You're not getting the point. If we take out his missiles and leave him Kim Jong Un alone and he is still in power and he still has nukes...then his rational option at that point is do nothing (other than a pro forma response). But you insist that he will go crazy and start a suicidal war. On the other hand, if we let him get an ICBM missile capability...then according to you he will all of a sudden become a rational actor.

Those two positions are contradictory.

freeman3 wrote:You're not getting the point. If we take out his missiles and leave him Kim Jong Un alone and he is still in power and he still has nukes...then his rational option at that point is do nothing (other than a pro forma response). But you insist that he will go crazy and start a suicidal war. On the other hand, if we let him get an ICBM missile capability...then according to you he will all of a sudden become a rational actor.

Those two positions are contradictory.

freeman3

. If we take out his missiles and leave him Kim Jong Un alone and he is still in power and he still has nukes...then his rational option at that point is do nothing (other than a pro forma response). But you insist that he will go crazy and start a suicidal war. On the other hand, if we let him get an ICBM missile capability...then according to you he will all of a sudden become a rational actor.

Firstly: What evidence do you have that it is possible to"take out" his missiles.... and leave the nukes alone? Or just take out the missiles period?
Since the US is constantly being surprised at the new ICBM capability, its doubtful that there is reasonable intelligence about where these missiles are at any particular moment...
How often will the US have to repeat this feat? Every six months? How quickly could they rebuild even if the miracle could be conducted a fist time?? I think you re guilty of magical thinking here...

Second: Why do you think NK would be willing to put up with a strike of any kind? Don't you think they are on high alert to immediately enact their all out war should any strike occur?

freeman3

On the other hand, if we let him get an ICBM missile capability...then according to you he will all of a sudden become a rational actor.

I'm not the one thinking he's going to change suddenly. I think he's going to continue past behaviors.
The past 70 years NK has acted rationally with their armed forced. They haven't attempted any aggression that would result in their assured destruction.
Why do you think that once Kim gets ICBM's that suddenly he begins to act irrationally?

I guess you forgot the Korean War as far as North Korea starting aggression that would have ended their regime but for China intervening...

No one thinks that the North Koreans have the capability yet of putting nukes on their missiles.

You are seriously delusional if you think it's a good idea to just let a crazy regime develop ICBMs. We don't have to tolerate it...and we shouldn't tolerate it. You go out of your way to spin scenarios to justify doing nothing. You are like a propaganda mouthpiece for the NK regime.

Canada can just send us a thank-you note...

freeman3 wrote:I guess you forgot the Korean War as far as North Korea starting aggression that would have ended their regime but for China intervening...

No one thinks that the North Koreans have the capability yet of putting nukes on their missiles.

You are seriously delusional if you think it's a good idea to just let a crazy regime develop ICBMs. We don't have to tolerate it...and we shouldn't tolerate it. You go out of your way to spin scenarios to justify doing nothing. You are like a propaganda mouthpiece for the NK regime.

Canada can just send us a thank-you note...

freeman3

I guess you forgot the Korean War as far as North Korea starting aggression that would have ended their regime but for China intervening...

No. I meant after the Korean War. So 60 years... And the main reason is that in June 1950 when North Korea invaded there were no US troops in the South. And there was no immediate indication that the South would have any help let alone a huge UN force lead by the US.
After the war, there was not a village in North Korea that had not been destroyed. More bombsand napalm were launched onto tthe North than were used in the Pacific theatre in WWII.
1.6 million civilians and another 350,000 military died.
The reality of conflict was learnt well... That lesson, and the 30,000 US forces in South Korea, ensure that NK won't repeat their aggression.
The threat of nuclear annihilation will work the same way with NK's nuclear weapons.
Why d you think it won't? You've never really answered that question.

freeman3

You are seriously delusional if you think it's a good idea to just let a crazy regime develop ICBMs. We don't have to tolerate it...and we shouldn't tolerate it.

