President Trump & the USA

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, m4DD0gg said:

North Korea needs wiping out.

It's leadership needs wiping out, it's people need liberating from tyranny.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

It's leadership needs wiping out, it's people need liberating from tyranny.

 

5 hours ago, m4DD0gg said:

North Korea needs wiping out.

It's really easy to talk about this kind of stuff from in the UK (or over here in the US), isn't it?

 

The reality, however, would be rather different. NK isn't some kind of tinpot Middle Eastern dictatorship with five guys and an AK-47 between them - they're a well-armed and reasonably well-trained paranoid cult of personality with other WMD's than just the nukes in their arsenal.

 

Of course a war between them and a combined SK/US force would only end one way (and likely in reasonably short order), but the casualty list before it did - as well as the amount of destruction to a modern nation-state in South Korea - would be immense.

 

Is this really what we're advocating for right now, when it's patently obvious that regardless of the rhetoric the status quo still hold and that the NK's won't start anything because they know how it ends - unless the US starts something first?

[leicsmac]

Decent article from the Beeb regarding the Korea situation:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40878370

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's really easy to talk about this kind of stuff from in the UK (or over here in the US), isn't it?

 

The reality, however, would be rather different. NK isn't some kind of tinpot Middle Eastern dictatorship with five guys and an AK-47 between them - they're a well-armed and reasonably well-trained paranoid cult of personality with other WMD's than just the nukes in their arsenal.

 

Of course a war between them and a combined SK/US force would only end one way (and likely in reasonably short order), but the casualty list before it did - as well as the amount of destruction to a modern nation-state in South Korea - would be immense.

 

Is this really what we're advocating for right now, when it's patently obvious that regardless of the rhetoric the status quo still hold and that the NK's won't start anything because they know how it ends - unless the US starts something first?

Very easy, but I doubt our opinions are too different to the Korean population.

 

The issue is this has to be confronted, we can't just keep kicking it into the long grass and hoping something happens later on that will make it all ok, North Korea are developing these weapons now at quite a pace, do we really want to risk waiting until they can strike numerous major cities across the World?

 

It's about time someone dealt with this regime, this has gone on far too long, the one who feeds the crocodile hoping to be eaten last does get eaten eventually. Appeasement doesn't work.

[Guest]

North Korea has said many times it will negotiate once it has built the weapons. Pretty much all experts on the region agree that c what NK wants is the US/SK to guarantee its right to exist and for its leadership to be left to rule. It thinks the best way to get this is to force the US to the negotiating table with nk having a strong military hand to deter other ways of ending the stand off. It probably didnt forsee a nutter sitting in the whitehouse. The us needs to get around the table and look for a deal meaning no more nuclear testing etc in exchange for an end to us/sk war games and agreement of their right to exist. This starting point would be a sensible first agreement. If nk then wants a roll back of sanctions it then needs to add to its side of the bargain. 

Edited 9 August 2017 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

North Korea has said many times it will negotiate once it has built the weapons. Pretty much all experts on the region agree that c what NK wants is the US/SK to guarantee its right to exist and for its leadership to be left to rule. It thinks the best way to get this is to force the US to the negotiating table with nk having a strong military hand to deter other ways of ending the stand off. It probably didnt forsee a nutter sitting in the whitehouse. The us needs to get around the table and look for a deal meaning no more nuclear testing etc in exchange for an end to us/sk war games and agreement of their right to exist. This starting point would be a sensible first agreement. If nk then wants a roll back of sanctions it then needs to add to its side of the bargain. 

Do you think we have a moral obligation to try and free the people of the North? It's incredible we have people living effectively outside of the World in the year 2017. A place where people can't read the news, can't barely get a decent meal and can't even travel to have a holiday or to meet family, they are as basic a human rights as you can get.

 

The liberation of the North Korean people for me is as big an argument as sorting this out as the nuclear weapons.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you think we have a moral obligation to try and free the people of the North? It's incredible we have people living effectively outside of the World in the year 2017. A place where people can't read the news, can't barely get a decent meal and can't even travel to have a holiday or to meet family, they are as basic a human rights as you can get.

 

The liberation of the North Korean people for me is as big an argument as sorting this out as the nuclear weapons.

