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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 8:22 am

What would be your reasonable response, Dag?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 9:47 am

I'm not sure BaBuska. It's complicated to say the utmost least. We're obviously trying to pressure the Chinese but that doesn't seem to stick. We're trying to court the Russians to assist with this lunatic but who can trust a Russian? They know this guy is up our crawl and they probably secretly love that this is the case. Same for China.

Economic sanctions don't seem to work. Political pressure doesn't seem to work. This maniac (and his father before him) has beat his countrymen down so hard and for so long that they are seemingly incapable of even contemplating alternative systems of government.

I don't believe in political assassinations and even if I did, there doesn't seem to be an infrastructure in place to pick up the pieces once he's gone. Who knows, we might get someone even worse or destabilize the region even more.

So what is his weakness I wonder? He has to have one other than his hair salon?

Do we have enough weapons in place to intercept his nukes before they hit? If so, perhaps he then realizes he is neutralized? Back in May we tested what we have available and it seems to work so maybe that sets up the shield for S. Korea that we've always hoped for?

I say this because if S. Korea is protected from nukes perhaps that gives us a bit more elbow room to operate (i.e. dismantle his nuke capability ourselves with pre-emptive strikes) but that won't stop the potential invasion of S. Korea by his hordes.

What's frightening is the fact that I am no longer convinced that this is The Mouse That Roared. I say that because he doesn't seem to want anything from us. I could be wrong about that but at least his public announcements suggest it.

The fact is I agree with you that something should be done about the mistreatment of one of our citizens. We should appear to respond in some way. But whatever that is, it will need to be proportionate otherwise we run the risk of unnecessary death and suffering. If a response can be executed without that risk or by mitigating that risk, then I say, take it. I just don't know what it could or should be.

Somewhere in the thread either you or Freeman suggested that if whako decided to go to war then that would be on him and not us and that we couldn't let his possible response deter us from what we need to do. Well, I disagree. We are responsible for our allies. We are responsible I believe, even for whako's people. We are responsible to one another period.

Being one of the world's super powers, the burden is on us to always act prudently and to reluctantly take life or put life at risk.

At some point, should whako continue on the trajectory he is on, he will get the smack down he is asking for. And that smack down will need to be as precise as possible and take into account as many variables as possible.

I'm sure our best and brightest military minds have busied themselves with calculating possible unforeseen scenarios. But the problem with unforeseen scenarios, however, is that they are unforeseen.

So how's that for a non answer?

I don't know what a proportionate response should be. It's easier for me to recognize disproportionate responses at the moment.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2017, 10:12 am

I don't really disagree, except to say this: letting North Korea develop a missile and the tech to nuke the US, or deliver an EMP, is not acceptable.

Let me put it another way: if the POTUS has to choose between risking war with North Korea and millions of Koreans dying OR letting North Korea kill millions of Americans, he is President of the United States, not South Korea.

That said, I would do everything I could to take Fat Boy out, or to render their weapons useless. If that means defensive shields, particle beams, or whatever, then I'm fine with it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 10:51 am

Well, Dags, how did you establish (1) that economic sanctions would cause North Korea to bomb Seoul, and (2) How would you establish that ANY response would not cause North Korea to bomb Seoul?

It was pretty clear from Ricky's response that he would not do anything as it was the kid's fault for what happened to him. You say you would respond to what happened to Warmbier but give no proposed response. And again any response could conceivably cause North Korea to bomb Seoul.

So which is it--no response to Warmbier or some response?

And North Korea is not doing anything different. Nukes are the only leverage they got. The more powerful they make them, the more leverage they got. The more crazy they sound, the more leverage they got. At some point, we are going to have to call them on it. Maybe it will be after we have we put in more defensive measures to protect Seoul. But at some point if we are going to stop NK from developing an ICBM we will have to take some risks. Or cave in to them and have our west coast be subject to attack from a crazy regime.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2017, 10:58 am

freeman3 wrote:Or cave in to them and have our west coast be subject to attack from a crazy regime.