I don't think its a good idea that NK develop ICBMs. I just don't think you, or anyone, has offered a response that will do anything but kill millions. Mostly Koreans.
If I were Korean, I'd wonder why assured destruction was a great solution to stopping North Korean aggression when the threat was only to South Korea... But now, millions of Koreans will have to die because NK suddenly threatens the US.

freeman3

You are like a propaganda mouthpiece for the NK regime.

You're becoming as big a chowder head as Fate. Make an attempt at dealing with the points I've made...
Or just admit fulminating about "not tolerating"... isn't an answer.
What does not tolerate mean to you? What actions and repercussions should we expect if you were in charge... And lets try and not talk magical solutions that you have no evidence are genuine real world options...

I have answered your points, Ricky; you did not answer mine. I said your positions were contradictory and you failed to explain why they weren't.

It seems to me that Trump's bluster has created some progress vis-à-vis NK. The recent UN approved sanctions --including both Russian and Chinese support -- will be felt by the regime. No coal imports from NK will reduce their foreign capital. Sure, it could have gone further by restricting oil exports to NK and reducing (as opposed to just capping) their export of "foreign guest workers", aka slaves, to China and Russia. That's the other way NK gets foreign currency. Perhaps those items can be tackled after NK continues to misbehave. Having a lunatic in the White House isn't all bad.

rickyp wrote:You're becoming as big a chowder head as Fate.

Rickyp insulting freeman3 by comparing him to me . . . this is like North Korea insulting Canada by comparing it to the United States.

If we are to have any hope of reining in NK we need to have NK and China convinced that we will use military force. Even if our own assessment is that it would not be worth it (I'm not saying that's the case by the way) Bluffs in poker don't work too well if the other side knows you are going to fold. And if unease over what Trump will do caused China to go along with the sanctions vote--great. Keep the pressure on.

I still think military force will be justified if NK gets close to being able to hit us with nukes with ICBMs. But sanctions causing NK to come to the table for some sort of deal is the much preferred option, obviously.

This ain't good if true--NK apparently has been able to miniaturize their nukes so they can be put on a missile.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5989e ... mg00000009

freeman3

I still think military force will be justified if NK gets close to being able to hit us with nukes with ICBMs.

What form would that force be?
And what do you think the cost of that military force will be?
Before this weekend most experts estimated that the loss of life on the Korean Peninsula would be in the millions. Including many Americans by the way. There are currently between 200,000 and 250,000 Americans in South Korea. Plus 30,000 American military.
Another 200,000 troops would need to be committed in order to eradicate all the North Korean facilities. (Especially nuclear facilities which are spread out, well hidden and well defended.)

"You strike North Korea, they are going to strike back and they have a devastating conventional arsenal built up on the border that could lay waste to Seoul," he said. "Estimates are that hundreds of thousands of South Koreans would die in the first few hours of combat -- from artillery, from rockets, from short range missiles -- and if this war would escalate to the nuclear level, then you are looking at tens of millions of casualties and the destruction of the eleventh largest economy in the world."
"That's what you are going to roll the dice on," Cirincione added.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/politics/ ... index.html

However the notion that an American pre-preemptive strike is possible, if someone was willing to accept the losses detailed above, just took a beat down.
China has warned that they would not accept a US preemptive strike and would weigh in on North Korea's side should this happen... And China could destroy most of the US with the capabilities...
At the same time they've said a North Korea aggression, would have China leaving North Korea to their own devices...
Which means the US should trust North Korea not to do anything stupid even if they have the capability. Since the concept of an intervention would mean WWIII.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... he-us.html


freeman3

But sanctions causing NK to come to the table for some sort of deal is the much preferred option, obviously.

And this largely is in the hands of the Chinese... Who keep telling Trump to tone down the rhetoric.

rayjay

Having a lunatic in the White House isn't all bad.

Do you know how easy it is for the President to launch a nuclear strike?

