Oh gosh.... seriously?????

OK. Hypothetical.
What if the US did nothing and told those close to NK that they have the most to lose., eg Russia, China, Japan, Sth Korea.
What would they do?

(August 9, 2017 at 5:48 pm)ignoramus Wrote: OK. Hypothetical.
What if the US did nothing and told those close to NK that they have the most to lose., eg Russia, China, Japan, Sth Korea.
What would they do?

Not a whole lot.

(August 9, 2017 at 5:20 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 3:40 pm)Dropship Wrote: I never mentioned any need for a conventional war!
Kim's "teeth" are his nuclear missiles, so all Don needs to do is to draw those teeth by knocking out the missile launch sites with cruise missile and drone strikes, there's no need to send in US troops to do it..

---

Kim's just an overgrown pouting schoolboy but I think he's just about got the sense to know that if he uses his toys he'll quickly lose the lot as Don retaliates..

No shit, Einstein. That's the point. N. Korea has built for itself a credible military threat to deploy in the event that they are attacked and invaded. Kim has no intention of launching a preemptive attack on S. Korea, the U.S., or Japan because that would spell the end of his regime. Looked at from the vantage point of a despot desperate to maintain his grip on power, the N. Korean military buildup and nuclear program is a rational move. This has always been about preserving the status quo, his sabre rattling notwithstanding. To dismiss Kim as irrational or an 'overgrown pouting schoolboy' is to completely miss the point.

He's ruthless and brutal and the world would be better off without him, but that doesn't make him a loose cannon.

Finally, someone who agrees with me. North Korea's not building nukes so they can bomb their enemies into oblivion. They're doing it so it LOOKS like they can bomb their enemies into oblivion. It's clear that if they actually use them, their days as a nation-state are numbered, except maybe if China decides to do their usual thing of negotiating some sort of truce between North Korea and their targets so the cycle can start once again (which they tend to do whenever North Korea actually hits something with their sabres) , and I can't be sure that they'd do this even in the event of a NK-initiated nuclear attack. Perhaps Kim Jong-Un is really so unhinged that he believes he can somehow come out on top in all this clusterfuck, but, from what I've been able to tell, even he isn't.

And I honestly cannot see the situations Anomalocaris considered "Use it or Lose It" situations as likely to happen. Mere international pressure does not tend to convince tyrants on the order of the Kim family to make nice, a military raid is unlikely to actually happen, and given that the majority of the North Korean population has been living in a Platonic Cave for Sixty-some years, I cannot see a massive uprising threatening the Kim's power happening.

(August 9, 2017 at 6:43 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 5:20 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: No shit, Einstein. That's the point. N. Korea has built for itself a credible military threat to deploy in the event that they are attacked and invaded. Kim has no intention of launching a preemptive attack on S. Korea, the U.S., or Japan because that would spell the end of his regime. Looked at from the vantage point of a despot desperate to maintain his grip on power, the N. Korean military buildup and nuclear program is a rational move. This has always been about preserving the status quo, his sabre rattling notwithstanding. To dismiss Kim as irrational or an 'overgrown pouting schoolboy' is to completely miss the point.

He's ruthless and brutal and the world would be better off without him, but that doesn't make him a loose cannon.

Finally, someone who agrees with me. North Korea's not building nukes so they can bomb their enemies into oblivion. They're doing it so it LOOKS like they can bomb their enemies into oblivion. It's clear that if they actually use them, their days as a nation-state are numbered, except maybe if China decides to do their usual thing of negotiating some sort of truce between North Korea and their targets so the cycle can start once again (which they tend to do whenever North Korea actually hits something with their sabres) , and I can't be sure that they'd do this even in the event of a NK-initiated nuclear attack. Perhaps Kim Jong-Un is really so unhinged that he believes he can somehow come out on top in all this clusterfuck, but, from what I've been able to tell, even he isn't.