I watched someone talk about the effects of an EMP last week. It would be worse than a nuke.

We have to harden our electric grid.

We have to figure out how to eliminate the NK threat, whether by force or coercion.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 3:12 pm

Fate:

I don't really disagree, except to say this: letting North Korea develop a missile and the tech to nuke the US, or deliver an EMP, is not acceptable.

Let me put it another way: if the POTUS has to choose between risking war with North Korea and millions of Koreans dying OR letting North Korea kill millions of Americans, he is President of the United States, not South Korea.

That said, I would do everything I could to take Fat Boy out, or to render their weapons useless. If that means defensive shields, particle beams, or whatever, then I'm fine with it.


I agree with each of these points.

Freeman:

And again any response could conceivably cause North Korea to bomb Seoul.


Where are you coming up with this? I never said don't take action in retaliation for what they did to Warmbier. On the contrary, I told BBauska something should be done and that we weren't doing enough.

I responded specifically, and more than reasonably I'll add, to your comment about Seoul's poorly located founding as a city and its potential for collateral destruction as a "sad" by-product of the US making NK pay for Warmbier's death.

Disproportionate military responses to injustices run the risk of compounding more suffering.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jul 2017, 7:22 am

Everyone keeps claiming that Kim Jong-un is irrational.

He may be homicidal, but he isn't suicidal.
NK has the fourth largest armed forces in the world. If he were irrational he would have launched an attack on South Korea at some point. Why hasn't he? - he ins't suicidal.

NK has had the ability to launch and EMP on the US for 4 years. Why hasn't he? - he isn't suicidal.

Here's a list of nations with nuclear capability. Pakistan, India, Russia, China, France, UK, Israel, North Korea and the US.
At any time an irrational actor leading one of these nations could decide to use their nukes. The most worrying would be if the leader thought that they could survive a nuclear action...
Which nations most likely would have a leadership survive nuclear war? Certainly not NK.

freeman3
It was pretty clear from Ricky's response that he would not do anything as it was the kid's fault for what happened to him

I said that normal diplomatic efforts needed to be taken. I also said that the potential for millions of South Koreans dying greatly outweighed the need to "punish" North Korea for what they did with the idiot American.
There are three options for dealing with North Korea.
1) Military. Disaster for South Korea and North Korea. And probably Japan and thousands of US military personnel.
2) Sanctions. And the few remaining levers are all with China. I don't think China can be pressured into doing more so easily.
3) Doing what Russia ad China have asked the US to do. Sitting down and meeting with NK and negotiating some kine of settlement.

Churchill said, "Jaw Jaw better then war war".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 07 Jul 2017, 8:08 am

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china- ... lationship

Here's an article on China - North Korea trade. Further down you will see stats on annual flows. Trade went from $2.8 billion in 2008 to $6.9 billion in 2014. China has given NK a lifeline and Trump is right to try to stop it. Beating up China has other advantages. The US has just agreed to sell Taiwan about $1.4 billion in arms. When China protested, Trump replied something like: "FY - NK". China muted their protest.

Let's play this card. Worse case we cut off Chinese trade to NK, help the free people of Taiwan, and defend others in east Asia. Best case, regime change in NK. It's funny that Ricky misquotes Churchill on Jaw Jaw , using the word "then" instead of "than" and thereby making a mockery of the true meaning of the quote -- perhaps a Freudian slip but more likely Ricky's general carelessness. But of more importance Jaw Jaw is precisely what Trump is doing (and Obama failed to do).
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Jul 2017, 9:58 am

It is also ironic that Ricky quoted Churchill when Churchill opposed appeasement.

You don't use normal diplomatic channels btw when another country turns one of your citizens into a vegetable

I do favor putting pressure on China. I think it was naive to think that they would voluntarily rein in North Korea given their long-standing relationship (including their intervention in the Korean War that saved NK)It is a bit concerning that Trump suddenly realized that China's trade with North Korea has been growing.

