I looked through your responses to me, trying to find the questions I’ve supposedly ducked.
All I could find was the post where you asked a number of rhetorical questions in a row “Is North Korea massing its forces? Have they put their fleet to sea?”, which I didn’t answer because…they were rhetorical questions.
But OK then I’ll answer them now: no.
Thanks for the condescension, but I don’t feel any need to present anything else because it’s simply your logical misconception that we’re discussing at this point.
Let’s imagine there are 5 factors affecting the danger of serious civilian casualties or a war breaking out. All I’ve said is that factors D and E have clearly escalated and therefore *overall *the situation is more dangerous.
Your retort is to concede that D and E have escalated, but to claim that since A, B and C have been the same for decades, the whole situation is no more dangerous. It’s faulty logic.
There’s no breakdown – except for the fact nobody, including Trump’s own advisors, really know what he wants to do. Uncertainty is not a good factor to toss into the mix when you have political tensions between two heavily armed countries. It’s worse when both militaries are involved in escalating shows of force, trying to “show resolve” to the other. That’s how the Cold War escalated to near cataclysmic levels, and lest we forget, there were some really, really close calls in which we were moments from disaster.
It’s not just based on the German example; it’s based on others as well: Turkey, Russia, Venezuela, and others. A president has a lot of power. When a president shows complete disregard for the rule of law and constitutional principles, we’d best take that seriously and stand at attention. If you don’t like the example of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis dividing citizens, pitting them against each other, and using national emergencies as a justification for grabbing power, fine. We could just as easily use Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, or Recep Erdogan. Sure, democracies in Weimar Germany, 1990s Russia, Venezuela and Turkey were arguably weaker than in the United States, but American democracy isn’t necessarily as strong as you think it is.
They may not yet, at present, be able to present a credible threat to the United States population in the sense that Russia can, but they’re getting there, and from the viewpoint of the Pentagon (and presumably the White House), this new reality is going to be difficult to accept. It’s one thing to have an adversary capable of causing regional chaos and destruction; it’s another to be able to reliably threaten the American population in the same way that they threaten Japan and South Korea, particularly if they believe that there is still time to do something to prevent this sort of change in dynamics. When Donald Trump says Kim Jung Un had better not threaten the United States, he means exactly that – because the threat itself is unacceptable. The Pentagon and Department of State have always operated with confidence that we can destroy North Korea, that we have that anvil to drop on the leaders of North Korea with little or no direct consequence in return. That leverage is disappearing. Moreover, the United States is ever-mindful of the fact that their regional partners are aware of this. The value of American protection is also losing its value, which means we will ultimately have less political power in the region.
At the moment, no, first of all, there is more than enough of a presence in the region already. Moreover, the longer this situation festers, the more likely it is that the more significant assets will be sent, possibly by the end of the year.
All it would take for a war to start is a misunderstanding or an accident. The situation has always been sensitive, so I agree with you to a certain extent that this is in some ways just a new chapter in a long story. But Donald Trump’s penchant for uncertainty is problematic at a time of escalating behavior on the part of Kim Jung Un. It will only become a bigger problem if Trump does indeed send strategic assets to the peninsula.
I asked you repeatedly if there is any evidence that either country has changed its stance. Your answer here, however, is correct…it’s no.
Condescesion would be me saying I realize you can’t possibly understand my point (perhaps with a remark like “I’m just to smart” or “because I’m so handsome” or the like :p), not that you are obviously missing it. Based on the fact that you still didn’t get it, I’d say it’s evidently true…you were missing it. It’s not my logical misconception, it’s freaking reality…if neither country is changing its stance then neither thinks war is actually imminent or is preparing for war. Again, you don’t seem to get that, but it’s an important piece of this puzzle and I wish there was some way I could convey this to make you understand.
Could war happen anyway? Certainly, that’s always a possibility. But, today, right now, with Trump tweeting his stupid tweets and NK state-run media showing CGI attacks on US carriers and the destruction of Washington DC, the reality is neither side is actually doing anything to indicate they think war is likely. It’s like a politician…you know that you can’t really trust their words, necessarily, you look to see what their actions are. In this case the words and the actions are a total disconnect on both sides.
No, my contention is that nothing has substantially changed wrt the equation between the US and North Korea. The perception of people like you has changed due to their very public testing of nuclear weapons and the fact that you haven’t been following along with this for 30 years now and haven’t been paying attention to what’s happened in Korea during that time. The fact that they now have nukes is nothing new…they have had them since at least 2006 and most likely before that. They have had missiles that entire time as well, though granted they are now testing missiles and have shown a warhead that could presumably be mounted on one of those rockets. But this hasn’t changed anything wrt the dynamic between the US and North Korea. The US wasn’t ever going to invade North Korea, so no change there. And, lo, we aren’t preparing to do, or preparing a massive first strike to take them and Kim out, either by moving the forces in place to do so. No change. North Korea isn’t going to use these less than reliable (even assuming they indeed even have all the pieces, which I doubt) weapons system unilaterally, nor are there any indications they will do so, nor if they perfect the things will they use them except in the last extreme. They aren’t changing their stance at all. So, no change. A, B, C, D and E are unchanged wrt both countries. What’s changed is your perception of the dynamic based on being blasted by the media about the threat of North Korean nukes coupled with all of the heated rhetoric between Trump and North Korea. Such rhetoric, however, is nothing new either.
