d add at a much faster rate than analysts were saying just a few years ago).
So yes, the situation is very obviously becoming more dangerous. Agreed?
But what is the thing you’re saying they don’t know?
The situation is becoming more dangerous.
Trump’s a prat, and may escalate things more quickly than any other leader would, but that doesn’t mean we can or should ignore the threat.
No, I don’t agree that the situation is becoming more dangerous. The PERCEPTION of the situation that many seem to have has changed, but the fundamental situation hasn’t substantially changed, certainly not since 2006.
They are more capable today than they were a few years ago, no doubt. And if they continue down this path they might have a capability on par with what the Soviets had in the early 50’s. That doesn’t make the situation more dangerous unless you really think that North Korea is going to unilaterally attack the US and it allies. Again, it’s the perception that has changed…suddenly, people who haven’t paid any attention to the situation in Korea are afraid because North Korea might have a missile with a nuclear tip that could hit the US! But even leaving aside how far they still have to go to have a reliable weapons system that could do that, and forgetting for a minute that the US has the capabilities of knocking down such an attack, this is no different from the fact that Russia, today, has such a capability (and about 3 orders of magnitude more nuclear weapons and missiles) and so does China (they only have maybe 1 order of magnitude more missiles and nukes though).
I disagree. I don’t think that folks like you ‘know’ many of the details on this situation, what the actual risks are, the historical context of what’s going on (thus unable to judge if things ARE more ‘dangerous’ today than in the past) and are reacting on pure fear because of it. As I asked asahi, what actual changes in the posture or stance of either country can you point at to demonstrate how things are more dangerous? Is North Korea massing its forces? Have they put their fleet to sea? Is there any indication they are staging anything for, well, anything? They have done some nuclear tests (same as they have been doing off and on for over a decade). They test fired some missiles (they have been doing that as well for over a decade). They are pissed off at the sanctions (same). They have made threats and a new video showing the destruction of a US carrier (really, really bad CGI but better than their video on the destruction of Washington DC…they have certainly upped their capabilities on this score). But they aren’t doing the things that indicate they are actually getting ready for war. On the US’s side, it’s the same story. The US isn’t doing anything differently. We have engaged with China and the UN to up the sanctions (something we’ve been doing for as long as I can remember). The only really new thing I can think of is we’ve put a lot more pressure on the Chinese than in the past. Oh, and Russia, for whatever reason, is playing along in the UNSC…for now. That’s certainly a change. But other than those things? There hasn’t been any real change in the status quo, AFAIK. South Korea isn’t mobilizing. Japan isn’t doing whatever they would or could do. The US certainly isn’t taking this seriously from the perspective of ACTUALLY preparing for any sort of threat of attack or in preparation for a first strike.
The difference is that this PERCEPTION seems based on actual events, when all you can seemingly offer in way of reassurance are handwaves.
You’ve conceded that their nuclear programme has definitely advanced, and now tacitly agreed that they are engaging in ever more risky actions like firing missiles over Japan. At this point, it doesn’t matter if KJU secretly pees his pants every night hoping we don’t take his bluster seriously: a missile strikes Japan or significant civilian deaths occur in some other way, and events will rapidly spiral out of control.
The reassurances that analysts tried to give over this a few years ago was, as I say, that NK wouldn’t possibly have ICBMs for decades. They were wrong, such voices have silenced, and frankly the only people who seem to be saying “nothing to see here folks” are people like you on discussion forums like this.
Yes, let’s. The pace of their progress has already been much faster than most were predicting, so it wouldn’t be very reassuring to assume the last hurdles will be in their way for long. Plus who said they needed to make a reliable weapon; just an effective one.
There’s no way you can state that as fact when many analyses state otherwise. At the least you have to concede it’s debatable. A good summary here.
No-one’s claiming NK could win a nuclear exchange.
The point is about how stable the nation is, and how close to some kind of accident or misunderstanding that could spiral us into war. I’m much more concerned about NK’s nukes than I am about Pakistan’s than I am about China’s than I am about the US’.
