And how many die when an American President feels slighted?
I assume that you would approve of a pre-emptive strike on Washington by the People’s Liberation Army, to remove the clear and obvious danger posed by the USA?
2 Likes
There is a simple solution to this.
1 Like
That’s probably long overdue as an event and has been simmering for decades but as long as its only w/in what we now map as Iraq probably not going to lead to “war”.
One un-named source. I do wish that source was named so I could look up their background. Doesn’t even say if this person is a formal foreign policy person or someone in one of the outside parties.
and expose him as a traitor to Japan’s constitution!
Mini Nukes! Two and one half minutes to midnight…
“The Trump administration is considering proposing smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons that would cause less damage than traditional thermonuclear bombs — a move that would give military commanders more options but could also make the use of atomic arms more likely.”
2 Likes
I hope you’re right, but I’m not so sure. Both Turkey and Iran might see it as something that could upset their local Kurdish populations. We’ll see, I guess.
You could do that, but it wouldn’t change the situation.
The North Koreans will not use their nukes unless they are attacked. They are a deterrent.
If they do use their nukes, they know that they’ll be glassed. But they’ll settle for vengeance if that’s all they have left.
The thing is we don’t know that at all. We simply don’t have good enough information from within the DPRK military or regime. Making that assumption is mirroring, assuming the opponent thinks and has the same values. Every book on strategy cautions against this.
4 Likes
Yup.
But we don’t know that about any of the nuclear powers. Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Britain, USA, Russia, China, North Korea…did I forget anyone?
Any of them could devastate nations in a moment. Two of them could instantly end the world.
Based on past behaviour, a North Korean nuke does not appear to be substantially more dangerous than a Pakistani or American one. It certainly will not be made less dangerous by US aggression.
4 Likes
Good Read
To be frank, this is just business as usual for the DPRK, they have a long history of issuing these threats. Still I look forward to your justification of Juche here.
1 Like
I never said anything about their rhetoric; flamboyant threats have been a North Korean staple for decades.
Doesn’t change the strategic situation, though.
Im still not clear what the calculus of your assessment of the strategic situation comes from. Are there some particular analysts you follow? Is it personal political sympathy for the DPRK or general dislike of the US?
This entire thread has really been about what looks like you celebrating the possibility of the outbreak of war somewhere and it being the fault of the US. My offer of July 23rd of a US$100 bet still stands. I’ll even expand the bet to include the DPRK as well as the original scope regarding Iran.
This wager is not a statement of faith on my part towards POTUS Trump.
Just a basic awareness of history and politics. The DPRK is an Orwellian hellhole, but they are not the key destabilising force in this situation.
If the North Koreans wanted to commit suicide just for the fun of destroying a South Korean city, they could have done so at any time in the last fifty years. Nukes are not required to level Seoul.
The fact that they have not done so strongly suggests that they will continue to not do so, unless they are severely provoked.
The only major change created by the North Korean missile program is to extend the range of potential retribution to the mainland US. This situation is a direct consequence of the US’s sustained attempts to collapse the North Korean government.
You can keep the bet; I’m not really a gambling sort.
Which is it, deterrent or retribution? Cant be both.
The embargos? The bribes? Are you sure its only the US? Really really sure?
I’ll up the bet, give you 100 to 1 odds. If I’m right you get US$100, if you are right, you owe $1. I’m unemployed so that $100 means something to me but I’m that sure that this is essentially paranoia combined with general whinging about the US on your part.
The threat of retribution is the deterrent. That’s how deterrence works.
The occupation, the war, the embargo, the spying, the famine and the threats. A century of history.
And of course it isn’t only the US. Colonialism and imperialism are global sins.
1 Like
The subtext of McMaster’s remarks to ABC is that the Kim regime is so hostile and brutal that it isn’t rational enough to fear punishment. But McMaster hasn’t offered much evidence for that assessment. The United States and its allies, after all, have successfully deterred other hostile, brutal governments from using nuclear weapons, including Joseph Stalin’s in the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s in China. And if North Korea’s leaders are really irrational—if they don’t respond to incentives and disincentives as other leaders would—why is the Trump administration using economic sanctions and other forms of pressure to try and change their calculus on developing nuclear weapons? (The National Security Council did not respond to a request for comment from McMaster.)
