North Korea Mega Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:28:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  North Korea Mega Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 34
Author Topic: North Korea Mega Thread  (Read 77468 times)
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: August 05, 2017, 04:32:46 PM »


Wow. This is a very strong step by the Security Council, that will hurt the North Korean regime badly without being militarily threatening. If Trump continues to whine about China (or Russia) on North Korea after this, he's going to look terrible.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: August 05, 2017, 06:21:13 PM »


Wow. This is a very strong step by the Security Council, that will hurt the North Korean regime badly without being militarily threatening. If Trump continues to whine about China (or Russia) on North Korea after this, he's going to look terrible.

We'll see if China and Russia enforce it, or not. That's the real test.

Anyway, sanctions are good, but talks are also necessary. Given how far they are, it's not likely Kim Jong Un is just going to wake up and decide to give up all his nukes one day. The administration stance of "no talks unless they agree to this," which should be a long term goal, is just pigheaded at this point.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: August 05, 2017, 09:40:03 PM »

Sanctions alone do nothing but increase the suffering of the North Korean people.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 871


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: August 05, 2017, 10:32:27 PM »
« Edited: August 05, 2017, 10:39:55 PM by AN63093 »

Glad to see these threads are now consolidated.. it was getting a little annoying trying to follow all the respective NK threads out there.  Also, VirginiaModerate, I've been enjoying reading your contributions to this subject.  I'm also a veteran, Army not Navy, and my branch/MOS was.. shall we say, very much support, and quite a bit far from the operational side of things.  So my perspective might be a bit more academic/ivory tower-ish than yours on this subject, but nonetheless, here's my take on things.  By the way, I've never been on exercises in Korea, though I've always wanted to be stationed there.  I've got lots of former 2ID, 8th Army buddies... would've loved to have been in Yongsan.  Camp Casey... eh.. not so much.  Then again, I got my OCONUS tour before I ETSd, a real hardship one in Germany, so I'm not complaining. Smiley

Anyways, while tensions are at the highest they've been in some time on the peninsula, I think people are being a little dramatic about it.  I see what is happening as an advanced form of saber-rattling, but that's about it.  Reason being, and this is not anything that anyone ever admits out in public, but it's actually sorta in everyone's interest to maintain the status quo and not disturb the current geo-political situation.

--for the US, obviously we rather enjoy our strategic position in South Korea, not so much to keep an eye out on NK, but rather China.  If Korea re-unified, there's a real question as to how long they would tolerate a US presence, which is not particularly popular among certain demographics and the Left.  I'm not saying there would be an immediate Gaullist style eviction from South Korea like there was in France in the 60s, but it's certainly a concern.  Along those lines, there is no guarantee that a unified Korea would align itself more with the US than with China in the long-term.  NK then serves a pretty useful purpose as the boogeyman that guarantees our forward presence.

--for South Korea, re-unification is something that may sound nice on paper, but practically speaking, the disruption is not something that many people would welcome, particularly for younger generations that "care" quite a bit less than older generations that lived through the Korean War and dealt with splitting families and so on.  Not just because Seoul would be ground zero, but even beyond that, SK was one of the fastest growing countries in the past 50 years and now is one of the richest countries in the world.  If you're a young, upwardly mobile professional in Seoul, pretty much the last thing you want is anything to disturb your economic situation, when you got everything you need right now.  Consider that re-unification in this instance would be 100x more problematic than Germany was.

--for China, NK serves as a useful buffer state, and while re-unification may lead to a Korea that's more aligned with China in the long-term, there's still no guarantee of that and in the short-term, there'll be a US presence that's way too close for comfort.  Not to mention, there's the refugee issue.

--for North Korea, obviously this goes without saying, you'd want to stay in power (I'm speaking about the regime in this case, not the people, who obviously would benefit from a regime change).

--for Japan, NK is also a useful boogeyman in the same way it is for the US.  Interestingly, though this isn't commented upon much by mainstream sources, although Japan has been very reluctant to deploy any forces to worldwide operations and the numbers have been minuscule, and despite Article 9 and their supposed constitutional prohibition on a military, Japan has sorta quietly re-armed while nobody was looking, under the guise of being called, "self defense forces."  If you're Japan, like the US, you also can't be guaranteed that a re-unified Korea wouldn't be more aligned with China, as opposed to the US.  And if that's a problem for the US, it's even more so for Japan, given historical reasons, proximity, and so on.


