Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10690
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Jul 2017, 5:58 am

frreeman3
Anyway, I did not bring up the Civil War as a template for anything.

no?
freeman3
. There is a story that General Ulysses Grant relates about early in the war he was fretting over attacking a Confederate position and when he finally did so he found that the Confederates had panicked and abandoned their position. And he realized that the Confederate general was just as scared about his intentions as he had been of the Confederates. And that changed his fundamental outlook on how to conduct war


freeman3
You cite Civil War generals who praise their opponents...but not really
.
I quoted contemporaries who offered a different opinion or viewpoint then what you think should apply. I quote the contemporaries because I think they have better insight then you.

And yes, Confederate historians and apologizers for Lee did blame Longstreet's actions at Gettysburg for the loss. Longstreets supporters and Union historians tend to agree that Longstreet dawdled because he knew the probable out come from engagement. Had Lee actually listened to Longstreet, his army could have maneuvered away and engaged at a more favorable time and place...
Lee underestimated his enemy. Period.


Fate
You don't have an answer, but suggest something that I believe has been tried for 60+ years without success.

The last 60 years have successfully avoided a devastating war on the Korean penninsula.
Thats a success.

Fate
Could he get an EMP to the continental US?

Apparently he has had the ability to do so for the last 4 years. But hasn't.
Why not?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20498
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jul 2017, 7:14 am

rickyp wrote:
Fate
You don't have an answer, but suggest something that I believe has been tried for 60+ years without success.

The last 60 years have successfully avoided a devastating war on the Korean penninsula.
Thats a success.


Is it?

Suppose NK launches a nuke and hits Alaska tomorrow. Was it still a success?

Maybe you use some kind of funky Canadian dictionary, but "success" means a positive outcome, yes? You've proposed "success" as merely a "not negative" outcome. That's not success.

During your "success," NK has constantly increased its ability to use weapons of mass destruction. How is that success?

Fate
Could he get an EMP to the continental US?

Apparently he has had the ability to do so for the last 4 years. But hasn't.
Why not?


Do you have a source that he's been able to hit the continental US?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Jul 2017, 10:00 am

Ricky...you just don't know that much about the Civil War. Period. You cannot read one 1 page article articles and think you know anything about it...

And your advice about dealing with North Korea would ensure that North Korea gets an ICBM. Clearly, you have decided that the risks associated with taking any economic or military action to stop the NK from getting an ICBM are not worth the risks, so with that mindset why would NK bother to negotiate? Your claim that North Korea has had the ability to hit the US with an EMP appears to be based on an unsupported claim by a Chinese commentator in 2013 that North Korea had EMP weapons. That claim also did not indicate they could hit the continental US.

The concern about EMP appears to be overblown and coming from right-wing sources. NK would have to at least be able to miniaturize a nuke to put it on a missile. There is no indication they can do that. And while not as complex an undertaking as shooting an ICBM they would have to find a way of delivering it. And there are real questions about whether the low-yield weapons they have could do that much damage in an EMP attack. There seems to be a certain level of hysteria over an EMP attack from NK.

So we probably have several years before NK could really attack the US. The idea that we should do nothing because they already have the ability to attack the US is absurd. There is a window though and it is closing.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10690
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jul 2017, 6:19 am

freeman3
Ricky...you just don't know that much about the Civil War. Period. You cannot read one 1 page article articles and think you know anything about it...

Fine. I've read all of Catton and Foote and Shaara and Sears and lots more. As I recall, they are sympathetic to Longstreets postion and say Lee should have listened to him and avoided the battle.
But I'll concede to your self professed expertise. So find me a historian who thinks the Gettysburg battle site was advantageous to the Confederates, or that it was even a good idea to engage

freeman3
Clearly, you have decided that the risks associated with taking any economic or military action to stop the NK from getting an ICBM are not worth the risks, so with that mindset why would NK bother to negotiate?


Because negotiation is a recognition by the world that they matter? I don't know specifically but I'm sure North Korea would be interested in some concessions from the South and the US...
The alternative is what? Millions dying on the Korean peninsula?
Here's insight from someone expert on the matter...

.“Self-reliance is always a core part of North Korea ideology, and Kim Jong Un uses that language as well,” says John Delury, an East Asia expert at South Korea's Yonsei University. “To some extent it’s psychological, as Kim Jong Un wants to feel safe and secure.”
Delury is optimistic, regarding the successful ICBM test launch as “a pivot point” from Kim's perspective.“They have a new level of security they feel with the deterrence capability,” he says, “so they may be willing to negotiate certain compromises

http://time.com/4844829/north-korea-mis ... gotiation/

freeman3
Your claim that North Korea has had the ability to hit the US with an EMP appears to be based on an unsupported claim by a Chinese commentator in 2013 that North Korea had EMP weapons. That claim also did not indicate they could hit the continental US.

The concern about EMP appears to be overblown and coming from right-wing sources.

I've never heard of your Chinese commentator. Why do you make so many assumptions?
The clam came from an "expert" on GPS (Zakkaria) last week and is based on reports from
http://www.empcommission.org/
This is an official US government organization....

