War Drums: North Korea edition

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

He's on a mission from God.

Well then, that settles it I guess.

The evangelical swarm to Trump is so... bizarre.

[ants]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Option A

They already can hit S. Korea and the 25,000 or so U.S soldiers in there so you will just add more to it. ICBM are scary for the U.S and Australia the most since other Nations of the Pacific region had to be concern for 10 years already and is not a new danger.

Option B

They are looking for a assurance against Regime change, ceasing of war games, and their biggest goal that will be the removal of U.S troops. Lessons of Iraq and Libya is get Nukes (or equivilant WMD) and keep them.

North Korea has known they will be "done for" from the U.S for decades. That will be the case with or without so it is rational to keep them since the level of destruction N.K can expect never changed rather they had Nukes or not.

North Korea also has been under the constant risk or a nuttier coming from the U.S.

Except A isn't true because they hadn't miniaturised the nukes, so couldn't really deliver it. So actually, it was only a distant threat in the future. If they can get the nukes onto a missile, everyone is at risk. 

On B, don't talk rubbish. Why would the US push regime change in NK, with all the scope for collateral damage to SK?  Without nukes, why would the west give a fuck about NK?  No strategic resources, a crappy locale, protected by another super power.  It's a complete furphy. They have nukes because of the power it brings them.  

And in fact, if the US went in now it would be a pretty big statement to everyone, don't get nukes.  It would be a major deterrent to tin pot dictators everywhere  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, ants said:

Except A isn't true because they hadn't miniaturised the nukes, so couldn't really deliver it. So actually, it was only a distant threat in the future. If they can get the nukes onto a missile, everyone is at risk. 

On B, don't talk rubbish. Why would the US push regime change in NK, with all the scope for collateral damage to SK?  Without nukes, why would the west give a fuck about NK?  No strategic resources, a crappy locale, protected by another super power.  It's a complete furphy. They have nukes because of the power it brings them.  

And in fact, if the US went in now it would be a pretty big statement to everyone, don't get nukes.  It would be a major deterrent to tin pot dictators everywhere  

 

But Trump doing it makes me deeply uncomfortable.  Trump likes power.  He likes to use power.  He likes to use the fact that he likes to use power as a negotiation tactic and he likes hardball negotiations.  Even if taking out the DPRK made sense in normal times (it doesn't it will be bloody and difficult and would likely cripple South Korea in the process) doing it under Trump is an added danger because of who Trump is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Amusing to me in a lolsob way, I suspect that the key to avoiding war with Trump is in the hands of North Korea. 

Because right now, Kim Jong Un is the more reliable and stable leader. 

I disagree. I think Un and Trump are relative equals. Both are irrational spoiled brats who think they're always the smartest person in the room. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I disagree. I think Un and Trump are relative equals. Both are irrational spoiled brats who think they're always the smartest person in the room. 

Can we create a rigged Thunderdome and take them both out?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, PrettyPig said:

He absolutely wants it.   I've been saying for months that this fool wants to be immortalized as the second president in all of history to drop a nuke on a hostile power.   I don't even think Trump particularly cares which hostile power it is, just so long as his tiny itchy finger gets to hit the button.  Who cares if the rest of your presidency is a flaming hot mess of dog poo if your name will be forever shown in the annals as the guy that sent the Enola Gay 2.0 over Pyongyang?   This pathological narcissistic clown would absolutely have the US go to war and have thousands of people die so that he can see his name in lights.

It probably bugs the shit out of Trump that he has to play second fiddle to Harry Truman...a Democrat, no less.

Trump has war like tendencies, but this post is rather unfair. 

[ants]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But Trump doing it makes me deeply uncomfortable.  Trump likes power.  He likes to use power.  He likes to use the fact that he likes to use power as a negotiation tactic and he likes hardball negotiations.  Even if taking out the DPRK made sense in normal times (it doesn't it will be bloody and difficult and would likely cripple South Korea in the process) doing it under Trump is an added danger because of who Trump is.

Can't really argue with a lot of that on Trump. His ability to screw things up would be a menace. 

On the merits of taking them out, I'm not sure why it isn't always a problem for SK. Feels like delaying is just kicking the ball down the road. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can we create a rigged Thunderdome and take them both out?

Thunderdome is too eloquent for the likes of those two.

[Fez]

24 minutes ago, ants said:

Can't really argue with a lot of that on Trump. His ability to screw things up would be a menace. 