Preferably yes but the trouble is there is currently no way to do this. Most likely route would be to find a way of negotiating with nk and seek a future where it feels able to be more open. Historically this goes back to their being no technical end to their war with sk (and thr us by extension). There is no other route.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Preferably yes but the trouble is there is currently no way to do this. Most likely route would be to find a way of negotiating with nk and seek a future where it feels able to be more open. Historically this goes back to their being no technical end to their war with sk (and thr us by extension). There is no other route.

There are many routes, doing it via diplomatic means would be terrific but I just don't see any resolution to this that doesn't involve some sort of conflict, I just don't see the Kim dynasty being one that will step down via normal diplomatic process. People in the 60's and 70's said the Soviet empire couldn't fall over and the West managed it, this is a far smaller task than that.

 

Let's hope some sense prevails and China starts to have a word, but the World should shouldn't tolerate a country like North Korea developing nuclear weapons.

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

Very easy, but I doubt our opinions are too different to the Korean population.I doubt our opinions are too different to the Korean population.

 

The issue is this has to be confronted, we can't just keep kicking it into the long grass and hoping something happens later on that will make it all ok, North Korea are developing these weapons now at quite a pace, do we really want to risk waiting until they can strike numerous major cities across the World?

 

It's about time someone dealt with this regime, this has gone on far too long, the one who feeds the crocodile hoping to be eaten last does get eaten eventually. Appeasement doesn't work.

1

You'd be surprised then - in my own experience, the vast majority of the (South) Korean population care more about the latest update for KakaoTalk than they do about the North or anyone in it, and they've heard all this talk before.

 

The very last thing they want is a war that, though inevitably victorious, would set their country back decades. Many of them don't even want reunification through peaceful means because of the economic headache it would cause. Should the US be foolhardy enough to strike first, they understand the cost to them - something most talking heads in the West don't seem to. These aren't just numbers - they are real people, real infrastructure that would be destroyed...for the sake of a war no one wanted in the first place.

 

Skilful diplomacy - not appeasement - is the way to go here. If the Norks choose to strike SK or another location at some point then yeah - the response should be quick and devastating. But until that day (and I hope it never dawns) Trump and various commentators should stop playing armchair general with millions of lives and actually think about what they're intending and the true consequences of it.

 

(NB. I have something of a personal stake in South Korea, so my view on this is pretty highly charged.)

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

You'd be surprised then - in my own experience, the vast majority of the (South) Korean population care more about the latest update for KakaoTalk than they do about the North or anyone in it, and they've heard all this talk before.

 

The very last thing they want is a war that, though inevitably victorious, would set their country back decades. Many of them don't even want reunification through peaceful means because of the economic headache it would cause. Should the US be foolhardy enough to strike first, they understand the cost to them - something most talking heads in the West don't seem to. These aren't just numbers - they are real people, real infrastructure that would be destroyed...for the sake of a war no one wanted in the first place.

 

Skilful diplomacy - not appeasement - is the way to go here. If the Norks choose to strike SK or another location at some point then yeah - the response should be quick and devastating. But until that day (and I hope it never dawns) Trump and various commentators should stop playing armchair general with millions of lives and actually think about what they're intending and the true consequences of it.

 

(NB. I have something of a personal stake in South Korea, so my view on this is pretty highly charged.)

Fair enough, the wedding I was at a few weeks ago was half-Korean, the people I spoke to there were very pro-aggression regarding Kim, but they were ones who had lived in America for years so again, a bit different. I understand the concerns, of course I do, but I do also think though if we ever get to that stage where North Korea has dropped a we will have failed anyway, that's why I think the time to act is now.

 

When I say "act" I don't mean starting a war, but I think it's time it was made very clear that if the Kim regime persists with this this action is going to be taken. If the response to that would be to fire a nuke at Guam or Seoul then that wouldn't be a reason in my opinion to then stand back and let them build bigger ones.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see why they want it, despite the nonsense you hear from some over here it is the biggest deterrant you can have, the USA wouldn't get involved in a war with the North and South if the North had subs floating around the World capable of flattening New York, Los Angeles and Washington in an evening.

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Fair enough, the wedding I was at a few weeks ago was half-Korean, the people I spoke to there were very pro-aggression regarding Kim, but they were ones who had lived in America for years so again, a bit different. I understand the concerns, of course I do, but I do also think though if we ever get to that stage where North Korea has dropped a we will have failed anyway, that's why I think the time to act is now.