So given all this, I think we're in a situation where it's not really in anyone's national self-interest to rock the boat; the big wild card here is Kim, and whether he'd be foolish enough to cross a red-line.  I think the answer is obviously no; he's not stupid, and he knows that at some point he'll cross a line that makes war inevitable, and it's curtains for him when that happens.  I think the bigger problem and the bigger risk is miscalculation.  Kim wants to tiptoe as close as he can to the red-line without going over, and the big risk is that he may not know exactly where that line is or believe he can push it a little more than he really can.

If a war breaks out, then it's over for the regime, it's just a matter of how long and how many casualties.  There's no doubt that the casualties would be significant, quite a bit more than the US Armed Forces is used to seeing since at least Vietnam, or even the prior Korean War.  But the US would certainly prevail.  I can't remember the source precisely, but while NK has a large number of forces, artillery pieces, and so on, a big problem for them is logistics; talking about supply, food, fuel, ammo, etc.  Their logistics capability is very unsophisticated compared to either the US or South Korea, and I recall reading that current estimates place NK's ability to sustain full operations for a shockingly low period of time.  I can't remember the exact amount, but it was like days or something like that.  NK just simply can't sustain total war for more than a short period before it basically has to revert to guerrilla tactics.

Despite Beet's comments on this on a previous page, I think the risk of a greater strategic nuclear exchange with China is quite low in all scenarios, and comments suggesting such are a little over dramatic.  I don't think the conditions are quite right for sparking a great powder keg in the WW1 sense.. I've already typed long enough in this thread, so I won't go on that tangent, but suffice to say, the conditions are vastly different.  More likely, I think, is that China would get involved on the side of the US, so they could control as much of the North as possible and guarantee a seat at the table when hostilities die down, preferably with an eye towards installing a new client state in the North under Chinese control.  Sort of similar then, to the end of WW2 when the US and USSR were kinda/sorta allies, but not really, and we both had competing interests in how to divide up Germany.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: August 06, 2017, 10:35:26 AM »

So given all this, I think we're in a situation where it's not really in anyone's national self-interest to rock the boat; the big wild card here is Kim, and whether he'd be foolish enough to cross a red-line.  I think the answer is obviously no; he's not stupid, and he knows that at some point he'll cross a line that makes war inevitable, and it's curtains for him when that happens.  I think the bigger problem and the bigger risk is miscalculation.  Kim wants to tiptoe as close as he can to the red-line without going over, and the big risk is that he may not know exactly where that line is or believe he can push it a little more than he really can.

The only thing that Kim could do to make war inevitable is to launch one himself. Since, as you say, Kim wants to survive, so I'm not worried about him doing that. I'm more worried about us starting a war that we think we "have to", or have talked ourselves into believing there is "no choice", when in fact there is, and always was.

As far as red lines, I'm glad you brought this up, because it's an area where Trump has really shot himself in the balls, and of all the mistakes he's made on North Korea policy in his brief time, one of the worst. By tweeting that a North Korean ICBM would "never happen", and unequivocally stating that he would deal with it, only for it to indeed happen several months later, rips a giant hole in his own credibility. Then later, he tweets that China "tried" to help, but it "didn't work out", literally hours before a Chinese delegation came to Washington to discuss the North Korean issue-- a tweet that was promptly ignored. This is the problem of trying to conduct crisis diplomacy over Twitter, something our forebears who lived through WWII, even Kennedy's generation, would have accurately perceived as a national security threat. The North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, accurately see all of Trump's statements and posturing that turned out to be false, and concludes he has no credibility. And worst of all perhaps, it's not just Trump. Not long ago, Joseph Dunford, head of the JSC, said that a war with North Korea would be "horrific", but that a North Korean capability to reach Denver with a missle would be "unimaginable." Just weeks later, North Korea did indeed launch a missile with the capability to reach Denver and other US cities, although it was later reported the reentry mechanism probably doesn't work. But for a day or so, the world (and perhaps North Korea) believed they did have the capability, and quite obviously, I do not think many people you ask would have considered the launching of the missile itself to be an event worse than a "horrific" war unlike anything since WWII as General Dunford was talking about. Then there is the movement for US aircraft carriers to Korea, the equivalent of muscle flexing, but no more than that.