The notion is that an EMP attack could occur from North Korean satellites... It seems like a far fetched idea, until one reads the testimony from the emp commission to congress.

Besides EMP attacks, Kim has also had the third largest army in the world for years. And yet he hasn't unleashed it on the South. Why not?
He is deterred from doing so, because the war he would unleash would end him.
Deterrence works.

freeman3
Clearly, you have decided that the risks associated with taking any economic or military action to stop the NK from getting an ICBM are not worth the risks,

This is true. We've lived with nuclear weapons in the hands of many countries for many decades now.... None have ever used them because of the probable repercussions.
I don't think this equation changes fundamentally with Kim.
The risks to "acting" rather than negotiating are primarily born by the South Koreans. They want to negotiate.

freeman3
The idea that we should do nothing because they already have the ability to attack the US is absurd.

I haven't said do nothing. I've said, negotiate. And employ sanctions ..... and continue to negotiate with China on cooperating on sanctions. They did with Iran.

Please note: Military action wasn't taken on any other nation that managed to arm themselves with nukes. The absence of military action hasn't seen any of them use their weapons...

Fate
Suppose NK launches a nuke and hits Alaska tomorrow. Was it still a success?

If a nuke hit Alaska North Korea would be eradicated.... and South Korea would lose millions of lives in the ensuing conflict.

Suppose they don't launch the nuke.
North Korea will still exist and South Korea will continue as a major advanced nation with a thriving economy.

The US has counted on the notion of assured destruction to deter the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and China for decades now. Successfully. It will work with North Korea too.
And yes, avoiding a nuclear war, or a massively destructive war of any kind, is success.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2017, 9:18 am

You're Canadian...you throw these some sort of random quotes from the Civil War without any sort of analysis (until criticized and you come up with something)..and now I'm supposed to believe that you're some sort of Civil War expert who has read all of these books on the Civil War? Whatever. Normally, I don't even question where someone's ideas come from (they should rise or fall on their merits) but here I made an exception because it was irritating me that you were making these broad (and erroneous) conclusions about Civil War generals by picking out isolated incidents. But ok then you read those books...you're still wrong. If you think Grant and Lee were bad generals...if you Longstreet was better than Lee...then you're badly mistaken. If you read all of those books to come to that conclusion...then you read those books like Woody Allen read War and Peace.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Jul 2017, 11:29 am

And by the way...with regard to making assumptions...when you make a claim like North Korea has been able to hit the US with an EMP for the past 4 years you should support with it with some kind of link. You still have not supported it. I just saw that a Chinese commentator had said in 2013 that North Korea had EMP weapons. It seemed to fit what you said but I would not speculated if you supported what you claimed as being essentially a fact. You really think that a comment by Zakkariaria that this obscure EMP commission had said NK has had an EMP that could hit the US 4 years ago is worth crediting without a supporting link? Without a link we have no way of knowing Zakaria said it, that Zakaria was accurate in what he quoted from the commission and, most importantly, we cannot read what the commission said to assess if they have a sound basis for their conclusions. Before you did not even say that Zakaria said it. You just put it out there as a fact. From the internet...so I guess it must be true.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Jul 2017, 8:25 pm

How on earth did y'all go from Warmbier to Longstreet vs Lee?

I'm not saying it's not an interesting topic but you might want to avoid the riptide and save it for another thread (which I would be interested in reading by the way).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4564
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 29 Jul 2017, 10:53 am

Putting aside the antics of the immature POTUS and team, the real news is that NK missiles can now reach Chicago, and probably New York.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Jul 2017, 12:08 pm

They are advancing very rapidly. You wonder if someone is helping them.

But...so far we don't have evidence they can put a nuclear bomb on these missiles. But we don't know they can't put one on them and we don't have a timeline for when they can do so. Known unknowns.

Instead of putting up a stupid wall...we should be making sure that we could shoot down up to several missiles coming our way.

I think we're reaching that point where we have to make the decision whether we tolerate NK being able to strike us with an ICBM or whether we take military action. I sure wouldn't want to make that call. Hopefully, General Kelly and the Joint Chiefs can sift through all the options and come up with the correct one and convince Trump.

My feeling is that we should engage them with some kind of beneficial economic aid in return for stopping testing...and warn them that any further testing will be met with strikes against their missile facilities. And if that is deemed too risky...then the alternative is to see if we to a high degree of probability protect ourselves and our allies (South Korea and Japan) from nuclear attack by being able to shot the missiles down.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20498
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jul 2017, 12:38 pm

freeman3 wrote:They are advancing very rapidly. You wonder if someone is helping them.

But...so far we don't have evidence they can put a nuclear bomb on these missiles. But we don't know they can't put one on them and we don't have a timeline for when they can do so. Known unknowns.

Instead of putting up a stupid wall...we should be making sure that we could shoot down up to several missiles coming our way.

