President Trump & the USA

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour 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.

I think you've misunderstood me.  I'm not arguing for reunification, I'm agreeing that figuring out the next step of North Korean nationhood is a pitfall that needs to be cleared as part of the action that most definitely needs taking sooner rather than later.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think you've misunderstood me.  I'm not arguing for reunification, I'm agreeing that figuring out the next step of North Korean nationhood is a pitfall that needs to be cleared as part of the action that most definitely needs taking sooner rather than later.

Ah right. In that case, we are definitely in agreement.

[Guest]

Nk hasnt developed nukes to actually use them. It's got them as a deterrent. Leaving them alone is all they are after and is the simplest solution. There is no prospect of a risk free military option so that cannot be in the table anymore. Reaching a negotiated agreement to leave each other alone is the only possible solution and appears to be what NK are seeking.

[Sharpe's Fox]

All the nuclear WARMOANERS need to stop WHINGING, get behind it and try to MAKE IT A SUCCESS.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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.

I did say the potential future cost of inaction, because you can be damn sure the US don't have your confidence.

Edited 9 August 2017 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours 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.

No the difference this time is that they may be very close to actually having the weapons to back up their threats, so they are no longer empty rhetoric.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I did say the potential future cost of inaction, because you can be damn sure the US don't have your confidence.

I really hope that they do (or at least vital parts of the leadership do) because if they don't they're no scholar of history at all regarding nuclear weapons and that could end up being a very bad thing for the region and (partly) for the world.

 

Of course the US should be prepared for any contingency, but engaging in the behaviour that some people think they might is both suicidal and incredibly irrational - and for all their manifold faults in the manner of oppressive dictatorships in the past and what people might believe to the contrary, the NK's are neither.

[ithuriel]

The only thing that really worries me about North Korea is whether the hierarchy there have actually brought into their own bullshit and actually believe the little odd ball is a god like figure.

If so, then they are capable of anything and even the Chinese should be worried.

[ajthefox]

I'm curious to see if those suggesting military action is necessary would be saying the same thing if they lived in South Korea...

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, ithuriel said:

The only thing that really worries me about North Korea is whether the hierarchy there have actually brought into their own bullshit and actually believe the little odd ball is a god like figure.

If so, then they are capable of anything and even the Chinese should be worried.

It's the little oddball making the decisions. He wants to hang onto power he isn't gong to do anything that risks war. He hopes.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

I'm curious to see if those suggesting military action is necessary would be saying the same thing if they lived in South Korea...

Or even had lived there for a while.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Nk hasnt developed nukes to actually use them. It's got them as a deterrent. Leaving them alone is all they are after and is the simplest solution. There is no prospect of a risk free military option so that cannot be in the table anymore. Reaching a negotiated agreement to leave each other alone is the only possible solution and appears to be what NK are seeking.

Who was interfering with them before? China's got their back,they've got nothing to worry about. They've been independent since the 50s and nobody has bothered them. The weapons are just an ego trip for the ruling family, spending billions while their people starve. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Who was interfering with them before? China's got their back,they've got nothing to worry about. They've been independent since the 50s and nobody has bothered them. The weapons are just an ego trip for the ruling family, spending billions while their people starve. 

The war never officially stopped and the us has been wargaming on their doorstep for years. They want an end to US aggression in the region and to be left alone. Can't argue with the fact they've let their people starve while one family looks after itself.

[Jon the Hat]

11 hours ago, ajthefox said:

I'm curious to see if those suggesting military action is necessary would be saying the same thing if they lived in South Korea...

The point is that South Korea are not making the decisions.  I am not suggesting military action is necessary, just that I think the US will reach that conclusion.  The US care a lot more about the US than about South Korea, even with the tens of thousands of Americans there.

[breadandcheese]

11 hours ago, toddybad said:

The war never officially stopped and the us has been wargaming on their doorstep for years. They want an end to US aggression in the region and to be left alone. Can't argue with the fact they've let their people starve while one family looks after itself.

