US Politics: Passing Gas In Public is Abhorrent Behavior

[Kalbear]

Probably the 'best' outcome for NK would be for China to occupy it entirely and establish a satellite puppet country there, hopefully in a mostly bloodless coup. It can remain a buffer against US and Japanese forces, it can remain a Chinese staple, and it can remain stable without distorting the geopolitical mess. The Chinese can simply dismantle the nuclear forces or incorporate them into their own system and the world wouldn't care that much. The US would gain a more threatening spot in North Korea, but one that is almost certainly not going to devolve into war any time soon (and if it does, the US would have a significantly bigger thing to worry about than South Korea). 

I don't know how you get to that coup short of a revolt that is aided by the Chinese, but that'd be the best shot. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

39 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

So I ask again, which way are we supposed to act? Feigned revulsion that a Republican can take the fall for these necessary endeavours? Or lukewarm approval that he could fall headfirst into doing something positive and our base will still revile him for it?

Neither of the two places you require unilateral US action. I'm not sure why it is our responsibility alone to act. If there is some international effort then I'll cheer Trump's involvement at the forefront of whatever it is.

As for lancing the North Korean boil, Clinton was supposed to do that and thought it too risky even in the 90s. Now its even more so. Seoul is quite close to the border and all NK nuclear facilities are well spread. There isnt much we can do without China and its leverage.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Probably the 'best' outcome for NK would be for China to occupy it entirely and establish a satellite puppet country there, hopefully in a mostly bloodless coup. It can remain a buffer against US and Japanese forces, it can remain a Chinese staple, and it can remain stable without distorting the geopolitical mess. The Chinese can simply dismantle the nuclear forces or incorporate them into their own system and the world wouldn't care that much. The US would gain a more threatening spot in North Korea, but one that is almost certainly not going to devolve into war any time soon (and if it does, the US would have a significantly bigger thing to worry about than South Korea). 

I don't know how you get to that coup short of a revolt that is aided by the Chinese, but that'd be the best shot. 

Given the prepositioned and presighted artillery North Korea has trained on Downtown Seoul I can't imagine there being any way the occupation of North Korea by any major power could ever be bloodless.  The instant they get wind of a real strike they'll pull the trigger on 10,000+ artillery pieces and kill God knows how many people in very short order.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given the prepositioned and presighted artillery North Korea has trained on Downtown Seoul I can't imagine there being any way the occupation of North Korea by any major power could ever be bloodless.  The instant they get wind of a real strike they'll pull the trigger on 10,000+ artillery pieces and reduce downtown Seoul to rubble in minutes.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/

Depends a lot on the occupying force. If China occupies North Korea, why on earth would they shoot their artillery at South Korea? How is that a threat that China will care that much about? 

And as @Werthead pointed out, the artillery is dangerous but probably overstated in its efficacy. The real danger is the ability of their short and medium-range rockets to hit places in SK and Japan with WMD. 

As I said, the 'best' solution would be a coup, possibly militarily sponsored, and backed by China. It needs to be backed by China and not the US, and it needs to start at the top and go down. I don't know how interested China is in doing something like this - they have not been very focused on building up satellite states or doing anything particularly adventurous militarily - but it would probably result in the best short and long-term outcome for the area. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Why, to "spoil" any potential victory, to spread the misery.  I don't expect the North Korean to be anything but small minded tin pot dictators.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

Why, to "spoil" any potential victory, to spread the misery.  I don't expect the North Korean to be anything but small minded tin pot dictators.

If the military is the one doing the coup I don't see how they'd allow for an attack to happen. 

And the notion that NK is small minded or petty is belied heavily by their actual behavior. They have been anything other than irrational, or particularly cruel. Their buildup of MAD and WMD is an entirely rational action. 

They'd happily bomb the shit out of China if China attacked, mind you - but they wouldn't want to attack the US or SK if China attacked. They don't expect China to given how much of an ally China has been to them since 1950. It'd be like the US blowing the shit out of Russia because Canada invaded.

[Sivin]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Let's start with this: why is the above true? Assad is by all accounts horrible, but the question remains what is the alternative to Assad and Russia in Syria? 

Until that is reasonably answered with an appropriate long-term plan, I would argue the opposite - that Assad MUST be allowed to stay in power, even with Russian backing. 

Again: what is the long-term plan? What is the desired outcome, and what are acceptable outcomes?

We're supposed to want more than a reactionary attack without any ideas. If things work, awesome - and I've said several times that Trump in particular might end up doing well here because he is also so unreasonable. Much like Obama, you can like the things he did well and hate the things he did poorly.

How long do we wait Bear? How many fatalities will Assad be allowed to add to his portfolio? When does a reasonable aversion to potential destabilization cross the line to paralysis by indecision? Because we think the void will be filled by something worse? Something like Isis?

We will deal with the aftermath once an objective can be identified.