In short, we have shot our credibility up, down, left, and right. We've made so many heated threats, bluffs, and rhetoric, that it's like the boy who cried wolf at this point. When, and if, our threats become real, it'll be that much harder for Kim to know, and it'll increase the chances of precisely what you said-- miscalculation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I gave my reasoning for how it could escalate to such a point. I find it funny that when the Democrats were asking people to listen to the CIA/NSA, e.g., our own government entities, that Russia had hacked us, we were accused of risking "World War 3" with Russia, and "nukes", but suggesting that what everyone has admitted could be the worst war in 70 years (against one nuclear power, and at the doorstep of another) might escalate into a nuclear exchange, is always called too "dramatic" or pessimistic.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Entering North Korea to ensure their own sphere of influence precisely to prevent us from having full control over North Korea isn't entering the war "on our side", it's entering the war to limit our power... precisely what they did during the Korean War. It's not like WW2 were the USSR was attacked by Nazi Germany. China would have no beef with North Korea in this case, it would be entering to shore up its own interests and possibly that of the North Korean resistance. The two countries' armed forces would have fundamentally opposite interests. And to think that there would be no attacks on each other-- either intentional or unintentional, in such a heated war with so many troops everywhere, is absurdly cavalier. The moment one country's forces mistakenly down another's planes or shoot at the other's infantry companies, the demand for response from the other would be urgent and immediate, leading to war.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: August 06, 2017, 10:58:52 AM »

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: August 06, 2017, 11:27:41 AM »

As much as I disagree with Beet on most things, he does understand the Chinese and North Koreans, culturally, more than the vast majority of the people here. People would do well to listen to him.
Logged
Daniel909012
Rookie
**
Posts: 165
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: August 06, 2017, 11:31:53 AM »

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

You have therefore
decided to adopt a weak and losing position. There will be peace in our time', said Chamberlain when he returned from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. as a
nation compared to other nations we are a mass of cowards.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: August 06, 2017, 11:41:13 AM »

Beet, why do you assume that face is a uniquely East Asian concept. At this stage, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from even low-level talks with the North Koreans that cannot be gained from China and North Korea having a serious talk. Not only that but nothing can be gained without Chinese involvement. Now, if the Chinese can manage to produce something more tangible than direct talks with North Korea, it would then be time to reconsider.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: August 06, 2017, 12:21:25 PM »

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

You have therefore
decided to adopt a weak and losing position. There will be peace in our time', said Chamberlain when he returned from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. as a
nation compared to other nations we are a mass of cowards.

Okay, if North Korea snuffs out a sovereign country within 6 months of such talks beginning, I would admit I'm wrong.

Beet, why do you assume that face is a uniquely East Asian concept. At this stage, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from even low-level talks with the North Koreans that cannot be gained from China and North Korea having a serious talk. Not only that but nothing can be gained without Chinese involvement. Now, if the Chinese can manage to produce something more tangible than direct talks with North Korea, it would then be time to reconsider.

But are the Chinese putting their full effort into talks? They have only peripheral interest in North Korea's weapons programs, as, for better or worse, they don't feel threatened by them. From their point of view, they're doing us a favor, and not all domestic factions inside China support this. We're going to have to watch them closely to see if the latest round of sanctions are enforced.

One immediate gain we could have with direct talks, is that it would increase trust. Even talks that clearly outline each side's position could get us a better idea of the North's goals than just reading propaganda statements. After all, it's not just the level of arms that constitutes the North Korean threat. Six other countries have even greater nuclear and missile capabilities, but we aren't worried about them. The nonexistent level of relations and communication, and trust, between the two sides is a part of the threat to. If we can reduce those, we can reduce the threat.
Logged
Daniel909012
Rookie
**
Posts: 165
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: August 06, 2017, 12:48:57 PM »

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

You have therefore
decided to adopt a weak and losing position. There will be peace in our time', said Chamberlain when he returned from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. as a
nation compared to other nations we are a mass of cowards.

Okay, if North Korea snuffs out a sovereign country within 6 months of such talks beginning, I would admit I'm wrong.

Beet, why do you assume that face is a uniquely East Asian concept. At this stage, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from even low-level talks with the North Koreans that cannot be gained from China and North Korea having a serious talk. Not only that but nothing can be gained without Chinese involvement. Now, if the Chinese can manage to produce something more tangible than direct talks with North Korea, it would then be time to reconsider.