Well, that’s good…a point we can agree on at least.
This is all it would ever have taken. That’s the thing, anytime in the past 40 years any of myriad situations COULD have taken us unexpectedly to war. The sinking of a South Korean warship could have been a flashpoint. Or the shelling of South Korean villages. Incursions across the DMZ or tunnels or kidnappings or any of a host of provocations. It’s nothing new and in fact, we’ve been much closer to war in the past than we are today.
As for Trump, I suppose he could fly off the handle at some provocation, yet unsurprisingly, his words don’t match up to the actions being taken by the US. He talks about fire and fury, but the reality is the US has done very little wrt putting that into motion. Almost all of the things we’ve done have been defensive so far and really geared to LOOK like we mean business. Sure, the US is powerful and we could just nuke the crap out of North Korea if they nuked us first, but a nuke is a weapon of last resort, not a first strike weapon. If we were going to do anything except respond to a nuke there would be indications of it…and there aren’t. So, the situation hasn’t changed. The US could nuke basically anywhere in the world at a few minutes notice and has had that capability for decades now. But we wouldn’t use them unless someone nuked us or an ally first.
So, unless you believe that Kim et al would use a nuke first in the current situation and that they actually mean the bluster and rhetoric this time (as opposed to all of the other heated exchanges of rhetoric that have transpired for decades now) the situation is pretty much what it’s always been, with a few twists such as China going along (officially at least) and Russia voting with the rest of the UNSC on sanctions.
All I ask here is to really look at the difference between what Trump and the rest are saying and what our military is actually DOING. Same goes for North Korea. I think if you really look you’ll see that neither side is really doing much of anything, which is a good indication that neither side (and I’m talking about the professionals on both sides, not the leaders who are both, frankly, idiots) THINKS things have really changed or that a threat is imminent. They could, of course, be wrong, or something might happen that is a misinterpretation ar mistake or just a fuckup by one side or the other, and we go to war. But that’s always been a possibility in this fucked up situation and will continue to be one until the Kim regime comes to an end at some point in the future.
As I posted, the situation on the ground appears to be changing – strategic assets are most likely going to be moved into the region in relatively short time. And it’s because the United States is in a position where it must show resolve in support of its obligations to defend its partners. It is not politically in a position to ignore threats against its alliance and its role as a protector. Conducting nuclear weapons tests and then shooting ballistic missiles into the air space of an allied country that they’ve threatened on numerous occasions is a hostile act, one that cannot simply be ignored or shrugged off as North Korea being North Korea. It’s an escalation. Escalations cannot be simply ignored. Nor can the United States simply pretend that their loss of leverage isn’t happening – it absolutely is. It’s true that North Korea has had the ability to pound Seoul and much of Japan into dust, but it was also true that the United States would probably either level much of Pyongyang had it done so, and it would have done so with little direct consequence. That is no longer true.
And that is the real danger. People don’t always behave rationally.
Authoritarianism happens over time through the gradual corrosion of institutions. I would say watch carefully what happens in the Alabama senate race. The outcome of that election will tell us quite a lot about the strength of our democracy.
China is slowly strangling the N Korean economy. They don’t have the industrial nor agricultural base to wage conventional war. Their only choices are a nuclear attack or to back down. Kim is slowly being forced into a corner and the NK elites just might use his loss of face to depose him. He doesn’t command the support of his grandfather nor his father.
China to shut down North Korean companies - China to shut down North Korean companies - BBC News
Not really. The moves seem to be mainly deterrence and defensive (and it’s something we discussed previously, at least I mentioned it several times already in this thread). As your own article acknowledges:
A few more bombers (assuming we actually move more to the theater) aren’t going to make any real difference and certainly aren’t indications we are changing our stance or posture towards North Korea. A real indication, to me at least, that things are ‘heating up’ would be the movement of a large body of troops by the US to either Korea or Japan, as well as a large build-up of logistics supplies. Basically, what we saw in the run-up to Iraq but on a larger scale. THAT would be an indication that the US is actually changing its posture and is thinking terms of a high probability of attack or defense of Korea.
That said, more overflights of the airspace near North Korea means more chances for someone to fuck up and kick off an unintentional war. And the pressures are mounting on the regime with China’s new moves (as seen in the article madsircool linked too), so the pucker factor is certainly going up with all of this. I still don’t think that we are on the verge of war, but a fuckup at this point could mean that even with neither side really prepared for it, war could happen anyway. Sadly, this is nothing new however wrt North Korea…war could have happened dozens of times in the past, and we have just been lucky that it hasn’t, mainly because South Korea has shown inhuman levels of restraint.