On the merits of taking them out, I'm not sure why it isn't always a problem for SK. Feels like delaying is just kicking the ball down the road. 

Theoretically (and maybe in reality they are, I dunno), South Korea could encourage greater development of the southern suburbs of Seoul; slowly moving more of its population out of the danger zone of North Korea's artillery. My understanding is that its only the northern third or so of the city that is in danger; which is a ton of people to be sure, but also means that most of the city is safe. 

This is also what the US has been doing since 2004; slowly reorganizing and consolidating the US bases in South Korea until almost all forces will be at Camp Humphreys; which is south of Seoul and out of range of conventional North Korean weapons.

[TheKitttenGuard]

3 hours ago, ants said:

Except A isn't true because they hadn't miniaturised the nukes, so couldn't really deliver it. So actually, it was only a distant threat in the future. If they can get the nukes onto a missile, everyone is at risk. 

On B, don't talk rubbish. Why would the US push regime change in NK, with all the scope for collateral damage to SK?  Without nukes, why would the west give a fuck about NK?  No strategic resources, a crappy locale, protected by another super power.  It's a complete furphy. They have nukes because of the power it brings them.  

And in fact, if the US went in now it would be a pretty big statement to everyone, don't get nukes.  It would be a major deterrent to tin pot dictators everywhere  

 

N.K had a nuclear bomb they would some early delivery mechanism. It would of been limited mainly to S.K, China, Russia, and maybe Japan. Those are the main players in the area. A Nuclear N.K they needed to deal with since 2006. If they miniaturized there is some increase but it is still aimed for the U.S.

North Korea was declared to be part of the "Axis of Evil". Iraq was invaded and Iran is viewed with hostility with current Administration looking to up the conflict.

Look at Libya a country vilified back in the '80s. They were eventually attacked and invaded after Qaddafi went and played nice with the West. You have a view that strength is the only rule than you seek to protect and not give it up.

What the U.S can do to N.K in destruction never changed for decades. Now though N.K could do something to the mainland of the U.S.

Any attack you will need to get everything or S.K will join the graveyard.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

55 minutes ago, ants said:

Can't really argue with a lot of that on Trump. His ability to screw things up would be a menace. 

On the merits of taking them out, I'm not sure why it isn't always a problem for SK. Feels like delaying is just kicking the ball down the road. 

It is kicking the ball down the road.  The hope is that if we kick the ball long enough the DPRK will collapse on its own accord.  Taking them down militarily is absolutely a measure of last resort.  South Korea will be devastated in the early days of the war.  We don't know, with any certainty, how Russia and China would react to a preemptive strike against the DPRK, and, the DPRK has nuclear weapons that they can deploy against South Korea and potentially Japan.  

The Military option is, and always will be, a very very bad one.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I disagree. I think Un and Trump are relative equals. Both are irrational spoiled brats who think they're always the smartest person in the room. 

Disagree.  Trump thinks he'll win everything no matter what, despite what NK  says look at  what they do-- Unmay be ruthless and a survivor, but he has to know that any NK strike would result in their total annihilation.  Trump is definitely the one I'm worried about.  China voting for sanctions seems a pretty clear message that they are concerned that Trump is a fucking loose cannon.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Disagree.  Trump thinks he'll win everything no matter what, despite what NK  says look at  what they do-- Unmay be ruthless and a survivor, but he has to know that any NK strike would result in their total annihilation.  Trump is definitely the one I'm worried about.  China voting for sanctions seems a pretty clear message that they are concerned that Trump is a fucking loose cannon.

That was certainly true of his father and grandfather, but Un seems like a total nut job. 

[Swordfish]

16 hours ago, S John said:

War and the environment are the two main areas where I have always felt Trump could do some major damage.  He failed on Obamacare recently, but Americans like war, right?  Let's try that!

This guy is a fucking sociopath and an egomaniac and I'm legitimately worried about all of this.  

I don't want NK to have nuclear weapons capable of striking the US, but it doesn't take a genius to see how a having a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to foreign meddling, that's why countries want them.  The thing is though, we have like 1500 of them and NK knows damn well that we can and would obliterate them 10 times over if they ever strike at us.  How is it not obvious that thier bullshit is all bluster designed to add bargaining room?  

 

I think you are overstating the obviousness of this just a tad.

Trump or no Trump, how to deal with NK is a pretty thorny problem, with no real completely obvious solutions.

[Free Northman Reborn]

This is a complex issue on which my view has swayed from one end of the spectrum to the other over time. At the moment I actually do believe that a preemtive strike might well be the best option. Lance the boil, so to speak.