But are the Chinese putting their full effort into talks? They have only peripheral interest in North Korea's weapons programs, as, for better or worse, they don't feel threatened by them. From their point of view, they're doing us a favor, and not all domestic factions inside China support this. We're going to have to watch them closely to see if the latest round of sanctions are enforced.

One immediate gain we could have with direct talks, is that it would increase trust. Even talks that clearly outline each side's position could get us a better idea of the North's goals than just reading propaganda statements. After all, it's not just the level of arms that constitutes the North Korean threat. Six other countries have even greater nuclear and missile capabilities, but we aren't worried about them. The nonexistent level of relations and communication, and trust, between the two sides is a part of the threat to. If we can reduce those, we can reduce the threat.

Bill clinton made a deal and the Korean rats broke it! "if you want peace, prepare for war"
Logged
JA
Jacobin American
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: August 06, 2017, 01:21:00 PM »

U.S. PREPARED TO LAUNCH ‘PREVENTIVE WAR’ AGAINST NORTH KOREA, SAYS H.R. MCMASTER

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: August 06, 2017, 02:47:14 PM »


Thats not news. Im sure both the Bush and Obama administrations have had plans in case North Korea threatened the mainland with Nukes.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,789
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: August 06, 2017, 05:19:42 PM »

Their endless threats of using terror to persuade the NATO allies into giving up more oil and pullout of South Korea has fallen on death ears.

However, NATO, in terms of Japan, South Korea and Afghanistan must learn how to give the military back to those countries.  We can't be there forever.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 871


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2017, 12:14:53 AM »
« Edited: August 07, 2017, 12:22:05 AM by AN63093 »

Thanks for the extensive and thoughtful reply Beet.  I look forward to continuing this discussion.

When I said Kim was a "wild card," I didn't mean in the sense that his intent and motivations are completely unpredictable and like a roll of the dice.  What I meant is that Kim is sorta in the driver's seat in the current situation- it is in every other party's interest (including NK, for that matter) to maintain the status quo, and their actions will start from that premise; i.e. not rocking the boat and just letting things continue as they are, perhaps even indefinitely.  If there is a person that sparks this tinderbox, it will be Kim.

And it won't be because we don't know Kim's motivations- the reason why he is so intent on developing a nuclear ICBM is not exactly hard to deduce.  But what makes him a wild card, and the most unpredictable actor in this situation, is because, at the risk of repeating myself from the last page, he wants to tip-toe as close as he can to the red-line, without going completely over.  He knows if he actually crosses a real red-line, it's curtains for his regime and his power is history.  The biggest problem is that he may miscalculate where that red-line is, and that's what makes him the "wild card" in this situation.  That miscalculation is the most likely way war starts in Korea, in my opinion.

I agree with your paragraph about how NK won't abandon its nuclear program- the two outcomes out of this situation are either: a) the reluctant acceptance that NK is going to have at least some nuclear weapons; or b) regime change.  To be honest, I don't think the US (by US, I mean mainstream national security analysts) are necessarily so worried about NK having nuclear weapons per se, it's more about range (ICBMs) or second strike capability (SLBMs).  After all, they already have, and have had for some time now, nuclear weapons.

I agree with your point about saving face, and I would add that it's not just a cultural Korean thing, but in autocratic societies, the ruler's position is always somewhat precarious.  Now in this sense, Kim has actually done a pretty decent job of consolidating power (more than I had expected when he first came into power, to be honest), but I would still characterize his position as inherently an unstable one.  I get what you're saying by giving Kim an out.  Let's say the newest round of sanctions pushes him to the bargaining table in a serious way- the problem is, what "out" can we give him?  An end to joint exercises?  A withdrawal of our position in SK?  I mean, these are just not realistic options.  Whether it would be a good idea to end these things, is not the point.  The US will never agree to them, they are just non-starters.  So what can we realistically offer him in exchange for, let's say, an end to ICBM development?

Yes Kim is sort of cornered, but keep in mind he did this to himself.  It was Kim that started toeing close to the red-line in the first place when he knew the US would find an ICBM that could reach the US unacceptable.  Maybe that was the easiest way for him to hold on to power, sure.. but I have to believe there was also a "Deng Xiaoping" option if he wanted to take his regime in a different direction.

Let's say you were the president, what would you do?  You say "diplomacy," but what specifically, do you mean by that?  What are you prepared to give up, and what are your demands?  I'm not asking this to be patronizing or anything, I'm asking seriously, as a thought experiment.