10 minutes ago, S John said:

I don't think there's any way that we'll see anything other than mass casualties if the US and NK ever exchange blows.  NK doesn't have the weaponry to qualify for MAD, but if they go down they can cause some real damage to South Korea and Japan in the process.  You have to assume that they would because it's the only card they can play in a war with the US.  At the very least South Korea, particularly Seoul, is gonna get shelled.  And maybe worse.  That's a city of 10 million people.  That's like New York taking an artillery barrage.  Hard to fathom.  

And in a sense that is the 'good' scenario where China remains on the sidelines and the whole conflict doesn't escalate beyond the region.  I think there's good reason for why every president up to this point has decided NOT to lance the NK boil.  

 

8 minutes ago, Relic said:

Yeah, anyone talking about "lancing the boil" doesn't give a shit about the potential for MASSIVE loss of life in SK, and how badly an event like that would destabilize the world as a whole. 

Whenever NK comes up i always think the same thing. Why aren't we investing serious assets into an assassination? 

 

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given the prepositioned and presighted artillery North Korea has trained on Downtown Seoul I can't imagine there being any way the occupation of North Korea by any major power could ever be bloodless.  The instant they get wind of a real strike they'll pull the trigger on 10,000+ artillery pieces and reduce downtown Seoul to rubble in minutes.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6212/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul/

Relic, I will contend that desiring a military resolution to the North Korean question does not mean that I (or anyone else) automatically dismisses the inevitable loss of millions of lives that would follow. But there are more than twenty million people suffering every day in North Korea under an insanely oppressive regime. If they continue development of delivery capabilities of a nuclear payload then now there are some fifty million people in South Korea (including Seoul) under threat daily, not to mention the risk to Chinese or Japanese civilians living in range of any such device.

I don't have any brilliant answers to the questions of how to limit casualties or subsequent destabilization, but I do know that I will always prefer taking action against a problem as opposed to putting it off indefinitely until some perfect resolution presents itself.

The heart of my point, though, is that such undesirable liberals as myself have identified that it won't take much encouragement for the Republican to think that he can wage wars to his hearts content and it just so happens that his prospective targets would benefit from a bit of air dropped democracy. And while that happens, the good liberals get to be rightfully disgusted at the carnage and lack of foresight that has left the nation engaged in a worldwide quagmire before retaking control of at least part of the government to limit the damage done to Americans by The Party of Business.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, WinterFox said:

How long do we wait Bear? How many fatalities will Assad be allowed to add to his portfolio? When does a reasonable aversion to potential destabilization cross the line to paralysis by indecision? Because we think the void will be filled by something worse? Something like Isis?

We will deal with the aftermath once an objective can be identified.

No, that doesn't ever work. Ever. 

Because I guarantee you that no matter what the outcome of an overthrow is, the resulting chaos will cause a hell of a lot more death and problems down the road. 

It's not about paralysis by indecision. This isn't being indecisive - it's about actually wanting to formulate a plan beyond 'this guy is bad, kill him'. As a movie I saw recently stated, that's not a plan, that's a wish list. It also means that if you can't have the political will to back the attack and the rebuilding, you cannot do it. We can't just overthrow dictators and assume everything will work out, or we'll just go to war again in 10 years. That's how this Syrian mess got into the state it is, that's how Iraq turned to shit, that's how Afghanistan is turning to shit.

We need to start recognizing that war's overall cost and regime change's overall cost is not measured only in the actual war, but in the rebuild too. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I asked this before, but never got a response. Would it be possible to evacuate Seoul (I know you couldn't completely evacuate the city, but maybe a large portion) preemptively? How well could NK monitor/detect that? 

Because let's have no delusions, war with NK seems inevitable and that means so does the total destruction of Seoul.  

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

No, that doesn't ever work. Ever. 

Because I guarantee you that no matter what the outcome of an overthrow is, the resulting chaos will cause a hell of a lot more death and problems down the road. 

It's not about paralysis by indecision. This isn't being indecisive - it's about actually wanting to formulate a plan beyond 'this guy is bad, kill him'. As a movie I saw recently stated, that's not a plan, that's a wish list. It also means that if you can't have the political will to back the attack and the rebuilding, you cannot do it. We can't just overthrow dictators and assume everything will work out, or we'll just go to war again in 10 years. That's how this Syrian mess got into the state it is, that's how Iraq turned to shit, that's how Afghanistan is turning to shit.

We need to start recognizing that war's overall cost and regime change's overall cost is not measured only in the actual war, but in the rebuild too. 

 

You're right, Bear. I know that. It's why I would never be fit to hold any position of influence beyond my single vote.

But you're missing my point. As a liberal who desires action, especially the consequences if done hastily, do you really begrudge me encouraging the Republican to step into that salient for the second time in fifteen years?

[Sivin]

Your revulsion at my unpalatable acceptance of human suffering aside, of course.

[Swordfish]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I asked this before, but never got a response. Would it be possible to evacuate Seoul (I know you couldn't completely evacuate the city, but maybe a large portion) preemptively? How well could NK monitor/detect that? 

Because let's have no delusions, war with NK seems inevitable and that means so does the total destruction of Seoul.  

The notion of the total destruction of Seoul seems wildly overblown. it would be potentially very ugly, but it isn't likely to be total, or near total, annihilation.