And I honestly cannot see the situations Anomalocaris  considered "Use it or Lose It" situations as likely to happen. Mere international pressure does not tend to convince tyrants on the order of the Kim family to make nice, a military raid is unlikely to actually happen, and given that the majority of the North Korean population has been living in a Platonic Cave for Sixty-some years, I cannot see a massive uprising threatening the Kim's power happening.

A military conflict is only unlikely to happen if we put a leash on Un's orange counterpart. Did everyone forget the two unfunded wars Bush Jr started? At least Bush Jr contained his bullshit to a non nuclear conflict. If anyone thinks 45 is even close to that stable you are fooling yourselves. 45 makes Bush Jr look like Ghandi. 

There is no way 45 can conduct a limited strike or a conventional ground war without any sort of domino effect, nukes or not.

Good Point.

(August 9, 2017 at 3:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: 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.

He can tell that to me, too, since I live in Seoul.

A war is likely to be very bad.  I SUSPECT that America will work their air magic and eliminate most targets within a week.  However, there's a real possibility for things to go horribly wrong if the regime is threatened.

There is a question to ask though: can America afford to play a wait-and-see game with Kim?  In my opinion, the right move FOR AMERICA seems to be to go in now, while the risk of major catastrophe for the States is still relatively small.  What happens in 20 years when the place is bristling with nukes, and N. Korean subs are patrolling the Pacific and so on?  Not a pleasant thought.

It wasn't "magic"; it was modern air-power against largely unarmed combatants and civilians.  If the US is so superior in air power, why did Trump use 50 cruise missiles at 100 million a piece to disable a Syrian airbase for a day or two?

(August 9, 2017 at 8:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It wasn't "magic"; it was modern air-power against largely unarmed combatants and civilians.  If the US is so superior in air power, why did Trump use 50 cruise missiles at 100 million a piece to disable a Syrian airbase for a day or two?

Because trump didn't want his Air Force to shoot down one of Putin's planes in Syria when Putin's dick is up his asss

(August 9, 2017 at 8:58 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 8:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It wasn't "magic"; it was modern air-power against largely unarmed combatants and civilians.  If the US is so superior in air power, why did Trump use 50 cruise missiles at 100 million a piece to disable a Syrian airbase for a day or two?

Because trump didn't want his Air Force to shoot down one of Putin's planes in Syria when Putin's dick is up his asss

More likely he was told that Russian SAMs would shoot-down American warplanes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

(August 9, 2017 at 1:56 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(August 9, 2017 at 1:49 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: I may be overly hopeful, but if it came to that I assume there is at least one goddamned adult in the administration who could beat a 71-year-old into a coma before he started WWIII.

I posted this elsewhere, but it is a good article for this thread:

Quote:Kelly Worked With Mattis to Make Sure a Grown-Up Was Always Near Trump
Continuing with the John Kelly theme, Newsweek reports some very interesting news about the new chief of staff. It would seem that, while he was serving as Secretary of Homeland Security, he and Secretary of Defense James Mattis coordinated their schedules, such that one or the other would always be near Donald Trump. That way, should the President ever be tempted to launch a military or nuclear strike, there would be an experienced, high-ranking military officer available to discuss it with him (and, ideally, to talk him out of it). Presumably the arrangement will continue, and will be even easier to execute, now that Kelly is in his new job.
On one level, this news is reassuring, as it means there will be an added layer of protection in between Trump's potentially-itchy trigger finger, and America's immense arsenal. On the other hand, it's also rather frightening that two men who know the President well concluded that such an arrangement was advisable. Clearly, concerns that The Donald could go off half-cocked are not just in our imaginations. (Z)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2017/Se...tml#item-3

I certainly hope that's true. I have little doubt that Trump would impulsively launch a first strike. And once it's set in motion, that's it. Contrary to popular belief, probably perpetuated by movies and tv shows, one of his underlings or military staff doesn't have the power to cancel the "commander-in-chief's" nuclear strike.

-Teresa