And yet, you still haven’t answered any of the questions I’ve asked. Who is actually handwaving here? Again…what evidence do you have that the situation has changed? Zero thus far has been presented. I realize that I’m talking past you and you don’t get my point, but it’s frustrating that you haven’t bothered to seeming read what I’ve written and your post here doesn’t address any of the key aspects.
They have increased their capabilities. What of it? Nuclear tipped missiles, even if they work properly, are basically a defensive tool. Kim can’t use them unless he’s attacked, even if he has confidence which I’m fairly sure he doesn’t that they will actually work properly AND get through the various defenses first in Korea and off the coast of Korea, then Japan…and that, once they do this, they actually are accurate enough to hit a target that makes the retaliation worth the cost. This is a seriously low probability that all of this would happen and it would be worth the retaliation which would, frankly, wipe North Korea (and more importantly from his perspective, Kim and his regime) out.
No one figured that factions in China would be so willing to help out with the technology, nor that North Korea would be able to get assistance and tech transfer from Ukraine or Russia. Also, frankly, there is a lot of element of hype here. North Korea hasn’t shown they have the capability to reliably fire a long-range ICBM with a warhead, have it survive reentry or be accurate enough to hit a target small enough to ensure their current warheads could actually do the damage sufficient to make the risk worth the effort.
I’m not saying that them having nukes is nothing to see here. It’s certainly serious. But, realistically, it hasn’t changed things. Certainly, neither side is acting like there has been any sort of change if you leave aside the rhetoric and back and forth exchange of threats. Just because North Korea has a missile that could, in theory, hit Japan or even the US with a nuke means nothing really, unless you think Kim will use it unilaterally. From the perspective of war, which is what we were discussing, there has been zero change in either countries posture. That’s what I’ve repeatedly asked you for, and what you’ve basically ignored every time I’ve asked. You’ve ignored it, I suppose, because you don’t understand what I’m asking you or why it’s important, and instead have focused on the nuclear weapons because that’s what has been in the news and what everyone is fretting about.
In order to have a weapons system that you would actually consider using, it HAS to be reliable enough that you are confident that if you sent it up it’s going to do something. Currently, the NK’s don’t have either a reliable OR an effective system. They have some pieces that might go together, at great cost, and use up one of their very limited number of highly expensive weapons that they have made at great sacrifice…and will cost them everything to use. Like I said, even if we assume they have more than a handful of miniaturized nukes (and assuming those are what they tested and are getting their current yield out of), and assuming the missile doesn’t blow up on the pad or blow up in the boost phase, and assuming they have, contrary to any evidence thus far, perfected a reentry vehicle, and assuming they can do all this accurately enough to hit inside the city limits in either Japan or on Guam, and assuming that even if all this works properly that the missile defenses in South Korea and on the US Navy ships stations around Korea and Japan miss well…
Frankly, this is all only slightly better odds than winning the lottery. And it still doesn’t matter, even if they have perfected all of this, since they aren’t going to use them unilaterally, or, at least, they aren’t changing their posture to indicate they are going to do that. Just the like the US isn’t going to invade as things stand now, or even attempt some hair brained decapitation strike…not with our current posture.
No, they don’t. I subscribe to CuriousDroid’s channel, so I’ve seen this video already. Did you notice he was not talking about North Korea, but instead was talking about things like MIRV systems which North Korea definitely doesn’t have? WRT a Russian strike, what he’s saying is true…there is no system that could take down such an attack. YOu’d have literally thousands of missiles and 7-10k warheads, it would overwhelm any system. The NK’s, however, MIGHT have 10 of these things…even if we assume all of them worked (:dubious:) the number of defensive missiles would be many times that number. And they wouldn’t have defenses in the reentry phase such as CD was discussing. And, of course, they wouldn’t necessarily hit anything at all.
If you like, I can give you a bunch of links to space and missile videos on YouTube explaining why this is a lot more difficult than people think, as well as realistic analysis of where North Korea actually is. This isn’t to downplay the fact that they have made great strides, even leaving aside the magic missile fairies to the north’s help, but you have to keep it real.