There is a point of no return, where war may become inevitable.  For example, in WW1, that point was almost certainly before 1914, and if the spark wasn't Franz Ferdinand, it would've been something else.  Have we passed the point of no return in NK?  I'd like to believe we haven't, but it's possible, frightful as it might sound, that we have.
Logged
AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 871


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: August 07, 2017, 12:18:00 AM »

Beet, this is in response to your first post.

I agree, I don't think Kim will go so far as to launch an actual ICBM at the US.  I think the much bigger risk is the red-line miscalculation, which I've already gone into above.

I would agree that our red-line has been a bit of a moving target right now, and Trump's tweeting on it hasn't been helpful in that regard, but I don't think that's the root cause of the problem, nor why you see comments like the one Dunford made, that you pointed out.  I think the root cause is simply that there isn't a consensus in the US right now on what exactly the red-line should be, and what our response to a violated red-line should be.

There is a pretty robust debate going on in foreign policy circles right now in what the exact response should be- from airstrikes, to more surgical SOF operations, to full-scale, all-out deploying BCTs invasion-style, and everything in between.  At least from my perspective, I don't know that one course of action has really won the day over another yet.  I know McMaster was talking yesterday about how 'preventive war' is on the table, but the devil is in the details, and what that 'preventive war' would look like is another question entirely, and I'm not sure one option has more support currently than any other.

Finally, on your point about Chinese escalation, I did read your reasoning, but I just don't find it that realistic.  You are right that China is not a perfect analogue of the USSR in WW2- that was a bit of a rough analogy, admittedly.  But I think it would also be incorrect to state China's involvement would be similar to that of the Korean War as well.  Consider that the US and China have a completely different relationship now than they did in the 50s, not to mention economic ties, trade, corporate entanglements, diplomatic relations, etc.

Yes, our respective armed forces would have fundamentally opposite interests.  That is true, but then again, so did the US/USSR in WW2, and that's why I brought that up as an example.  The war hadn't even ended yet by the time it had started to become clear that we were not going to agree on much when it came to how Germany was going to look going forward, and yet there was no confrontation over it (notwithstanding, of course, Patton's famous suggestion to the contrary, which by the way, he was not alone in his opinions at the time).

Of course, there is always the risk of an accident, you are right about that, but I think in the case of US/China, cooler heads would prevail.  We aren't friends, true, but we aren't enemies either.  We are kinda/sorta friends that tolerate each other because we have to, is maybe the best way to say it.  I think if there is a nuclear weapon used in Korea, the most likely scenario is that it is from Kim himself, perhaps as a retaliatory strike upon Seoul if he is attacked, or maybe as a 'last gasp' of his regime if he's about to lose the crown.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: August 07, 2017, 06:58:21 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, of course, would be an utter disaster, and reason enough not to start a war.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We aren't enemies with North Korea either, in the sense that we aren't at war, but we're already talking about launching a war against them that even we admit may well lead to a nuclear strike. So obviously, not yet being enemies with China doesn't mean anything. We've just had a president who got elected by attacking China from the stump and from the debate stage every chance he gets. I don't see cooler heads prevailing at all. Remember, Steve Bannon, Trump's senior advisor, already predicted war with China within five years before the Korean crisis went into high gear.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems to be a fundamentally Western conceit, that the Chinese value economic ties and trade somehow more than or equally to what they perceive as basic elements of their security. If that were really the case, they would not have moved aggressively in the SCS, the Senkakus, Doklam, and any number of potential flashpoints that damage their trade prospects with the countries they are standing off against. In their minds, national security comes first, and on the strategic front, nothing has changed since WWII.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if we don't even know what our own red-line is, how the hell is Kim Jong Un supposed to know? This is absurd. But the problem I was talking about, if you think through carefully what I said, has nothing to do with the above. It's that because we've made so many conflicting statements setting out what appears to be red-lines, even if one is decided upon, our ability to communicate it under this administration has been irreparably damaged.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: August 07, 2017, 07:34:17 AM »

When I said Kim was a "wild card," I didn't mean in the sense that his intent and motivations are completely unpredictable and like a roll of the dice.  What I meant is that Kim is sorta in the driver's seat in the current situation- it is in every other party's interest (including NK, for that matter) to maintain the status quo, and their actions will start from that premise; i.e. not rocking the boat and just letting things continue as they are, perhaps even indefinitely.  If there is a person that sparks this tinderbox, it will be Kim.