What warmongering has the US been doing on North Korea's doorstep over the last 30 years?  

 

From what I can see, the US is leaving North Korea to its own devices, as China have their back.

[Merging Cultures]

11 hours ago, toddybad said:

The war never officially stopped and the us has been wargaming on their doorstep for years. They want an end to US aggression in the region and to be left alone. Can't argue with the fact they've let their people starve while one family looks after itself.

Technically, they have never declared war with North Korea.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

What warmongering has the US been doing on North Korea's doorstep over the last 30 years?  

 

From what I can see, the US is leaving North Korea to its own devices, as China have their back.

Wargaming is what i said, not warmongering.

Edited 10 August 2017 by Guest

[ajthefox]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The point is that South Korea are not making the decisions.  I am not suggesting military action is necessary, just that I think the US will reach that conclusion.  The US care a lot more about the US than about South Korea, even with the tens of thousands of Americans there.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that and I don't see what effect it has on the question I posed. 

It's a hypothetical question, but this is a hypothetical discussion in which I think it is very easy to say we should be taking military action.

Edited 10 August 2017 by ajthefox

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The point is that South Korea are not making the decisions.  I am not suggesting military action is necessary, just that I think the US will reach that conclusion.  The US care a lot more about the US than about South Korea, even with the tens of thousands of Americans there.

Unlike AJ above, I disagree with almost everything here, sorry.

 

The South Koreans are going to be involved in every debate regarding military action, simply because they're the ones who would bear by far the biggest burden of such an action and the US doesn't want to lose a big ally in the area. It's mutually beneficial for them to cooperate - why would the US railroad them on this?

 

Secondly, why would the US reach the conclusion that military action is necessary when any analyst with at least a modicum of sense about the situation knows it's the worst possible outcome for all parties involved? I know you've made the argument in the past that the potential cost down the road is higher, but there's not now and not ever (at least not in a really long time) going to be a situation where the North can start anything without being destroyed themselves...and so as they won't start anything as a result, why the need for any kind of pre-emptive strike?

 

Of course, the US cares about its own interests and own civilians first but this threat - despite all the bluster in the media and from both sides - is purely illusory. The South Koreans, in particular, know it (though that doesn't of course stop them being prepared for it).

 

NB. I agree with AJ too in that there seems to be an awful lot of armchair generaling going on in here, and maybe if folks had actually been to or seen Korea they might view things differently.

[Jon the Hat]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Unlike AJ above, I disagree with almost everything here, sorry.

 

The South Koreans are going to be involved in every debate regarding military action, simply because they're the ones who would bear by far the biggest burden of such an action and the US doesn't want to lose a big ally in the area. It's mutually beneficial for them to cooperate - why would the US railroad them on this?

 

Secondly, why would the US reach the conclusion that military action is necessary when any analyst with at least a modicum of sense about the situation knows it's the worst possible outcome for all parties involved? I know you've made the argument in the past that the potential cost down the road is higher, but there's not now and not ever (at least not in a really long time) going to be a situation where the North can start anything without being destroyed themselves...and so as they won't start anything as a result, why the need for any kind of pre-emptive strike?

 

Of course, the US cares about its own interests and own civilians first but this threat - despite all the bluster in the media and from both sides - is purely illusory. The South Koreans, in particular, know it (though that doesn't of course stop them being prepared for it).

 

NB. I agree with AJ too in that there seems to be an awful lot of armchair generaling going on in here, and maybe if folks had actually been to or seen Korea they might view things differently.

