Not stupid? Do you think he is mentally stable? You are betting with a lot of people lives while you sit comfortably out of range. Firing an ICBM over Japan is an act of war. What if one of his "stunts" goes wrong? What about your neighbor continually threatening your family while improving his aim? Would you wait until he pops a cap in your wife?
What would Hillary or Bernie have done? How would they have handled the problem better? How did Obama's policy of strategic patients work out? No better than the policies of Bush or Clinton before him.
What if your neighbor fires a shot over your house? Would that change anything?
Questions. I got shitloads of 'em.
I'd like to hear from the Libertarians also.
I have no way to assess the mental state of Kim Jong Un. Maybe those around him do, but I don't.
I don't care what Bernie or Hillary would have done about it. Neither of them is president and both of them are too old to be serious threats to run next time.
Obama did about all that could be done short of war—at least all the hostile things. And that's what makes Trump's bluster such a concern: what if the little weasel calls his bluff? We either go to war over a pointless provocation or we are exposed as a paper tiger. The former would cost us dearly. North Korea has fangs. They couldn't survive a long conflict but they could do an awful lot of damage while they lasted. But without a legitimate casus belli we would be fighting that war alone, without even logistic support from nearby countries.
The latter would embolden the next tinpot dictator, whoever that is, without accomplishing a thing in Korea.
Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive, insurance against an existential threat, but they don't really allow a country to project power. They won't allow Kim to invade South Korea. Using them would be Kim's last act as solid matter, the ultimate in desperate moves. They don't make him a threat any more than Pakistan having nuclear weapons means it can invade India. Our nuclear weapons aren't helping us in Afghanistan any more than the Russian's did. They didn't help us in Vietnam either.
We need to calm down, keep an eye on the real threats posed by Kim's regime, and keep working on ant-missile technology. We're only in a crisis if we make it one.
Well I'll go out on a limb and call him asocial and amoral. He feeds his family members to starving dogs, alive. He runs concentration camps that make Hitler's and Stalin's Gulags look like summer camps. He is content to let his people eat bark off of trees in order to survive. He maintains a fantasy that his family has a divine right to rule based upon some event his grandfather had at a magic mountain. And we negotiate with someone like this ... how ?
Comparisons to the USSR, the Cold War and any other situation are ludicrous. This is unique and without precedent given the threat of using thermonuclear weapons offensively. Our little friend, Chubby Cheeks or Rocket Man or whatever you want to call him, now has the capability and the intent to send one third to one half of North America into the stone age with an EMP that does not require accuracy of any kind. Is not an EMP device a real threat ? Does this not qualify as casus belli ?
Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning "an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" (literally, "a case of war"). A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact. Either may be considered an act of war.
We are going to contain or prevent this potential EMP how ? Can you say that we can shoot down an ICBM with 100% certainty to prevent the event right now ? You are willing to risk a 100 to 300 million people with this certainty ? If so, then fine, contain the little bastard and wait him out. I do not share the confidence that we can shoot down an ICBM of this sort with 100% certainty and 99% is not enough. What if he shoots multiple ICBM's ? We can get every one of them ?
It is very apparent based upon discussions here over the years that I am about the only one here who even considers an EMP to be a real threat of any kind based upon the remarks I have received over the years when ever I have mentioned it. Y'all are keeping yourself locked into the box thinking in terms of established conventional war and old paradigms of the past.
How would the survivors of this EMP event judge the leaders who let this happen, when it was preventable ? People are going to die. Do we let them die everywhere or in just one place ? That is the choice. Diplomacy is at a dead end. It has done nothing other than take us to this point and decision.
Not stupid? Do you think he is mentally stable? You are betting with a lot of people lives while you sit comfortably out of range. Firing an ICBM over Japan is an act of war. What if one of his "stunts" goes wrong? What about your neighbor continually threatening your family while improving his aim? Would you wait until he pops a cap in your wife?
What would Hillary or Bernie have done? How would they have handled the problem better? How did Obama's policy of strategic patients work out? No better than the policies of Bush or Clinton before him.
What if your neighbor fires a shot over your house? Would that change anything?
Questions. I got shitloads of 'em.
I'd like to hear from the Libertarians also.
I have no way to assess the mental state of Kim Jong Un. Maybe those around him do, but I don't.
I don't care what Bernie or Hillary would have done about it. Neither of them is president and both of them are too old to be serious threats to run next time.
