(August 9, 2017 at 10:58 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 10:54 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Make light of his motives all you want, the real calculus is simple to the extreme: For Kim there is no life without nuclear weapon.

He will certainly chose to use his nuclear weapons if it is use it or lose it, or if he is in grave danger of being deposed.

Don't think he will use it if his regime is not threatened despite his own bluster, don't think he won't use it if his regime is gravely threatened, regardless of blood curdling threat of consequences from the idiot trump.

You know, given that the US has been stockpiling nuclear weapons for over 70 years and haven't actually used them since August 9, 1945 (72 years ago today, by an extraordinary coincidence), I don't think there will likely be much of a "use it or lose it" situation.

The US wouldn't launch first. It'd be too much of a international political disaster for them. Dropping a nuke without the North Koreans launching one first would piss the chinese off very much at the very least, whereas if they drop in retaliation, the good old excuse of "He did it first!!!!" comes into play. It will end up being a use it or lose it situation.

(August 9, 2017 at 11:15 am)Jello Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 10:58 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: You know, given that the US has been stockpiling nuclear weapons for over 70 years and haven't actually used them since August 9, 1945 (72 years ago today, by an extraordinary coincidence), I don't think there will likely be much of a "use it or lose it" situation.

The US wouldn't launch first. It'd be too much of a international political disaster for them. Dropping a nuke without the North Koreans launching one first would piss the chinese off very much at the very least, whereas if they drop in retaliation, the good old excuse of "He did it first!!!!" comes into play. It will end up being a use it or lose it situation.

Like it was with the Soviets during the Cold War?

(August 9, 2017 at 10:58 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 10:54 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Make light of his motives all you want, the real calculus is simple to the extreme: For Kim there is no life without nuclear weapon.

He will certainly chose to use his nuclear weapons if it is use it or lose it, or if he is in grave danger of being deposed.

Don't think he will use it if his regime is not threatened despite his own bluster, don't think he won't use it if his regime is gravely threatened, regardless of blood curdling threat of consequences from the idiot trump.

You know, given that the US has been stockpiling nuclear weapons for over 70 years and haven't actually used them since August 9, 1945 (72 years ago today, by an extraordinary coincidence), I don't think there will likely be much of a "use it or lose it" situation.

The use it or Lose it applies to Kim. He could certainly face the possibility of losing it in the following manner:

1. Extreme pressure from outside sufficient to crumble his regime trying to force him to give it up
2. Commando raids trying to take it from him
3. redemptive air or missile raids trying to blow his up
4. His country is invaded and the invader is trying to take it from him
5. His own people turn on him and threaten to take the control of the weapons from him
6. His rule falters and he is in danger of not being able to control his weapons

When these situation arise and his loss of control over his weapons seems imminent, I have no doubt he will use all his nuclear weapons.

Kim's overriding concern was regime stability and safety from outside interference. With a nuke stockpile and the means to deliver it, he's accomplished that short-term mission. While I don't welcome yet another repressive regime with nuclear capability, I'm sanguine that he's rational enough to see his arsenal for what it is: long-term insurance against aggression.

Now that he has his own devastating deterrence, in some ways things just got harder for him, at least in the long term. Now he has to worry about pacifying and, if possible, improving the lot of his subjects, who -- at least in part -- knuckled under because Kim was able to sell them the story that S. Korea and the U.S. were itching to invade and overthrow the government. That will be a much harder sell in the future, and there may come a point when the North Korean people look around and ask, "Now that Dear Leader has secured us from our enemies, when do the good times start?"

A cult of personality and constant threats can only carry Kim so far. There may come a time when circumstances compel him to pursue a Chinese-style effort to actually grow his economy and provide for his people -- if only to save his own neck.

LOL, Trumply has characterized the nuclear arsenal he inherited from Obama as "far stronger and more powerful than ever before".

Should we be dragging Obama up on charges at The Hague for a previously undetected militaristic bent ??


He definitely needs to give back his Nobel Peace Prize.


SHAME !! SHAME !! SHAME !!