Because NK's capability to inflict damage is increasing exponentially as their nuclear capabilties grow. Once they have 10 or 20 nukes and the missiles to deliver them to high value targets, they basically become impossible to attack. At the moment one senses that much of their bluster is just that, bravado based on exaggerated claims of their current capabilities. But clearly not for much longer. Hit them hard now, before they cross that threshold of power.

 

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That was certainly true of his father and grandfather, but Un seems like a total nut job. 

I'm actually believing the opposite. He has not yet created a crisis to keep power like his family had previously, he's consolidated power well, and he's demonstrated the danger of NK quite clearly so far. The only thing he hasn't been able to do is milk concessions from the west yet. 

 

13 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because NK's capability to inflict damage is increasing exponentially as their nuclear capabilties grow. Once they have 10 or 20 nukes and the missiles to deliver them to high value targets, they basically become impossible to attack. At the moment one senses that much of their bluster is just that, bravado based on exaggerated claims of their current capabilities. But clearly not for much longer. Hit them hard now, before they cross that threshold of power.

 

But...why?

When they're able to cause a lot of damage, what do you think they're going to do with that? They're not going to be attacking anyone; while they can do MORE damage, they're still not going to reunite South Korea and North Korea. China will not want them to attack more. Their deterrent is basically to ensure that the US doesn't overthrow them. 

If you have evidence to indicate that they'll attack if they have even more capability, that'd be good to present, but so far that doesn't appear to be indicated by any actual intel or behavior. The best explanation for NK is that they have seen what happens to despots without WMDs, and they are eager to demonstrate that they have and will use them if someone comes for them.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is a complex issue on which my view has swayed from one end of the spectrum to the other over time. At the moment I actually do believe that a preemtive strike might well be the best option. Lance the boil, so to speak.

Because NK's capability to inflict damage is increasing exponentially as their nuclear capabilties grow. Once they have 10 or 20 nukes and the missiles to deliver them to high value targets, they basically become impossible to attack. At the moment one senses that much of their bluster is just that, bravado based on exaggerated claims of their current capabilities. But clearly not for much longer. Hit them hard now, before they cross that threshold of power.

I agree with this.

[James Arryn]

58 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is a complex issue on which my view has swayed from one end of the spectrum to the other over time. At the moment I actually do believe that a preemtive strike might well be the best option. Lance the boil, so to speak.

Because ______'s capability to inflict damage is increasing exponentially as their nuclear capabilties grow. Once they have 10 or 20 nukes and the missiles to deliver them to high value targets, they basically become impossible to attack. At the moment one senses that much of their bluster is just that, bravado based on exaggerated claims of their current capabilities. But clearly not for much longer. Hit them hard now, before they cross that threshold of power.

 

Let's just make it a form for easier usage. Maybe a separate one for Middle East ones with a bit about the dangers of religious fanaticism attached to an arsenal, and then for other areas that bit is redacted but room is left for WH religious consultants to approve of preemptive attacks..

[James Arryn]

Anyways, the next step ought to be a significant spike in the 'putting a human face' stories about NK, like horror stories about political arrests, torture, etc. Interviews with survivors, 'small' stories meant to give big pictures.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That was certainly true of his father and grandfather, but Un seems like a total nut job. 

This seems awfully similar to what everybody was saying when Jong-Il was in power.  I suspect if there's a fourth generation leader of the regime, the refrain will be repeated, "sure the first three were rational, but this one..."

I have no idea whether or not Jong-Un personally is rational, and neither does anybody else - that's what scares everyone.  However, the DPRK has clearly acted rationally for over a half century, and almost resiliently so since the mid-90s famine.  In academic circles, whether that rationality is based on expected utility or prospect theory, this is essentially a founding assumption for any research question on the regime at this point.  Ironically, part of that rationality is making us think they're irrational.

In completely unsurprising news, Trump's fire and fury threat was improvised.  The "fire and fury" rhetoric, and its stupidity, remind me of this exchange from West Wing:

Quote

 

The President is in the middle of acts of retribution between the Israelis and the Palestinians. These acts interfere with the U.S. response to the bombing of its officials. But Bartlet is still trying to find a middle course. When Toby hands him the speech he is about to give to the nation, Bartlet finds it too inflammatory:

"'Tyranny of terror'? 'Death mongers'? What is this, Tolkien?" 
"The stronger your language now, the more leeway---" Toby tries to tell him. 
"I'm not saying it."