Obama did about all that could be done short of war—at least all the hostile things. And that's what makes Trump's bluster such a concern: what if the little weasel calls his bluff? We either go to war over a pointless provocation or we are exposed as a paper tiger. The former would cost us dearly. North Korea has fangs. They couldn't survive a long conflict but they could do an awful lot of damage while they lasted. But without a legitimate casus belli we would be fighting that war alone, without even logistic support from nearby countries.
The latter would embolden the next tinpot dictator, whoever that is, without accomplishing a thing in Korea.
Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive, insurance against an existential threat, but they don't really allow a country to project power. They won't allow Kim to invade South Korea. Using them would be Kim's last act as solid matter, the ultimate in desperate moves. They don't make him a threat any more than Pakistan having nuclear weapons means it can invade India. Our nuclear weapons aren't helping us in Afghanistan any more than the Russian's did. They didn't help us in Vietnam either.
We need to calm down, keep an eye on the real threats posed by Kim's regime, and keep working on ant-missile technology. We're only in a crisis if we make it one.
I suspect that Obama missed an opportunity when Kim Jong Un took over leadership. Obama continued the old cold war stance, iirc increasing sanctions in response to some slight or other that most likely had everything to do with N Korea internal politics and nothing to do with the international situation. And he refused direct talks. Obviously I don't know the whole story but I reckon he should have said, "Look, we really don't give a shit about you, as long as you stay within your little world so do that, and we have no intention of attacking you. We will talk to anyone but don't expect anything to come from it if it doesn't make the world safer and if we can't get other countries on board."
That being said, I had an enlightening conversation with someone who was very tapped in and their advance in capabilities is very troubling. Not the least because there are a lot of Iranian engineers working on missile technology in N Korea.
Look at it from the perspective of previous experiences with the USSR. Was their ever a point where we decided, "we've run out of patience, diplomacy and other leverage techniques aren't working quickly enough", and it was time to initiate exchange of nuclear warheads?
It is hard to imagine the years of suffering citizens of North Korea have endured, but our unwillingness to make the situation markedly worse is not a tacit dismissal of their plight. We are not, and never have been, an omnipotent world power. The ability to trigger nuclear holocaust does not signify political omnipotence. Instead of saying "we have tried diplomacy for 25 years", we should be framing it as, "like we did in dealing with the USSR, we have continued to follow the sane course of pursuing diplomatic and economic options to the extent possible". North Korea's system, like the Soviet Union, is likely to prove unsustainable in the long term. What's the point in firing cannons at a sinking ship that is fully capable of sinking us before it submerges?
Very well and neatly said.
There are limits to the power of any nation. The problem of North Korea's aggressiveness has existed since Truman's presidency and frankly it's not only America's problem to address. North Korea behaves badly in order to draw concessions and indirect aid. It plays on China's fear of a unified Korean peninsula and pro-Western power at it southern border. China also worries that in an alternate scenario, a collapsing North Korea would cause unrest and violence to spill over the border. China in less turbulent times has also played North Korea as bargaining chip with the US, promising to restrain NK in return for American concessions.
But North Korea's behavior isn't only the concern of the US and China. Existing multilateral arrangements with South Korea, Japan, Russia, SE Asian nations, Australia are reasonable and productive ways to contain NK.
My guess is that North Korea's leaders understand that no one's wanted to invade and conquer their country for a long time. NK has sufficient conventional weaponry aimed at Seoul alone to cause millions of casualties. NK has a massive army trained for and anticipating a struggle to the death. The country has no concentrations of natural resources or fixed assets worth seizing.
NK's development of long-range missile and nuclear warhead technology is an attempt to force the US, Japan and others to bargain with NK and continue to indirectly subsidize the regime. Yet that threat has very limited effect: Kim Jong Un and his advisers understand that if they strike any country with a nuclear missile, North Korea would suffer a devastating, lethal response.
I very much doubt that Kim Jong Un is mentally ill, as Buzz worries. American news organizations worried the same thing about his father. Even if his advisers have made Kim paranoid, both the American and North Korean governments tend to buffer and diffuse rash remarks from their leaders about the other country.
As Steve Bannon remarked to the American Prospect, there isn't a military solution to the problem of North Korea. On the other hand, North Korea loses if it starts a hot war, even just a non-nuclear one. The bigger the conflict and casualties, the more it loses—to the point that it disappears entirely.
