Or maybe this is all a contrived fantasy in your own mind. I seriously doubt that the North Koreans or 'lil Kimmy v3.0 seriously think the US is going to invade. If they do actually think that, then the way they are going about this is the stupidest way they could. I mean, this is beyond even a Dr. Evil plan. Let’s continue to poke at the US, South Korea, and Japan as well as the rest of the world by detonating nuclear weapons underground and sending off ballistic missile tests, all the while threatening war at every provocation. At the same time, let’s alienate our one remaining ally too so that we are completely isolated! Then we will get into a pissing match with an obviously unstable Trump, threaten seemingly unrelated countries like Australia at random, and generally do as much stupid shit as we can because we are shaking in our boots about the imminent US invasion! :smack:
There will be no war unless the US starts it. Kim Jong-Un sped up the nuclear development simply because there has never been a successful invasion of a nuclear power. He saw what happened to depots that the US doesn’t approve of in Libya and Iraq and knows that the better armed he is, the more likely he is to survive. It’s all about him, pure and simple.
So if NK doesn’t start it, the US might. If Dumb Donald’s polls go much farther south, he might decide that starting a war would boost his ratings.
Time to get real. NK has nukes. They will always have nukes. You either live with that or kill millions of people because you can’t.
Yes. I’m not recommending that approach, just observing that if we took it, we’d no longer have to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea. War is still the worst option IMHO.
I think that the Pentagon’s red line with North Korea is about to be crossed. We’ve lived for the past 60 years with the understanding that North Korea could wreak a lot of havoc if the Korean war were to re-start. Having biological or even a small nuclear arsenal didn’t fundamentally change anything because the United States has always enjoyed the ultimate military superiority of being able to destroy North Korea without the homeland paying a high price. That calculus appears to be changing, and that has several implications. But among them is the realization of Abe Shinzo that the United States “shield” is worthless. Sure, he appreciates the backing of a strong ally, but he is going to move forward with his own militarization. And Japan’s militarization will, coupled with China’s, make Asia a very dangerous neighborhood, and one that is going to be increasingly difficult for the United States to police.
From the Pentagon’s point of view, it could be tempting to crush North Korea. Mind you, I think it would be a terrible decision with horrendous consequences, but I could see the Pentagon thinking it’s their last chance to maintain American military supremacy in the region. Without that supremacy, Japan may not just be independent but a potential adversary again, one of a growing many in Asia.
Well yes, if you can’t live with them having nukes then destroying their country would do it. As well as take out millions of innocent lives. I say the only realistic option is to live with a nuclear NK. We live with a nuclear Pakistan, India, Israel…
The chances of us ending up on opposite sides of a war with Japan probably fall somewhere between the odds of us doing so with Australia and Canada. In other words, essentially zero.
Also, Japan is in no position to challenge the USA for military supremacy even if they wanted to. And they almost certainly won’t be within our lifetimes. They have less than half our population, roughly 1/4 of our GDP, and about 8% of our military budget.
In this list of nations, which one doesn’t belong:
Pakistan
India
Israel
North Korea
Ding, ding, ding!! North Korea!
Comparing the risk to the United States of a nuclear Israel to that of a nuclear North Korea is completely ridiculous. While I agree that we may well have to live with it, to say that there isn’t an increased danger to a nuclear North Korea with an ICBM capability isn’t honest either.
Not at all. It’s nice to see allies with an equal voice working in harmony.
I can choose both. America, as imperial hegemon, however unmalevolent it might be — see Assyria, Persia, China, Russia, France, Britain etc. etc. with their imperial forces — would take out NK, Kim and all the little Kimmies, regardless of anyone else — see Iraq — if it could; but apart from their purported nukes, their possibly famished and low-IQ army is fairly ferocious.
To say this has been low on the list of priorities since WWII, even if every other country with the loosest association to Marxist-Leninist theory, apart from China and Cuba, has been eliminated one-by-one, added to a desire not to enflame NK’s neighbours, would account for the delay in settling scores until NK got nukes.
Yet the current Kim knows that if he unilaterally disarmed, not only he personally would suffer a mafia killing like Mussolini and Gadhaffi, but his country and Juche system would be bombed out of existence. He is an affront to Democracy and the American Way. That’s the ‘brooks no dissent’ bit. As your President Bush pronounced, possibly echoing Jesus, 'Those who are not with us, are against us’.
I have to agree with you here. If the US could “take out” the NK regime, with a snap of their finger, without the loss of life, they surly would. But what sane person wouldn’t? Wouldn’t you??? They are one of the most repressive regimes in the world, starving their own people, operating large scale prison camps, and have arguably the worst human rights record in the world. They engage in provocation with the SK and have kidnapped SK and Japanese nationals. Why the hell wouldn’t you “take them out?” You make the seem likem Switzerland for goodness sake.
So this is another variation on the theme that NK got nukes just in time to avert the long planned invasion by the US. The invasion that’s apparently be 65 years in the making, that the US has finally gotten around to. That argument is a farce.
Again, the US is taking it’s time. President Bush (three Presidents ago in case you’re counting) said that 16 years ago. Again, I guess the US isn’t in a rush. No one was saying that Kim needed to disarm. But putting nuclear weapons in ICBMs is upping the tensions way beyond what has been the norm for the last three generations.
But you appear to think this is all some grand plan but the US, all logic and reason aside.
No, not really. It’s increasingly clear that the United States military protection is a paper tiger. Japan knows – or at least assumes – that the United States cannot stop North Korea from leaving its cities in ruins if the Kim regime decided to go scorched earth.
And your theory is that the USA can’t guarantee BMD with a $500+ billion budget so Japan will strike out on their own and figure out how to do it with less than a $50 billion budget?
I’m not so much saying they will be an adversary but could be at some point in the future. I don’t think that would happen right away. But with growing military independence, Japan would become more of a free agent in other ways as well. We didn’t envision the Philippines becoming quite so antagonistic and yet here we are with a long-time regional ally calling our former head of state a ‘son of a bleep’ and not really in a hurry to meet with our current president either. In the short run, I think a shared distrust of China will be a common tie between the two countries, but that could change over time. Diplomatically, Japan doesn’t really have a lot of true friends.
To the extent that Japan is entering into an arms race with China / North Korea, they’re largely doing it by purchasing US military equipment. They’ve ordered 42 F-35s. Just last month, Trump announced plans to sell them additional equipment. In response to recent provocation we’ve held joint air force exercises with American, South Korean, and Japanese aircraft all working together. The last thing Japan wants to do is alienate the US.