Well, a "wild card" doesn't means someone who's in the driver's seat. At the risk of being pedantic, Harper Collins says defines "wild card" as: "If you refer to someone or something as a wild card in a particular situation, you mean that they cause uncertainty because you do not know how they will behave." I merely pointed out that we do know how Kim will behave, assuming no change in policy on our part. So if your meaning is that, then you are incorrect.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how this makes him a "wild card". First of all, as I pointed out, the term "wild card" means we don't know how he will behave, but without change in our own policy, we have a very good idea of how he will behave, so the phrase is simply incorrect. Second, as you admitted already, we don't even know what our own red-line is. We haven't decided. The ultimate outcome of this decision is unknown. So it seems that the true wild card is not Kim Jong Un, but the United States. It's the United States' behavior that is unpredictable, and it's the United States' signals that are contradictory.

If a war starts, it won't just be because of a "miscalculation," it'll also be because someone started it. As we agreed, it's not going to be North Korea, so it's going to be us. In that sense, we, not North Korea, are in the driver's seat when it comes to the war question. In many ways, that's good news, because it means nuclear war can be avoided if we make a choice that is entirely within our own power. All it takes is the will to make that choice.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they now have ICBMs, as well.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The U.S. agreed to suspend joint exercises in 1994-1996. If we were willing to agree to it then, why not now? As for a withdrawal of our position in SK, numerous publications already have people advocating for it. The U.S. has no strategic interest in what goes on in the Korean peninsula outside the North Korean issue, so there is no reason for troops to be there if North Korea is no longer a threat. The South Koreans may not want us there, either.

Given that we're talking about potential nuclear war, the real insanity at the heart of this question is why some Americans think that thousands, if not millions of people dying in nuclear incineration or getting blown apart by artillery shells is somehow better than, say, temporarily pausing a set of military drills. If anything, it's the proposals for war that should be more of a "non-starter."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muammar Gadhafi ruled Libya for 40 years... then one day, there was a domestic uprising against his rule, NATO intervened on the side of the rebels, and he was dragged out of a hole in the desert, beaten, and sodomized on a bayonet, all on public tape. This made a deep impression even on Vladimir Putin, who is in charge of nearly 2,000 strategically operational nuclear warheads. That is what Kim Jong Un would be risking for himself if he went the "Deng Xiaoping" route, and he knows that. He believes, with reason, that he has to guarantee his own security and that of his state, before turning his full attention to economic development.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many diplomatic proposals that have been out there for years, such as offering security guarantees, signing a peace treaty, lifting sanctions, and so on.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no war going on, and not a single bullet has been fired, so how can we already have crossed the point of no return? The idea that the point of no return for WW1 was before 1914 simply ignores the fact that political decisions were made in 1914 to start the war, and had those decisions not been made -- for instance, Nicholas not ordering a general mobilization -- the war could have been averted. War is not inevitable. It is the result, every step of the way, of conscious choices by free actors, and those actors have to take responsibility for those choices.
Logged
Daniel909012
Rookie
**
Posts: 165
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: August 07, 2017, 08:23:15 AM »

When I said Kim was a "wild card," I didn't mean in the sense that his intent and motivations are completely unpredictable and like a roll of the dice.  What I meant is that Kim is sorta in the driver's seat in the current situation- it is in every other party's interest (including NK, for that matter) to maintain the status quo, and their actions will start from that premise; i.e. not rocking the boat and just letting things continue as they are, perhaps even indefinitely.  If there is a person that sparks this tinderbox, it will be Kim.

Well, a "wild card" doesn't means someone who's in the driver's seat. At the risk of being pedantic, Harper Collins says defines "wild card" as: "If you refer to someone or something as a wild card in a particular situation, you mean that they cause uncertainty because you do not know how they will behave." I merely pointed out that we do know how Kim will behave, assuming no change in policy on our part. So if your meaning is that, then you are incorrect.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how this makes him a "wild card". First of all, as I pointed out, the term "wild card" means we don't know how he will behave, but without change in our own policy, we have a very good idea of how he will behave, so the phrase is simply incorrect. Second, as you admitted already, we don't even know what our own red-line is. We haven't decided. The ultimate outcome of this decision is unknown. So it seems that the true wild card is not Kim Jong Un, but the United States. It's the United States' behavior that is unpredictable, and it's the United States' signals that are contradictory.