I am not sure that we can shut down China's trade with NK directly. But we can threaten China with high tariffs on their imports to us unless they shut down trade with NK. Three options for China: (1) convince NK to freeze its missile and nuclear program and we'll continue trade at current levels, perhaps even make concessions, (2) shut-down trade with NK and we'll again be favorable with China on trade, or (3) we put high tariffs on their goods coming into the US.

The advantage with putting pressure on China is that they are a rational actor and they will respond in a rational way without starting a war.

By the way, Ricky suggested talking to NK. Yeah, there's been jaw jaw with NK...and they've spat in our face.

I am just glad that Ricky is not our negotiator...or I would have to start looking for bomb shelters!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Jul 2017, 10:27 am

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war".

is the accurate quote rayjay...


freeman3

It is also ironic that Ricky quoted Churchill when Churchill opposed appeasement


Winston Churchill believed talking and discussing a problem to attempt to come to a peaceful solution was better than going to war.


The Chinese and Russians have asked the US to negotiate... If you want to pressure the Chinese you do something for them.
China is less interested in the financial benefits they get from trading with North Korea then the absolute disaster of having a conflagration on the Korean peninsula with refugees streaming into China. Or worst case, nuclear fall out poisoning China.

freeman3
I am just glad that Ricky is not our negotiator...or I would have to start looking for bomb shelters!

If you don't have bomb shelters already, don't start a war...
Bellicosity is one thing. Threats you aren't ready to back up.... another.
If the US is threatening war on the Korean peninsula, and isn't willing to talk first... that's irrational.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Jul 2017, 11:52 am

I think the mistake is to think China thinks NK is a problem. China is NK's closest thing to an ally. We have nothing to offer China that would make them voluntarily do something against North Korea. Why they are going to move against an ally that causes headaches for the US and its allies? North Korea is our problem, it's South Korea's problem, it's Japan's problem. It's not China's problem...unless we make it their problem.

I guess we could try and bribe NK with a whole bunch of goodies to stop their ICBM program. Except ...what happens when they cheat--what do we do? They could agree to inspectors--and then just kick them out. And they made it very clear that they will only agree to future curtailment of their weapons programs, not getting rid of weapons they already have. Then we are faced with the whole NK could cause millions of casualties argument if we do anything.

But I would still say talk. But they have to get rid their of ICBM program and agree to intensive inspections. And maybe South Korea can agree to fork over goodies. If they agree to something like that..it might be worth a try.

Anyway, the most important thing is...NK developing an ICBM that can reach the United States cannot be allowed. That is the red line that should lead to military action.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Jul 2017, 7:49 am

freeman3
China is NK's closest thing to an ally.

NK is not an ally.
Only Pakistan is closely allied with China. This despite the nature of China's commitment to a non-alliance principle over the last 35 years. They cultivate mercantile relationships, not military relationships.
North Korea offers them only a small mercantile relationship....but should war engulf the penninsula the disruption to China might be severe.

freeman3
Why they are going to move against an ally that causes headaches for the US and its allies?

Perhaps if the rewards for doing so were clear.
They are certainly less likely to respond to attempts to force them to do so ... giving into force would represent an enormous loss of face.
China is also not going to be easy to force to do anything. They have enormous economic sway over the US.(i.e. treasury notes, rare earth minerals, 100% of certain kinds of manufacturing.) And the Asia Pacific region has seen a competition between China and the US for influence and economic involvement. However conflict is not good for either countries interests.

Of course, things have changed since the US elected an isolationist and China is reaping the rewards of the US retreating from multinational relationships like the TPP. They have expanded their out reach and made many new trade deals with nations in the region and beyond because the US is not seen as reliable anymore.

