Um…what makes that incredibly clear to you? Why do you think that Japan thinks that being a US ally is ‘worthless’? Or any of our other allies? What indications, to you, show that Japan believes this to be true? I mean, they certainly have recently increased their defense budget, but it hasn’t been all that radical an increase, which is what I’d expect if they actually believed what you are saying here.
As far as North Korea goes, what makes you believe that Japan could protect itself from North Korea any better than the US can wrt nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles? I mean, let’s pretend for a moment that you are right…the US is just a paper tiger and it’s military a hollow shell and we just can’t protect Japan from North Koreas missiles. What do you think that Japan could realistically do that the US isn’t doing already to protect itself?
Everyone assumes that rational thinking and cool heads will be involved. I don’t think either leader has those characteristics.
What will probably happen is the jerkwad will tweet something that will be mistaken as a declaration of war, or whatever, and the other jerkwad will do something equally stupid and then…the missiles are flying.
Can you cite some evidence that “this kind of thinking is the rule” at the Pentagon? Because at the Pentagon that I worked in, the military was the last group that wanted the military option. The folks in uniform are the ones that will bear the brunt of any military action. They will be the ones chewed up. Historically State wants to use the military, and the military wants to give diplomacy another chance.
I’d bet you have absolutely no idea how decisions are made within DoD, but you’re somehow confident that they eat babies for breakfast, blood dripping down their uniforms.
For the last time, there are close to 30,000 American service members in South Korea as a trip wire if nothing else. (Not to mention almost 500,000 US citizens.) And they (the military) have been there since 1953, not inciting NK, and not invading the north. But in all those 64 years, the big bad military who are clamoring for a war, haven’t been able to start one. The only reason for this is that the military, and every administration since Eisenhower hasn’t wanted one.
North Korea seems to be playing the Pakistan playbook. We were shitty with Pakistan until they got the nuke, then we were allies. Seems to me that Kim’s goal is to get the nuke so we will prop him up and keep him in power so it doesn’t get lost to stateless actors. Pin the nuke down.
I don’t think this is a good comparison. The US and Pakistan have been allies - albeit, troubled allies - for quite a few decades, including many years *before *Pakistan went nuclear.
There has never been a point at which the US and North Korea were ever remotely allies.
I think you’re missing that Kim is a puppet of Beijing, or at the very least that NK is a client state.
And just like Vietnam, NK has a long direct border with China. That Vietnam reference connects with a very different China, the China of today is all growed up.
Yes, Chiefy that Pakstan’s nuclear programme was a major problem in its US relations. US has had periods of good relations with Pakistan inspite of that not because of it.
It is right that being a nuclear power does increase your freedom of actions and options from your perspective (or “bad behavior” from opposition one) and Pakistan is an example of that, if Pakistan was not a nuclear power, it would not have been able to pursue the foreign policy it has, at least not without potentially direct consequences.
If by “imminent”, one means “in the next two weeks or so”, then no. Trump will be on a lengthy Asian trip, including a visit to South Korea, until Nov. 13.
After that, well… There seems little doubt that Mr. Trump is practically aching for a politically viable excuse to attack North Korea, and will continue to look for ways to provoke them into providing that excuse.
Wouldn’t a visit to South Korea be the ideal time for him to announce a pre-emptive strike on North Korea? At least once Air Force One is in the air flying away; he won’t stick around to watch the fireworks.
He can claim he’s examined the situation and it’s falling apart, and the South Koreans asked him to do something and he’s been forced to act, etc. It’ll all be BS, but he’s certainly not shy about making things up.
As for your second statement, I’d tend to agree; if he’s thinking it through it all, he’ll probably keep pressing joint military exercises with South Korea as often as possible and as close as possible to the border as possible, hoping that someone will get nervous, take a potshot at a plane, and provide a justification for him to launch an offensive.
“They attacked us! We’re just defending ourselves!” is typically the rallying cry of any invading army.
I think not, especially if SK’s leadership makes it clear they are not totally on board with such a notion. Meantime, I’ll frankly be amazed if he actually goes to the DMZ on his visit and I’m dead certain he’ll be as far away from the action as possible if the balloon goes up.
Also, from a practical standpoint, relying on the much-vaunted comms suite aboard AF1 while a complex military operation unfolds seems like unnecessary risk (although admittedly the administration’s entire approach to NK seems to involve unnecessary risk). IMO waiting a few days until after his return to the States would make no material difference to the eventual outcome.
Maybe NK Kim is blowing hard about attacking the US as a distraction, but really is planning on attacking another country altogether?
Why would Trump make preempt attack? The guy is not crazy no matter what a lot of people think. If he does have a big ego, would he not want to remain a popular president?
And, one I’ve been meaning to ask; so if NK does attack the US, in any shape or form, what would you do if president?
(should I start a new thread with my final question?)
The military reality is that N. K. can’t inflict millions or even tens of thousands of casualties on Seoul in 30 minutes or 30 days. Hundreds yes, maybe thousands but not a huge number. They can cause a lot of very photogenic damage, but not mass casualties. At least that is what I have read. Those thousands of artillery pieces just north of the border are mostly too short-range to reach the center of Seoul. The artillery and rockets with sufficient range are a) many fewer and b) carefully targeted for counter-strike. N. K. can cause great damage in the northern part of Seoul nearer the border, but not millions of casualties. Obviously S. K. doesn’t want any damage or casualties and doesn’t want a war, but Loose Cannon Steve may have gotten his assurances.
I suspect that S. K. is being brought along with the US plans mostly because by the US picking the time, S. K. can take steps to further reduce casualties and damage. If N.K. were to launch a surprise first strike then the damage and casualties would clearly be much higher. Perhaps the US is making the argument that Trump isn’t going to tone down his rhetoric and that alone might trigger a N. K. strike so better to have us pick the time.
As for China, they clearly don’t want a war. But what are they going to do? If they start to defend N. K. they are going to start a spiral that will escalate very quickly and they know it. It would not end well for the US but I suspect Trump believes they won’t go that far.
I doubt any other nation besides S. K. will support a US strike, but that hasn’t stopped us in the past. We can veto UN resolutions and Trump isn’t smart enough to realize how long a war with N. K. could drag on. Of course the US and S. K. will devastate N. K. in a few days but then what? Short of occupying the country unless N. K. were to suddenly see the error of their ways and surrender, all they have to do is what any US adversary does-sit there and take the pounding until the US loses interest. I am sure they have moved the critical components of their missile factories out into the countryside, along with enough uranium to restart their reactors after they are rebuilt, so all they lose is time.
Wouldn’t risk it. If there’s one thing Trump’s shown, it’s that logic and reason don’t have to factor into decisions. It would make more sense than any other time, but I’m far from certain about it… which is why I made the thread.
By all means, it’s worth exploring the question, whether here or another thread, doesn’t make any difference. But no, that’s not what I’m asking… I find it highly unlikely NK will attack us. I do find there to be an alarming probability that we’ll attack per-emptively.
To answer your question, if they did attack us, I would give a proportional response. They shoot down a plane, I bomb their airbase. They sink a ship, I hit their harbor.
However, with the maniacs at the helm (not just talking about the Trump admin here) I find it more likely that a soldier getting shot in the arm on the border provoking at all out bombing campaign followed by ground invasion. I have no faith that our military will still adhere to the kind of proportional response policy that was adhered to during the Cold War.