If a war starts, it won't just be because of a "miscalculation," it'll also be because someone started it. As we agreed, it's not going to be North Korea, so it's going to be us. In that sense, we, not North Korea, are in the driver's seat when it comes to the war question. In many ways, that's good news, because it means nuclear war can be avoided if we make a choice that is entirely within our own power. All it takes is the will to make that choice.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they now have ICBMs, as well.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The U.S. agreed to suspend joint exercises in 1994-1996. If we were willing to agree to it then, why not now? As for a withdrawal of our position in SK, numerous publications already have people advocating for it. The U.S. has no strategic interest in what goes on in the Korean peninsula outside the North Korean issue, so there is no reason for troops to be there if North Korea is no longer a threat. The South Koreans may not want us there, either.

Given that we're talking about potential nuclear war, the real insanity at the heart of this question is why some Americans think that thousands, if not millions of people dying in nuclear incineration or getting blown apart by artillery shells is somehow better than, say, temporarily pausing a set of military drills. If anything, it's the proposals for war that should be more of a "non-starter."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muammar Gadhafi ruled Libya for 40 years... then one day, there was a domestic uprising against his rule, NATO intervened on the side of the rebels, and he was dragged out of a hole in the desert, beaten, and sodomized on a bayonet, all on public tape. This made a deep impression even on Vladimir Putin, who is in charge of nearly 2,000 strategically operational nuclear warheads. That is what Kim Jong Un would be risking for himself if he went the "Deng Xiaoping" route, and he knows that. He believes, with reason, that he has to guarantee his own security and that of his state, before turning his full attention to economic development.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many diplomatic proposals that have been out there for years, such as offering security guarantees, signing a peace treaty, lifting sanctions, and so on.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no war going on, and not a single bullet has been fired, so how can we already have crossed the point of no return? The idea that the point of no return for WW1 was before 1914 simply ignores the fact that political decisions were made in 1914 to start the war, and had those decisions not been made -- for instance, Nicholas not ordering a general mobilization -- the war could have been averted. War is not inevitable. It is the result, every step of the way, of conscious choices by free actors, and those actors have to take responsibility for those choices.

Coward and weak like obama 8 years without doing anything, Bill agreed and was of no use, war or humiliation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/07/a-majority-of-americans-favor-deploying-u-s-troops-if-north-korea-attacks-south-korea-poll-finds/?utm_term=.dfe85ce430da

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/north-korea-ready-to-teach-us-severe-lesson-says-un-abused-its-authority.html
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: August 07, 2017, 06:07:50 PM »

Majority of Americans support deploying troops if SK is attacked (62%) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/07/a-majority-of-americans-favor-deploying-u-s-troops-if-north-korea-attacks-south-korea-poll-finds/?utm_term=.f9325f27d658

Deploy more THAAD units, in progress, and shoot the next one of his missile toys out of the sky. We are at the precipice now. The ball is in NK's court and they keep trying to start a war with their "acts of justice." If they start it, we should finish it, and decisively. As I have said before, I think if anything drastic happens, it will happen within the next year. The estimate for them mastering the ICBM and nuclear tech is early to mid-2018 so the clock is ticking.
For the most part.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: August 07, 2017, 10:25:00 PM »

It will be incredibly stupid to shoot Kim's toys & give him a reason to escalate the conflict militarily. Further sanctions from all countries is the correct immediate step. How can any sane human being want mass genocide in South Korea, huge casualties in Japan etc? Millions of innocent women, children will die !

Only because Kim tested a missile? He knows he will wiped off if he uses any of it. Not to mention the world economy will go into a huge recession, millions in the US will lose their homes, their jobs & will struggle to provide food for their family.

Look at rational steps instead of fear mongering by appealing to the deepest, darkest, most violent scenarios.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: August 07, 2017, 10:26:50 PM »


FFs.
Logged
JA
Jacobin American
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: August 08, 2017, 11:32:49 AM »

North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Coraxion
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 906
Ethiopia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: August 08, 2017, 11:42:55 AM »

Welp. Those living in NYC and LA have my sympathy.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: August 08, 2017, 12:17:31 PM »

There are no good options.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 34  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 12 queries.