(August 9, 2017 at 11:20 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 11:15 am)Jello Wrote: The US wouldn't launch first. It'd be too much of a international political disaster for them. Dropping a nuke without the North Koreans launching one first would piss the chinese off very much at the very least, whereas if they drop in retaliation, the good old excuse of "He did it first!!!!" comes into play. It will end up being a use it or lose it situation.

Like it was with the Soviets during the Cold War?

Basically, yeah. Although i get the feeling that this isn't going to be a cold war

We can bet that Don and his Generals have got a map like this with the sites marked down for annihilation by cruise missile and drone strikes to draw Kim's teeth.
Without nukes in his toybox Kim will be just a harmless tub of hot air..
PS- I wouldn't put it past Kim to gift some nuke warheads to ISIS and other terror groups, so the sooner he's neutralised the better..

(August 9, 2017 at 11:32 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Kim's overriding concern was regime stability and safety from outside interference. With a nuke stockpile and the means to deliver it, he's accomplished that short-term mission. While I don't welcome yet another repressive regime with nuclear capability, I'm sanguine that he's rational enough to see his arsenal for what it is: long-term insurance against aggression.

Now that he has his own devastating deterrence, in some ways things just got harder for him, at least in the long term. Now he has to worry about pacifying and, if possible, improving the lot of his subjects, who -- at least in part -- knuckled under because Kim was able to sell them the story that S. Korea and the U.S. were itching to invade and overthrow the government. That will be a much harder sell in the future, and there may come a point when the North Korean people look around and ask, "Now that Dear Leader has secured us from our enemies, when do the good times start?"

A cult of personality and constant threats can only carry Kim so far. There may come a time when circumstances compel him to pursue a Chinese-style effort to actually grow his economy and provide for his people -- if only to save his own neck.

I this context I totally agree. Trump scares me more at this point because he is too fucking stupid to consider what you just typed. And again, when you have both China and Russia now voting with America long term, he has to behave or nobody will be on Kim's side.

This is what his father and China and Russia and America all understood even in the original Korean War. Back then the entire world was full of survivors of WW2 and knew that the atomic bombs we dropped on Japan were more so a warning to Russia than it was to end the war sooner. I don't agree with how America ended the war and we can't change that. But Trump is old enough to remember but stupid enough to ignore it.

Wait the fucker out and use sanctions. I don't believe Trump or the GOP that 40 years of sanctions have not worked, if they had not worked we would have been in a war with them far sooner, even with them not having nukes.

If Trump truly cares about anything besides his own ego, he will listen to those telling him to tone down his dangerous rhetoric.

---

(August 9, 2017 at 12:25 pm)Dropship Wrote: We can bet that Don and his Generals have got a map like this with the sites marked down for annihilation by cruise missile and drone strikes to draw Kim's teeth.
Without nukes in his toybox Kim will be just a harmless tub of hot air..
PS- I wouldn't put it past Kim to gift some nuke warheads to ISIS and other terror groups, so the sooner he's neutralised the better..

Um no and just NO.

A conventional war would still cause great death not just in NK but in SK too. And again, China doesn't want a refugee problem due to that, nor do they want a unified western South Korea next to their border. 

Even a conventional war would cause mass death. If you think two simple air strikes will cause his population to overthrow Kim, you are fooling yourself.

(August 9, 2017 at 12:45 pm)Brian37 Wrote: [quote pid='1599841' dateline='1502292736']
Even a conventional war would cause mass death. If you think two simple air strikes will cause his population to overthrow Kim, you are fooling yourself.

North Korea has a modern air-defense system, don't they?  What makes anyone believe that the West/US can successfully launch a bombing strike?  The only successes that we have had have been against 3rd/4th World nations.  Even Trump was too afraid to send US warplanes into Syrian airspace for fear that they would be shot down.

(August 9, 2017 at 12:25 pm)Dropship Wrote: We can bet that Don and his Generals have got a map like this with the sites marked down for annihilation by cruise missile and drone strikes to draw Kim's teeth.
Without nukes in his toybox Kim will be just a harmless tub of hot air..

A harmless tub of hot air? Are you fucking kidding?!?

Tell that to the people of Seoul. I'm sure they can explain the significance of 15,000-odd artillery pieces and rocket launchers.