I think we're reaching that point where we have to make the decision whether we tolerate NK being able to strike us with an ICBM or whether we take military action. I sure wouldn't want to make that call. Hopefully, General Kelly and the Joint Chiefs can sift through all the options and come up with the correct one and convince Trump.

My feeling is that we should engage them with some kind of beneficial economic aid in return for stopping testing...and warn them that any further testing will be met with strikes against their missile facilities. And if that is deemed too risky...then the alternative is to see if we to a high degree of probability protect ourselves and our allies (South Korea and Japan) from nuclear attack by being able to shot the missiles down.


I'm not sure this is much different than what we've been doing.

I'll just throw this out there: maybe the way to get China to take this seriously is to encourage Japan to go nuclear.

I agree re the tech to knock missiles down. That should be a major priority. I'm not sure the "wall" has anything to do with it. Well, yeah, I am. It doesn't. :winkgrin:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Jul 2017, 1:06 pm

Not a bad idea to have Japan go nuclear or at least threaten China with it. I would think China in general should start to worry about Japan deciding to remilitarize. I don't think Japan is going to tolerate being at the whim of NK
.
You would think that China would have game planned this out. What would happen if NK develops an ICBM...how would the US respond? How would SK and Japan respond if the US response is not effective?

Japan could be a major military power in a relatively short period of time if they want to. How does NK thumbing their nose at us...worth it to China if Japan ramps up its military, including obtaining nuclear weapons

The speed at which NK is progressing...makes one wonder if they are getting Chinese help.

In any case, if China's ally NK is going to escalate the arms race in that region...then one card to play is to start arming our allies. And hopefully China will back down. I have a hard time believing NK is being this aggressive without Chinese backing.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10690
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jul 2017, 2:31 pm

freeman3
My feeling is that we should engage them with some kind of beneficial economic aid in return for stopping testing...and warn them that any further testing will be met with strikes against their missile facilities. And if that is deemed too risky...then the alternative is to see if we to a high degree of probability protect ourselves and our allies (South Korea and Japan) from nuclear attack by being able to shot the missiles down.

Pretty much what I've been saying.. (Although I'm not optimistic that beneficial economic aid is enough to thwart their nuclear ambitions. NK seems determined to have the insurance against aggression that comes with having deliverable nukes.)

Right now Trump is treating Xi Jinping like Jeff Sessions. Tweeting snide comments as if that's going to be effective in getting him to change policy towards NK. It ain't working with Sessions and it ain't gonna work with China.
No one is really following the US anymore. Europe is diverged from US policies, and China and middle powers are gaining influence as Trump bumbles.. That is part of the problem with NK. China isn't taking the US as seriously as it used to.... and small wonder.

I'm sure that what worries SK and Japan more than anything is that the US will act on its own through some impetuous uninformed order from the White House.

SK has lived with the threat of destruction from NK for many years... And lives next door to China who are also a threat. The notion that the US is
"threatened" now by ICBMs and anxious about it, has to amuse them to an extent.
Here's the SK viewpoint .... albeit dated a little...
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/08/sou ... m-jong-un/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4564
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 31 Jul 2017, 5:28 am

Ricky:
Pretty much what I've been saying.. ... SK has lived with the threat of destruction from NK for many years... And lives next door to China who are also a threat. The notion that the US is
"threatened" now by ICBMs and anxious about it, has to amuse them to an extent.


Just recently you were also saying that NK can only reach Anchorage. You forgot to mention that. ;)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10690
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jul 2017, 1:58 pm

rayjay
Just recently you were also saying that NK can only reach Anchorage. You forgot to mention that. ;)

At the time of writing I was right... Still, I'm sure citizens of Anchorage are somewhat relieved that the North Koreans now have more interesting cities to target...

And really, the increased range doesn't change the unfortunate dilemma.
The only way to be sure of eliminating NK of nuclear weapons may be a devastating conflict that would kill many tens of millions and disrupt the worlds economy for years.
The option of living with the NK nuclear threat, whilst assuring NK that any use of their weapons would lead to their assured annihilation, still seems to be the best solution. Its worked with China, Russia, and everyone else with nukes..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20498
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jul 2017, 2:14 pm

rickyp wrote:rayjay
Just recently you were also saying that NK can only reach Anchorage. You forgot to mention that. ;)

At the time of writing I was right... Still, I'm sure citizens of Anchorage are somewhat relieved that the North Koreans now have more interesting cities to target...

And really, the increased range doesn't change the unfortunate dilemma.
The only way to be sure of eliminating NK of nuclear weapons may be a devastating conflict that would kill many tens of millions and disrupt the worlds economy for years.
The option of living with the NK nuclear threat, whilst assuring NK that any use of their weapons would lead to their assured annihilation, still seems to be the best solution. Its worked with China, Russia, and everyone else with nukes..


Yes, so let's have every country with them! Woo-hoo!

The problem is that you presume every regime has no delusions of grandeur and is concerned about self-preservation. What if that isn't true? What if "Lil' Kim" just wants to go down in history as having killed Americans with a nuke?

We're supposed to feel better just because you think he's rational?