It's probably a good thing we are not in charge then hey

 

I really don't know where you get your level of certainty from that the NK regime is entirely rational from.  Nothing I have seen or read suggests stability or rationality is in great supply.  Sadly history is loaded with irrational leadership decisions, especially when your advisers know that not delivering what you asked means almost certain internment of your and your family in a prison camp from hell.  You cannot imagine any situation where Kim is convinced he has more power at his disposal than he really does and takes a stupid action as a result?  I admire your optimism, but I think it is unfounded.  You might be right, be you could equally be wildly wrong.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's probably a good thing we are not in charge then hey

 

I really don't know where you get your level of certainty from that the NK regime is entirely rational from.  Nothing I have seen or read suggests stability or rationality is in great supply.  Sadly history is loaded with irrational leadership decisions, especially when your advisers know that not delivering what you asked means almost certain internment of your and your family in a prison camp from hell.  You cannot imagine any situation where Kim is convinced he has more power at his disposal than he really does and takes a stupid action as a result?  I admire your optimism, but I think it is unfounded.  You might be right, be you could equally be wildly wrong.

I get that level of certainty from looking at dictators through history and also the Korean situation from when it began seventy years ago to now - and having spent some time talking to people in SK much more knowledgeable than me on the topic.

 

Though you might disagree, I would posit that almost every dictator in reasonably recent history who did something overtly nasty to another country (rather than just brutalising their own citizens) did so because they figured they wouldn't be held accountable for it - either because they had the power necessary to make a fair or at least close fight (like Hitler), or because they had good reason to believe the major powers wouldn't intervene (like Saddam in the first Gulf War). Such behaviour is entirely rational - it was only when they realised that they were going to get stomped into the ground that the irrationality surfaced.

 

In the case of North Korea, neither of those things are true - the NK's certainly can't match the US/SK forces miltarily (now or ever), and it has been made abundantly clear in no uncertain terms that the consequence of striking against either the US or SK territory using anything more than token weaponry is a war in which they will be annihilated. Accountability is very, very clear here.

 

I don't get where the idea comes from that most dictators in the past were simply nuts and made irrational decisions that cost them everything - they may have ended up that way as the shells started falling around their private bunker, but they certainly didn't start out that way. The NK leadership is exactly the same - they have as close to absolute power, and priority one for them is, and always will be, keeping that power.

 

And regarding the NK regime in particular, the SK's have been living with leaders of that type for seven decades now - and they're not all that worried now.

 

Yeah, I could certainly be wrong - but I think I'm not, I hope I'm not (for the sake of a lot of people), and I also hope like hell that the US views this rationally too and doesn't do anything stupid.

[m4DD0gg]

Nuke 'em Nuke 'em Nuke 'em!

[breadandcheese]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

Wargaming is what i said, not warmongering.

By wargaming, do you mean military manoeuvres and practice drills?  This is what all armies do to ensure they are prepared for any eventuality.  Russia flies its bombers to the edge of our air space, it doesn't make me believe for one minute that Putin is going to attack us at a moment's notice.  In this situation, America is not the big bad evil.

 

The US is not a threat to North Korea. It is not looking to reunite the Korean peninsula.  

[Guest]

4 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

By wargaming, do you mean military manoeuvres and practice drills?  This is what all armies do to ensure they are prepared for any eventuality.  Russia flies its bombers to the edge of our air space, it doesn't make me believe for one minute that Putin is going to attack us at a moment's notice.  In this situation, America is not the big bad evil.

 

The US is not a threat to North Korea. It is not looking to reunite the Korean peninsula.  

There's a difference between Russia sending one or 2 planes to the edge of our air space and the strength of the us pacific fleet gaming about your demise with your closest rival off your coast when you're technically still at war. 

[breadandcheese]

38 minutes ago, toddybad said:

There's a difference between Russia sending one or 2 planes to the edge of our air space and the strength of the us pacific fleet gaming about your demise with your closest rival off your coast when you're technically still at war. 

It's an irrational fear by North Korea, which we shouldn't pander too. America is not looking to go to war with North Korea. The only potential threat to the North Korean regime is economic collapse.

 

The Pacific Fleet is a defensive operation to guarantee the security of the Asian nations in the area who rely on their American ally to provide a defensive umbrella.