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seoul/

 

Quote

The most likely scenario of a surprise North Korean attack on Seoul, based on our available knowledge and some basic math, is a couple of hours of sheer terror and confusion as KPA shells rain down, then a gradual slackening of fire as batteries are eliminated or moved and North Korean forces approach the city as part of an invasion. Seoul is an enormous city and has underground shelter space for 20 million people, so the great majority of the population will be protected and out of harm’s way quickly. And North Korean forces will soon be on the wrong end of a massive counterattack by a force that has better training and newer equipment. Seoul will be shaken, casualties will be high at first, but the city will be far from the “sea of fire” that North Korean propaganda has declared. What’s far more likely from this scenario is a pitched ground battle north of the city to decide its fate, and this is a battle North Korea probably can’t win.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/

 

Quote

Three Primary Factors

Range – Only about 1/3 of Seoul is presently in range from artillery along a DMZ trace.  The northern reaches of Seoul within artillery range have much lower population densities than Seoul proper;

Numbers – Even though KPA has a tremendous number of artillery pieces, only a certain number are emplaced to range Seoul.  KPA can’t emplace every weapon near Seoul or the rest of North Korea’s expansive border would be unguarded and even more vulnerable.  Moreover, an artillery tube immediately reveals its location as soon as it fires. Therefore only about two-thirds of artillery will open fire at a time.  The rest are trying to remain hidden;

Protection – Artillery shelters for twenty million people exist in the greater Seoul metropolitan area.  After the initial surprise has worn off, there simply won’t be large numbers of exposed people. Even during the initial attack the vast majority of people will either be at work, at home, or in transit.  Few people will be standing in the middle of an open field with no protection whatsoever available anywhere nearby.

Three Secondary Factors

Dud rate – the only numbers available—to the DPRK as well as the rest of the world—indicate a dud rate of twenty-five percent.  It’s like immediately taking every fourth artillery tube away.

Counter-battery fires – shortly after the KPA artillery begins firing, and the political decision has been made, South Korean artillery, Air Forces, and others will begin destroying artillery at a historical rate of 1% per hour.  South Korea has had approximately 50 years to figure out where North Korean artillery tubes are emplacedusing every sense available to man and machine.

Logistics – in order to move south from the DMZ trace and place the rest of Seoul at risk, KPA must expose approximately 2,500 thin-skinned vehicles each day along three well-defined transportation corridors.  Otherwise, KPA grinds to an almost immediate halt without a way to transport fuel, ammunition and spare parts needed to continue moving south.  Alternatively, KPA can scavenge from ROK fuel stores and depots if they have not been previously destroyed.

Figure I summarizes these results while Annexes A-C provide much greater detail about the process of arriving at these numbers and conclusions.

 

[Fez]

Would Seoul even be the primary target of North Korea? I know that's their rhetoric, but if a full-scale war breaks, those artillery shells only have a very limited lifespan before they get taken out. I'd imagine South Korean and U.S. military bases near the DMZ would be a much higher priority.

There'd much lower loss of life (especially since I imagine military personal would evac to shelters faster), but if North Korea could destroy a lot of the equipment on those bases that'd at least delay the eventual counteract.

In the actual moment of a "this-is-it" war, I think a rational actor (and as had been said, North Korean leadership is rational) goes for the strategic objective; not the talking point. 

[LongRider]

5 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I saw that movie. It was much funnier than the reality...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Original_movie_poster_for_Being_There.jpg

At least the Chance the Gardner had a bit of eccentric charm.  Prez Orange Thingy, not so much.

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

I wonder if Trump likes to watch. 

+1

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

So apparently Trump just called Erdogan to congratulate him on the referendum. 

[Fragile Bird]

49 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

So apparently Trump just called Erdogan to congratulate him on the referendum. 

I heard that hours ago, and all I could think of was, you f*****g f****r, you really want that Istanbul hotel, don't you....

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I asked this before, but never got a response. Would it be possible to evacuate Seoul (I know you couldn't completely evacuate the city, but maybe a large portion) preemptively? How well could NK monitor/detect that? 

Because let's have no delusions, war with NK seems inevitable and that means so does the total destruction of Seoul.  

You could reasonably evacuate most everyone into bunkers and shelters within, like, a day. They train for it. How long they could actually stay there is much harder to figure out. 

[all swedes are racist]

House dems introduce bill to let former presidents decide if one is unfit for the office

what the fuck is the matter with these people 

[ThinkerX]

Anecdotal, but...

 

I have several younger 'quasi relatives' who spent time in the military.  Tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a so called 'support' capacity.

 

Yesterday, one of these quasi-relatives, out of the service for four or five years now, and irked with being stuck in a series of low paying jobs, announced at the Easter get-together that his plans to re-enlist got a bonus from Trump's policies - apparently, that got made a great deal easier.  He has a series of tests and physical qualifications to pass, and then he is supposedly back in harness by the end of the summer.  Word from the military people he is dealing with is the US will likely be at war by years end. 

 

For what little it may be worth.