Kim and Trump are posturing for their respective domestic audiences. Yes, it's disturbing that we have an incompetent, rash, loud-mouthed loon leading our country and trash-talking at the UN, but Trump's stupidity gets diffused and buffered by other people in the US government and military.
My question: is this the military threat that the GOP is going to trot out during the '18 and '20 elections to convince people to vote the party line? Because it's pretty pathetic and contrived. At some point this kind of political theater just stops working on voters.
Not stupid? Do you think he is mentally stable? You are betting with a lot of people lives while you sit comfortably out of range. Firing an ICBM over Japan is an act of war. What if one of his "stunts" goes wrong? What about your neighbor continually threatening your family while improving his aim? Would you wait until he pops a cap in your wife?
What would Hillary or Bernie have done? How would they have handled the problem better? How did Obama's policy of strategic patients work out? No better than the policies of Bush or Clinton before him.
What if your neighbor fires a shot over your house? Would that change anything?
Questions. I got shitloads of 'em.
I'd like to hear from the Libertarians also.
I have no way to assess the mental state of Kim Jong Un. Maybe those around him do, but I don't.
I don't care what Bernie or Hillary would have done about it. Neither of them is president and both of them are too old to be serious threats to run next time.
Obama did about all that could be done short of war—at least all the hostile things. And that's what makes Trump's bluster such a concern: what if the little weasel calls his bluff? We either go to war over a pointless provocation or we are exposed as a paper tiger. The former would cost us dearly. North Korea has fangs. They couldn't survive a long conflict but they could do an awful lot of damage while they lasted. But without a legitimate casus belli we would be fighting that war alone, without even logistic support from nearby countries.
The latter would embolden the next tinpot dictator, whoever that is, without accomplishing a thing in Korea.
Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive, insurance against an existential threat, but they don't really allow a country to project power. They won't allow Kim to invade South Korea. Using them would be Kim's last act as solid matter, the ultimate in desperate moves. They don't make him a threat any more than Pakistan having nuclear weapons means it can invade India. Our nuclear weapons aren't helping us in Afghanistan any more than the Russian's did. They didn't help us in Vietnam either.
We need to calm down, keep an eye on the real threats posed by Kim's regime, and keep working on ant-missile technology. We're only in a crisis if we make it one.
First off, I'm not supporting or agreeing with Trump. All I'm doing is asking questions that nobody has answered. It's easy to mock Trump and his policies, any moron can do that. We have tried diplomacy for 25 years. What do we do if/when Kim drops a bomb on someone? What if it's a nuke? What if his last missile test had gone wrong and killed a lot of Japanese? NOKO continues to threaten us and It's neighbors. At what point does the world make it stop? Before or after the deaths of millions? Mocking is easy and produces nothing. I know this, it's been a hobby of mine for years. I would like to hear something real.
Look at it from the perspective of previous experiences with the USSR. Was their ever a point where we decided, "we've run out of patience, diplomacy and other leverage techniques aren't working quickly enough", and it was time to initiate exchange of nuclear warheads?
It is hard to imagine the years of suffering citizens of North Korea have endured, but our unwillingness to make the situation markedly worse is not a tacit dismissal of their plight. We are not, and never have been, an omnipotent world power. The ability to trigger nuclear holocaust does not signify political omnipotence. Instead of saying "we have tried diplomacy for 25 years", we should be framing it as, "like we did in dealing with the USSR, we have continued to follow the sane course of pursuing diplomatic and economic options to the extent possible". North Korea's system, like the Soviet Union, is likely to prove unsustainable in the long term. What's the point in firing cannons at a sinking ship that is fully capable of sinking us before it submerges?
Not stupid? Do you think he is mentally stable? You are betting with a lot of people lives while you sit comfortably out of range. Firing an ICBM over Japan is an act of war. What if one of his "stunts" goes wrong? What about your neighbor continually threatening your family while improving his aim? Would you wait until he pops a cap in your wife?
What would Hillary or Bernie have done? How would they have handled the problem better? How did Obama's policy of strategic patients work out? No better than the policies of Bush or Clinton before him.
What if your neighbor fires a shot over your house? Would that change anything?
The genie is out of the bottle; there is no way North Korea is going to eliminate its nuclear capability. The world has to learn to live with another country with the bomb, just as it's learned to deal with all the other countries with th bomb. The US having a president with the tact of a poorly-disciplined 6 year-old doesn't help.