 

When I say "act" I don't mean starting a war, but I think it's time it was made very clear that if the Kim regime persists with this this action is going to be taken. If the response to that would be to fire a nuke at Guam or Seoul then that wouldn't be a reason in my opinion to then stand back and let them build bigger ones.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see why they want it, despite the nonsense you hear from some over here it is the biggest deterrant you can have, the USA wouldn't get involved in a war with the North and South if the North had subs floating around the World capable of flattening New York, Los Angeles and Washington in an evening.

 

 

Yeah, gyopos (Korean-Americans) often have a pretty different view of the topic than the Korean population at large - that's a cultural thing.

 

The situation from a geopolitical aspect, for all the talk, really hasn't changed IMO - the US ha a bigger nuclear arsenal than the North, it will always have a bigger arsenal than the North, and so it will always be the case that if they were to start something the end result would be their annilhation, regardless of the weapon stockpile they have. They know this too, and so they know they can't use them, because what would the point be? Despite what most people might think, the leadership it not stupid and want to remain in power - not destroy their country and lose everything.

 

They already know the consequences for striking at Seoul or Guam, so again I don't think anything has changed there, either.

 

The only circumstance I can see in which they would use a weapon of that type would be if the US or SK were to strike first and looked like winning, forcing them into a position where they had nothing to lose. So I honestly don't get why Trump is even talking about taking that line of action.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, gyopos (Korean-Americans) often have a pretty different view of the topic than the Korean population at large - that's a cultural thing.

 

The situation from a geopolitical aspect, for all the talk, really hasn't changed IMO - the US ha a bigger nuclear arsenal than the North, it will always have a bigger arsenal than the North, and so it will always be the case that if they were to start something the end result would be their annilhation, regardless of the weapon stockpile they have. They know this too, and so they know they can't use them, because what would the point be? Despite what most people might think, the leadership it not stupid and want to remain in power - not destroy their country and lose everything.

 

They already know the consequences for striking at Seoul or Guam, so again I don't think anything has changed there, either.

 

The only circumstance I can see in which they would use a weapon of that type would be if the US or SK were to strike first and looked like winning, forcing them into a position where they had nothing to lose. So I honestly don't get why Trump is even talking about taking that line of action.

I don't think we disagree on much here at all.

 

The question still is for me though, how far do you let them develop their weaponry? If they do intend to get to a point where they can hit Los Angeles and San Francisco do you allow them to do it on the basis that you hope they'll never be mad enough to use it?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't think we disagree on much here at all.

 

The question still is for me though, how far do you let them develop their weaponry? If they do intend to get to a point where they can hit Los Angeles and San Francisco do you allow them to do it on the basis that you hope they'll never be mad enough to use it?

We've already reached the point that it is too late. Whether or not LA is in range, Seoul and Tokyo most definitely are. Negotiation is all that NK wants and it is time to get around a table. 

[Carl the Llama]

What's going on here?  I've been in full agreement with every @MattP post on this page.  Frankly it's an appalling stain on western 'democracy' that we've tolerated the NK regime's abuse of its populace for so long while being trigger happy when it comes to the oil-rich Middle East's oppressed masses.

 

The point @leicsmac raises about the cost to SK of reunification is an interesting one and I agree it would be best to avoid turning the region into a grossly exaggerated version of the Wallonia/Flanders dichotomy, but that's just one more thing to consider in the big old mess, not a counterargument to taking action.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't think we disagree on much here at all.

 

The question still is for me though, how far do you let them develop their weaponry? If they do intend to get to a point where they can hit Los Angeles and San Francisco do you allow them to do it on the basis that you hope they'll never be mad enough to use it?

I don't think the US is going to allow that to happen.  I can see Trump trying something.  Perhaps they know where Kim is and will try to take him out in some kind of surgical strike or special forces assault.

[Jon the Hat]

The problem is China won't accept a US ally on their border, so the reaction will be much more likely to be China occupying NK rather than re-unification with the South.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

We've already reached the point that it is too late. Whether or not LA is in range, Seoul and Tokyo most definitely are. Negotiation is all that NK wants and it is time to get around a table. 

They don't want negotiation at all, they have said negotiation over the nuclear weapons isn't on the table.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korea-wont-negotiate-on-nuclear-weapons-under-any-circumstances/ar-AApBhoE

 

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

What's going on here?  I've been in full agreement with every @MattP post on this page.  Frankly it's an appalling stain on western 'democracy' that we've tolerated the NK regime's abuse of its populace for so long while being trigger happy when it comes to the oil-rich Middle East's oppressed masses.