China is perhaps the only country that could affect the course of NK weapons development through force. (Maybe). But you can't force them to do that.
And what they've asked for repeatedly is the US to sit down and talk with NK.
I think the US should listen to them...

freeman3
NK developing an ICBM that can reach the United States cannot be allowed

Even if the part it can reach has few inhabitants?
But your okay with their current ability to disrupt the US electrical grid, or to destroy Seoul? Or for that matter the current ability to send a nuke to Japan?
Its always strange where and how you evaluate threat.
It reminds me of the freak out over Ebola...when there were much larger and genuine threats...
Be careful, drawing arbitrary lines is difficult with untold consequences . (Ask Obama)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Jul 2017, 11:54 am

An ICBM that only reaches a few inhabitants? You mean like Los Angeles? What other place could you be referring too? Maybe you're talking about Honolulu? Only 375,000 inhabitants?

Listen you can talk all you want that we can't force China to do anything. That's fine. Trump talked about working with China...and their trade with NK escalated. What China should be looking at is that if NK gets close we're going to take those facilities out. Not thinking Ricky runs foreign policy and we'll back down no matter what. NK should be thinking that we will take out those facilities as well.

There was nothing wrong with Obama's red line. He just should have followed through. I think we should make it clear, very clear, exceedingly clear...that we're going to take their missile facilities out if we seem them getting close to an ICBM. And if we get nervous that NK is going to start a nuclear over it with South Korea...then I am guessing we would go after the regime too. All parties can adjust their behavior accordingly.

I do find it curious that the more NK behaves badly...the more China trades with them. We need to throw down the gauntlet that we're not allowing NK to develop an ICBM. And we're willing to discuss any resolution to avoid having the necessity to take out NK's facilities but, once it gets to that point, we're taking them out. No one should have any misunderstanding about that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 09 Jul 2017, 7:24 am

freeman3 wrote:An ICBM that only reaches a few inhabitants? You mean like Los Angeles? What other place could you be referring too? Maybe you're talking about Honolulu? Only 375,000 inhabitants?

Listen you can talk all you want that we can't force China to do anything. That's fine. Trump talked about working with China...and their trade with NK escalated. What China should be looking at is that if NK gets close we're going to take those facilities out. Not thinking Ricky runs foreign policy and we'll back down no matter what. NK should be thinking that we will take out those facilities as well.

There was nothing wrong with Obama's red line. He just should have followed through. I think we should make it clear, very clear, exceedingly clear...that we're going to take their missile facilities out if we seem them getting close to an ICBM. And if we get nervous that NK is going to start a nuclear over it with South Korea...then I am guessing we would go after the regime too. All parties can adjust their behavior accordingly.

I do find it curious that the more NK behaves badly...the more China trades with them. We need to throw down the gauntlet that we're not allowing NK to develop an ICBM. And we're willing to discuss any resolution to avoid having the necessity to take out NK's facilities but, once it gets to that point, we're taking them out. No one should have any misunderstanding about that.


Freeman and the WSJ are now in sync two issues in a row. Just saying ...

Some sources are saying that NK can reach west coast of US.

The Chinese took a measure of President Obama and decided that he was smart, reasonable, and cautious; so they ramped up trade with NK. They are now consulting with their best psychologists and taking the same measure of President Trump, and maybe determining that he is rash, reckless, narcissistic, and somewhere on the unhinged to fcuking nuts spectrum; I think the Chinese will be very cautious and reduce trade with NK.

Regarding Ricky's posts on Chinese economic leverage, he's confused. Yes, the Chinese can create shocks to the west's financial system. But it is a lot easier to reallocate capital than it is to close factories that employ over 100 million people. The US has much more economic leverage.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jul 2017, 10:57 am

I have not forgotten that you predicted I would turn into a Republican when I got older...or did you predict that, I guess I'm not 100% certain about that. Anyway, there is no danger in my turning into a Republican--I'll always be liberal-- but I would like to think that I'm not one to toe any party line, whatever line that may be. I try to look at issues with an open mind and call them as I see them and I am particularly concerned about being fair to people whatever their background. Of course I am sure I apt to see things through the confirmation bias all people have, but I would like to think I am open to changing my mind on issues if the facts on the ground dictate it.