And, frankly, I’m more concerned about an NK artillery attack on Seoul than I am about their more nebulous nuclear threat. This is, however, a threat that they have had for decades now. As for instability, well, that’s one of the risks we have all collectively run wrt North Korea. We chose, through successive administrations in the US, to basically kick the can down the road and hope that when the regime finally does go tits up we don’t get the worst case. Because, frankly, the alternative would be worse than anyone wants to contemplate. Trump, for all his bluster and bluff, hasn’t shown one thing that indicates this has changed at all wrt the US. Kim Jong Un hasn’t either, not really. You have to be able to read between the lines, not listen to the bluster. Between the lines, neither nation has changed anything about its posture. North Korean’s aren’t running to the guns and clearing them for action. Americans aren’t sending over huge stockpiles of logistics, tanks, planes, and troops in preparation for an invasion. North Korea isn’t getting its missiles ready for launch. Really, what’s happening is the same thing that’s happened in the past. The US is cracking down on sanctions. North Korea is pissed off at them and blistering the air waves with threats and bluster. We’ve been here before and probably will again until, finally, this ridiculous regime folds.
Yes and no. A nuclear armed North Korea is certainly more dangerous than a non-nuclear armed one, but they aren’t mere handwaves. North Korea has a very long history of aggressive and at least slightly insane behavior. The incidents already mentioned in this thread resulted in actual deaths, not just over-the-top bombastic aggressive propaganda statements or actions that didn’t kill anyone. The Blue House assassination attempt for example killed 36 South Koreans, 4 Americans, and 29 of the North Korean commandos. Some other aggressive North Korean actions over the years:
[ul]
[li]Axe murder incident, 1976: Two Americans murdered by North Koreans in the DMZ with axes.[/li]
[li]USS Pueblo incident: The USS Pueblo is attacked, boarded, and captured by North Korea. It’s still on display at Pyongyang.[/li]
[li]Infiltration tunnels: Four tunnels dug under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s, up to 20 more are believed to exist. The tunnels are capable of passing more than 20,000 troops per hour each.[/li]
[li]The DMZ Conflict, 1966-69:299 South Koreans, 43 Americans, and 397 North Koreans are killed in a series of incidents during these years.[/li]
[li]EC-121 Shootdown incident:A US EC-121 is shot down by a North Korean MiG-21 in 1969, all 31 on board are killed.[/li]
[li]1996 Gangneung submarine infiltration incident:A North Korean mini-sub runs aground after landing a special operations reconnaissance team in 1996. When it proves impossible to free the sub, the crew of 11 are executed by the North Korean commando team which then tries to infiltrate their way back north. A 49-day manhunt ensues during which 12 South Korean soldiers, 4 South Korean civilians and 13 of the North Korean commandos are killed and one captured.[/li][/ul]
It could almost be considered a good thing that Trump is doing what he is doing (or at least, it’s possible that future historians will look back and say such), in that NK is developing their nuclear capabilities by the day.
If we had had this confrontation 10 years ago, there’d have been many casualties, especially in SK, but the US mainland would be untouched.
If we have this confrontation in 10 years, when NK has developed their capabilities further, and can actually hit the US with a sizable number of weapons, including thermonuclear devices, well, there’s still going to be many casualties in SK, but the US mainland will be harmed. It’s very doubtful that our infrastructure and ability to make war would be heavily impacted, but there’d probably still be quite the number of dead citizens, and that never plays well in the news.
Right now, he might be able to hit us with a couple of low powered nukes, but it’s quite likely that they’d miss, be duds, or even succumb to our anti-missile defenses. SK still gets wiped out, but that happens in all scenarios.
If we follow on the America first protectionistic mindset, then things actually turn out well, if there is a bit of a war over there. If south korea is heavily damaged, along with japan, well, hey, we now aren’t importing from them anymore, so that’s good for the US economy, right? (I do not agree with this idea, but I don’t know that trump doesn’t, and I strongly believe that many of his supporters would be more than happy to see other places getting blown up.) Any nukes that do make it here are going to be targeted at cities, not trump’s supporters. I am quite sure that david duke will not shed a tear over the destruction of san francisco.