Of course, none of this is really what the OP was asking, but hopefully, the OP is ok with this long digression. It’s more interesting than North Korea going after Trump’s business interests or property directly.
I can’t speak for asahi, but I would say that if someone stormed in supported by a biker gang and overthrew the Alabaman government, that would suggest to me that our democracy was lacking a little.
I would also be a little suspicious if the person who won the vote suddenly ‘disappeared’ or succumbed to an unexplained case of lead poisoning.
But if it’s a boring old election result with somebody winning by getting the most votes or whatever, then I think that democracy will have been shown to be stumbling along as well as it ever has, regardless of who actually wins.
(I think I might be suffering from a slight deficiency of hysteria. I may need to see a nutritionist.)
China might be tightening the sanctions, but sanctions don’t necessarily work and they could end up making a country even more hostile and belligerent. If sanctions threaten a regime’s survival, they could force a regime to the bargaining table - or not. China’s been increasing pressure on North Korea for the better part of a year, and North Korea has basically given China the finger. In the short run, China is reluctantly helping the United States not only because they don’t want an accidental war to break out but because they want to preserve economic trade with the United States and they’re afraid Trump will disrupt that.
If Roy Moore wins in Alabama, it would be further evidence that the right wing is anti-democratic. It would put pressure on the republican majority to be less moderate and centrist and more anti-democratic and extremist.
Well you asked me once as part of that set of rhetorical questions. No I don’t think either country has changed their stance.
Fine. You win at condescesion. Congrats.
The point is that war could happen as a mistake, or a spiralling of events, regardless of whether the US or NK actually wants to have a war.
NK is regularly firing missiles now and says they’re about to fire one with a nuclear warhead. You yourself have claimed that they would be unlikely to be able to do so reliably. So yeah that’s a new danger plus that the nail in the coffin is finally going in for their economy (china is shutting down the few companies that trade with NK)
The war of words with Trump, I’d tend to agree with you; it’s not that big a difference since the US was the bogeyman anyway. But it’s not a welcome change.
Earlier in the thread you were just saying that the situation had not become more dangerous, period. Now you’re saying not “substantially” or “significantly” more dangerous.
That’s actually an important difference because of course these are subjective terms.
The range and reliability of their missiles has increased markedly in that time, plus the size of their nuclear tests, just since 2006 has increased by two orders of magnitude. You can’t just say nothing’s changed.
So while I appreciate your condescension, and assumption I haven’t been watching these last 30 years, it seems I’ve paid better attention than you have.
'If the Republican wins in Alabama … ’ is like saying ‘If the sun comes up tomorrow …’. It’s almost certainly going to happen. So anything you follow that condition with is just something you’ve already decided is true, at least in your own mind. I’m not understanding what his pending victory has to do with anti-democratic extremism. Is Roy Moore planning on winning with something less than a plurality? Is he cheating in the election? What is it?
Moore is not just any Republican, though. He’s about as radical as they come, and it’s not just because of his language; he has a history of using official levers of power to spite the Constitution. In fact that’s why he’s no longer a judge and instead now running for Senate. It’s not just the fact that a single individual crank occupies public office - this has happened and will continue to happen. But if Moore wins a statewide senate race, that would be with the help of hundreds of thousands of voting supporters who endorse sending a man to the United States Senate who has shown blatant disregard for basic constitutional and democratic principles.
Perhaps you could argue that this is a one-off election should it happen, but not in these times. Not in this era of hyper-partisanship and not in an age when a president has also shown similarly contemptuous views toward the basic values of our society. A victory by Moore would also validate the continued trend of the eroding political center in politics. If Moore wins, the right wing will move further to the right; the left may also respond in kind. Neither is good, but I think the right wing would succeed from a political civil war more than the left, unless there were some sort of economic catastrophe that would cause a majority of Americans to rethink their allegiance to deregulated capitalism.
According to this Vox article, a former NATO commander believes that there’s a 10% chance of a nuclear war with North Korea and a 20-30% chance of a “conventional” conflict.
I think that’s pretty much how I see it. Yes, the odds of war are still relatively low - war is not necessarily imminent, but that type of catastrophic outcome can no longer be dismissed as an odds outlier. Both Kim and Trump are playing a game of brinkmanship. The danger is that both continue to up the ante out of fear of losing face, to the point where North Korea’s rapidly increasing weapons program is confronted by America’s strategic assets and the loss of patience among officials in the United States alliance, which includes Japan as well. A desire to send a message to Kim at just the wrong time could provoke a defensive response, which could be interpreted instead as offense. At that point…pretty much all hell breaks loose.
Moore has been censured and suspended from his role in the Alabama Supreme Court multiple times due to his valuation of his personal religious beliefs over the constitution and rule of law.
You know how a lot of conservatives are afraid that Muslims will come here and value sharia law more than the constitution, the judiciary, the legislature, the police, etc? That is how Roy Moore comes across to us.
However the fact that Moore has been censured, suspended and removed from his post in the judiciary multiple times, in Alabama no less, shows our checks and balances still work.