What really weird is that most of the US government, that is the people who run things, seem to be ignoring Trumps words. There's been no ratcheting up of a military presence near the Korean peninsula. No additional forces sent in, no advisory to Americans to leave the region... No change in force status at all. (Never mind the contradictory rhetoric of Tillerson and Mattis)
Its following a pattern. They also ignore him on the transgender ban, and on his dopey statement on Venezuela.
So they seem to agree with you that he's a lunatic.
I think he's merely an ignoramus with personality disorders and impulse control. And I still worry about the nuclear codes. Perhaps Kelly, Mattis and McMaster have made some changes in protocol regarding them...

Two items:

1.

rickyp wrote:China has warned that they would not accept a US preemptive strike and would weigh in on North Korea's side should this happen... And China could destroy most of the US with the capabilities...

This is what they said. I think it's rubbish. China is going to risk its existence, which is what wiping out the US would mean, to protect NoKo? I'm calling "horse feathers."

2. What rickyp leaves out of all his Susan Rice-like "we have to accept a nuclear North Korea" argumentation: how does North Korea survive financially, other than trading with China and renting out slaves?

Answer: selling weapons.

Does anyone believe North Korea won't proliferate nuclear weapons? Iran? After Iran? Somalia? Boko Haram in Nigeria?

How many countries do we "have to accept" going nuclear before nuclear briefcase attacks are commonplace?

This is what the Chinese state-owned newspaper said:

"China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it added. “If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”

China is saying...that if the US tries to unilaterally overthrow the NK regime...it will intervene. It is not saying it will intervene if there are strikes...but no attempt to take out the regime. So, Ricky, you have not correctly characterized their position. They are saying (1) if NK attacks first and US retaliates then China will stay neutral, and (2) If the US launches strikes with the intent of regime change then they will intervene. Those two scenarios are clear. If China wanted to say that they would intervene if the US launches strikes without the intent of regime change...they could have done so.

What China is said what they will do at the far end of each spectrum. They have left ambiguous what will do in-between those extremes. I am sure NK has looked very carefully at the position. They have not been given carte blance by China to continue their ICBM program in defiance of the US.

I find it laughably stupid that China would launch a major attack on the US in support of NK. What? And be utterly wiped out? That's ridiculous. They will support NK in a local non-nuclear way if the US tries to take out the NK regime in a preemptive strike. And that's it. If we take out those missile but don't go after Kim...NK is on its own if he starts a major war over it. Again, there is ambiguity there but if China was going was going to intervene if the US just takes out NK's missiles...I think they would be clear about it. And if they are not going to intervene if there are merely strikes they are sure as heck are not going to support a major war launched by NK.

So unless you think Kim is suicidal...he is not going to launch a major war alone against the US and SK just because his missiles are taken out.

freeman3

If the US launches strikes with the intent of regime change then they will intervene. Those two scenarios are clear. If China wanted to say that they would intervene if the US launches strikes without the intent of regime change...they could have done so.

So the US could strike North Korea, but they do so with the intention of leaving the Dear Leader in Power?
And how will china know the difference.?

freeman3

I find it laughably stupid that China would launch a major attack on the US in support of NK. What? And be utterly wiped out?

So you think that the idea of assured destruction would deter China?
But not North Korea?
Ah but wait....
Freeman3

So unless you think Kim is suicidal...he is not going to launch a major war alone against the US and SK just because his missiles are taken out.

So Korea won't launch a nuclear strike against the US in the event that the US "tries to take out their missiles"? And how will they discern the difference between a strike that would be designed to
only take out their missiles and one that they think was designed for either regime change OR the total destruction of NK? Will the Great Leader send a twitter message?

These are enormous gambles, mostly with the lives of people on the Korean peninsula...
Since you've demonstrated that you have faith in the ability of assured destruction as a deterrent how about admitting that it may come down to that deterrent if enhanced sanctions by China and others fail in their goal? (And they probably will...)

Lets do remember what Mao said about nuclear war. “I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone.”
Now, this was a statement by a mad man. Or a man who was bluffing. or both. But we learned to live with him having nukes, believing that assured destruction would deter him. Even though he claimed it wouldn't.