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).
“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.
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.
“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!
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
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.
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?
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.
They get wrecked. The first 15 km includes some of the most heavily-defended terrain on the planet.
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.
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?
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”.
When this this thread was launched the President’s approval was above 44%. Today it is under 38%.
Trump is seen, internationally, as an empty suit. He needs something, anything, to bolster his image.
Eliminating N. Korea as a military threat would improve Trump’s PR. An all out war would not.
Is there a path that Trump could thread successfully? Is Trump smart enough to choose it?
Crane
NK made an awfully specific threat (according to the news) about sending 4 missiles immediately off the coast of Guam in mid August.
That’d be far, far greater of a provocation than anything they’ve done so far.
Possible but unlikely, and not a chance.
It’s impressive to me how he managed to get Russia and China to agree in counseling calm and get Kim Jong Un to call him a loony toon, though.
I don’t know if anyone can “thread a path”. 
But why does Trump suddenly need “something, anything to bolster his image”? That sounds like an argument in search of a proposition.
For the record, I don’t think Trump is wrong to put pressure on NK if there’s a strategy that involves talks. I happen to agree with Rex Tillerson’s comments months back in which he said that the era of strategic patience hasn’t really yielded any benefit - I think that’s fair to say. We can talk about how we’ve gotten to this point and find fault with US policy, but hoping that NK suspends its provocations and nuke programs isn’t really much of a strategy. In fact it weakens American credibility in the sense that only now, when the US mainland faces the potential consequences of a war with NK, does the US decide to draw a red line. It sends a terrible message to Japan and South Korea that it has to sit by and tolerate missile test after endless missile test while all of the experts calmly sit on their hands and say “Oh don’t mind the DPRK, that’s what they always do.”
The danger that I see at this point is one that’s been discussed on other threads, which is that Trump’s administration really seems to lack any kind of preparedness in terms of diplomatic channels and seems to be of the mind that the military can just deal with it if the threat crosses a certain line. The problem with that is that you need diplomacy, diplomatic strategy, and lines of communication (diplomatic and militarily) to establish what those lines are and what the consequences of crossing those boundaries will be. As it stands now, it’s not even clear that the Trump administration is even thinking in unison. It’s not even clear that the people who ought to be communicating about this are even talking to each other, and even if they are, would Trump go along with their strategy, or would he override them at some point and just act out on his own.
Perhaps the greatest danger, though, is what we’ve known all along: Trump’s temperament in a situation like this is unpredictable, unstable, and highly prone to being rocked at some perceived psychological wound. In my view, one of the key statements of the last few days was made by General Mattis, and it contradicted the statement made by Rex Tillerson. I think it’s fair to say that Mattis is closer to the president and his statement reflects Trump’s thoughts a hell of a lot more than Tillerson’s, who seems to be saying what he knows anyone in a position of his responsibility really ought to be saying. This is not to say that Mattis’ comments were irresponsible; he’s relaying what’s on the president’s mind and I think his purpose is to send very clear warnings to NK that it’s time to stop playing games. But is Donald Trump also going to stop playing games and behave like a president? That is the question of the hour.
The gravest problem of all is that Trump really doesn’t trust his experts as much as he trusts himself, which has been the recurring theme everything that happens in his White House. Of all the experts Trump has, save his immediate family and Wall Street inner circle, he seems to trust his military staff the most. These are the few experts who have any sort of influence over Trump. I suspect the generals are telling him to remain calm and to wait it out and to give North Korea time to go to the bargaining table. North Korea might ultimately do that, which could be a huge win for Trump’s administration. But the concern I have is that North Korea doesn’t do that and that rather than negotiating, they continue to escalate the tensions. The real danger, the nightmare, is that Trump begins to feel disrespected, unmanly, humiliated, and then decides to say “fuck the experts, fuck the generals” and then decides on his own to deliver his response to North Korea. And that, I’m afraid, is a very real possibility. The odds of that happening are still probably on the low side, but nobody can look at Trump’s behavior and say that’s not a possible outcome. It absolutely is. And even his own supporters in his own party know that, which is why McCain and others are really starting to shit their britches. They don’t want to see him get emotionally involved in this.
Some one was bound to test Trump. It appears that it will be NK.
Firing missiles into international waters around Guam is highly provocative but harmless. Trump has to respond but in a way that raises the ante and is equally harmless.
It will be a good test of the administration.
Crane
asahi,
The military will give Trump options from which to choose. If Trump refuses to choose, and requires instead, some plan of attack or invasion, will the military obey or refuse?
Crane