Not stupid? Do you think he is mentally stable? You are betting with a lot of people lives while you sit comfortably out of range. Firing an ICBM over Japan is an act of war. What if one of his "stunts" goes wrong? What about your neighbor continually threatening your family while improving his aim? Would you wait until he pops a cap in your wife?
What would Hillary or Bernie have done? How would they have handled the problem better? How did Obama's policy of strategic patients work out? No better than the policies of Bush or Clinton before him.
What if your neighbor fires a shot over your house? Would that change anything?
Questions. I got shitloads of 'em.
I'd like to hear from the Libertarians also.
He understands how the awful game is played.
The genie is out of the bottle; there is no way North Korea is going to eliminate its nuclear capability. The world has to learn to live with another country with the bomb, just as it's learned to deal with all the other countries with th bomb. The US having a president with the tact of a poorly-disciplined 6 year-old doesn't help.
I bet is that if the rest of the world accepts the fact of North Korea's nuclear status, North Korea will stop the threats. Kim is not stupid; he understands that as long as he possesses the weapons, no one will use theirs against him. This is how the madness of nuclear weapons has worked for decades.
Not stupid? Do you think he is mentally stable? You are betting with a lot of people lives while you sit comfortably out of range. Firing an ICBM over Japan is an act of war. What if one of his "stunts" goes wrong? What about your neighbor continually threatening your family while improving his aim? Would you wait until he pops a cap in your wife?
What would Hillary or Bernie have done? How would they have handled the problem better? How did Obama's policy of strategic patients work out? No better than the policies of Bush or Clinton before him.
What if your neighbor fires a shot over your house? Would that change anything?
Other nations don't threaten to use their nukes against others. NOKO does.
How long would you tolerate your neighbor threatening to kill you and your family? Lots of people own weapons, hammers, and hands but don't threaten to use them. What if your neighbor continually threatened your family while he was taking target practice?
My bet is that if the rest of the world accepts the fact of North Korea's nuclear status, North Korea will stop the threats. Kim is not stupid; he understands that as long as he possesses the weapons, no one will use theirs against him. This is how the madness of nuclear weapons has worked for decades.
How about this. North Korean IS a nuclear power now. Let's start treating it like one. Do we impose sanctions and make threats against the other nuclear powers in an effort to get them to give up their insane weapons of mass destruction? No. We live with the elephant in the room and deal with them like we deal with other nations.
Other nations don't threaten to use their nukes against others. NOKO does.
How long would you tolerate your neighbor threatening to kill you and your family? Lots of people own weapons, hammers, and hands but don't threaten to use them. What if your neighbor continually threatened your family while he was taking target practice?
First off, I'm not supporting or agreeing with Trump. All I'm doing is asking questions that nobody has answered. It's easy to mock Trump and his policies, any moron can do that. We have tried diplomacy for 25 years. What do we do if/when Kim drops a bomb on someone? What if it's a nuke? What if his last missile test had gone wrong and killed a lot of Japanese? NOKO continues to threaten us and It's neighbors. At what point does the world make it stop? Before or after the deaths of millions? Mocking is easy and produces nothing. I know this, it's been a hobby of mine for years. I would like to hear something real.
How about this. North Korean IS a nuclear power now. Let's start treating it like one. Do we impose sanctions and make threats against the other nuclear powers in an effort to get them to give up their insane weapons of mass destruction? No. We live with the elephant in the room and deal with them like we deal with other nations.
First off, I'm not supporting or agreeing with Trump. All I'm doing is asking questions that nobody has answered. It's easy to mock Trump and his policies, any moron can do that. We have tried diplomacy for 25 years. What do we do if/when Kim drops a bomb on someone? What if it's a nuke? What if his last missile test had gone wrong and killed a lot of Japanese? NOKO continues to threaten us and It's neighbors. At what point does the world make it stop? Before or after the deaths of millions? Mocking is easy and produces nothing. I know this, it's been a hobby of mine for years. I would like to hear something real.
I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't involve "total destruction".
Yea, not sure when the last time was that a world leader threatened the total destruction of one country in a UN address. Trump doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his body. He drives nails with a sledgehammer. And what's this "Rocket Man" nonsense?... it's like he's creating a Marvel villain.