 

The point @leicsmac raises about the cost to SK of reunification is an interesting one and I agree it would be best to avoid turning the region into a grossly exaggerated version of the Wallonia/Flanders dichotomy, but that's just one more thing to consider in the big old mess, not a counterargument to taking action.

We finally found something!

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

The problem is China won't accept a US ally on their border, so the reaction will be much more likely to be China occupying NK rather than re-unification with the South.

That would be the most obvious and best solution.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't think we disagree on much here at all.

 

The question still is for me though, how far do you let them develop their weaponry? If they do intend to get to a point where they can hit Los Angeles and San Francisco do you allow them to do it on the basis that you hope they'll never be mad enough to use it?

Good question, and my answer is "as far as they feel they need to protect themselves". Because yes, they'll never be mad enough to use it, yes the US will always outrank them in terms of weaponry and MAD held during the Cold War - it would do so again here.

 

Ruthless regimes like theirs rely on self-preservation above all else, and that will always be the case.

 

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

The problem is China won't accept a US ally on their border, so the reaction will be much more likely to be China occupying NK rather than re-unification with the South.

I'm reasonably sure the Chinese already have a tacit agreement with the US to this effect, or to reunify under SK control so long as all US forces leave.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

What's going on here?  I've been in full agreement with every @MattP post on this page.  Frankly it's an appalling stain on western 'democracy' that we've tolerated the NK regime's abuse of its populace for so long while being trigger happy when it comes to the oil-rich Middle East's oppressed masses.

 

The point @leicsmac raises about the cost to SK of reunification is an interesting one and I agree it would be best to avoid turning the region into a grossly exaggerated version of the Wallonia/Flanders dichotomy, but that's just one more thing to consider in the big old mess, not a counterargument to taking action.

2

Got to disagree here, Carl - the cost of reunification either through war or other means is most definitely a counterargument to action, given how costly it would truly be in terms of money and lives. At the very least, it would be a very significant factor and a reason the SK's would be very reluctant to see it start except with a  clear plan that would take a long and steady time to implement, eg. if the regime up North collapses of its own accord.

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Got to disagree here, Carl - the cost of reunification either through war or other means is most definitely a counterargument to action, given how costly it would truly be in terms of money and lives. At the very least, it would be a very significant factor and a reason the SK's would be very reluctant to see it start except with a  clear plan that would take a long and steady time to implement, eg. if the regime up North collapses of its own accord.

You are ignoring the potential cost of inaction.  If the US does nothing now, and there is a Nuclear missile launch from NK, whether at SK, Japan is indeed the US itself then we have a potentially much greater disaster.  The US will weigh up the cost now vs the potential cost later.

[Detroit Blues]

I only worry that Trump will find war with North Korea to be a distraction from the scandal(s) surrounding his presidency, and questions about his legitimacy. I would much rather continue diplomacy and economic sanctions than go to war with North Korea. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You are ignoring the potential cost of inaction.  If the US does nothing now, and there is a Nuclear missile launch from NK, whether at SK, Japan is indeed the US itself then we have a potentially much greater disaster.  The US will weigh up the cost now vs the potential cost later.

With respect, I'm not ignoring it - I have said above and I maintain that there will be no future cost of inaction, because of simple self-preservation the NK's won't choose a path that will only result in their own inevitable destruction. They will never be in a position where such a war would be winnable for them...ergo they won't start one. MAD clearly holds here, in a rather lopsided fashion.

[Lionator]

The one weapon which would end all of this would be wifi in North Korea but I'm not sure that would be possible to implement from a foreign power.

 

There's been threats from NK for as long as I can remember, the one difference this time is that the Donald is on the other side. North Korea would have nothing to gain from a war so the rational side of me thinks that they're after something whether it be aid or greater negotiating power.

 

Also remember that the media sensationalise things in this day and age for their own purposes, we're probably not that close to thermonuclear oblivion.

[Webbo]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The one weapon which would end all of this would be wifi in North Korea but I'm not sure that would be possible to implement from a foreign power.

 

There's been threats from NK for as long as I can remember, the one difference this time is that the Donald is on the other side. North Korea would have nothing to gain from a war so the rational side of me thinks that they're after something whether it be aid or greater negotiating power.

 

Also remember that the media sensationalise things in this day and age for their own purposes, we're probably not that close to thermonuclear oblivion.

NK block block TV and Radio signals from outside, they certainly wouldn't allow wifi.