THIS is why Trump's games with Korea are idiotic.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42677604

Someone in Hawaii accidentally hit the 'Inbound Nukes' warning, and the entire state gak it's collective pants.

Yeah, no. Nothing about that was caused by Trump.

Well it could be argued that Trumps antagonistic interactions led to the situation seeming more plausible, and thus more believed. But generally speaking, yeah, I would say it's a bit of a stretch to put that one on Trump without some sort of context.

That and I'm sure that we've had a "Nukes Incoming" warning option on the emergency alert systems for ages. Its not like Trump existing makes the poor shmuck who's job is to send these alerts out more likely to hit that particular alert by mistake.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That and I'm sure that we've had a "Nukes Incoming" warning option on the emergency alert systems for ages. Its not like Trump existing makes the poor shmuck who's job is to send these alerts out more likely to hit that particular alert by mistake.

Aye. That's likely been part of system since it was installed.

Given a US fleet bases out of thr islands and all. It's kinda a larger target than others.

Yeah, this "Trump caused it" is getting as bad as BDS and ODS folks.

Let's settle down with it.

You know, OT is going to overflow with 'I Told You So' posts the moment a US city disappears in a nuclear fireball.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You know, OT is going to overflow with 'I Told You So' posts the moment a US city disappears in a nuclear fireball.

No one is stupid enough to use nuclear bombs. It would be suicide for both sides. They are solely used as a deterrent and for sabre-rattling.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You know, OT is going to overflow with 'I Told You So' posts the moment a US city disappears in a nuclear fireball.

No one is stupid enough to use nuclear bombs. It would be suicide for both sides. They are solely used as a deterrent and for sabre-rattling.

Well we have one warhawk with big pile of them and who isn't exactly known for his sanity...He's the most likely guy to start a live war of any kind ATM. Just have to hope he's not quite stupid enough to use nukes as well but with him who knows. Maniacs rarely think logically.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You know, OT is going to overflow with 'I Told You So' posts the moment a US city disappears in a nuclear fireball.

No one is stupid enough to use nuclear bombs. It would be suicide for both sides. They are solely used as a deterrent and for sabre-rattling.

We had several close run-ins with a nuclear war during the Cold War. Problem of nuclear weapon strategy is that its also better to fire them as fast as possible in response, so that almost went wrong a few times. Never say never.

Plus if the whole world is collapsing metaphorically speaking for the North Korean leadership, the question remains if they go quietly.

BREAKING NEWS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5279309/North-South-Korea-agree-form-joint-Olympic-team.html

it seems... somthing impossible has happened.

 jhe90 wrote:
BREAKING NEWS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5279309/North-South-Korea-agree-form-joint-Olympic-team.html

it seems... somthing impossible has happened.

Oh wow, that is really awesome!

They've done similar before. There was a united Korean football team for the 1991 World Cup.

Anybody taking bets that the North Korean players don't go home when its over?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anybody taking bets that the North Korean players don't go home when its over?

NK usually takes hostages to ensure that doesn't happen. And if it does happen, your family dies.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Anybody taking bets that the North Korean players don't go home when its over?

NK usually takes hostages to ensure that doesn't happen. And if it does happen, your family dies.

Given some of the recent defectors, that doesn't seem to always be a deterrent. I'm sure those two soldiers that defected still had some family back home Kim's goons could find. Which really shows how stinking bad it is over there.

My guess is they will only defect if they don't win any medals, since I'd expect Kim has a bullet waiting for them in Pyongyang should they "fail the country" and any NK athlete would know it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
They've done similar before. There was a united Korean football team for the 1991 World Cup.

They did the same thing in Sydney in 2000, marching under a common flag for the opening ceremony. The difference this time is that there is also a unified team, but only in women's ice hockey. I'm guessing they won't have to fight over which team will get to add the medal to their tally.

Thing is, when NK did this in 2000 it was a cynical ploy. They were making an entirely symbolic gesture, but they did nothing meaningful like delay their weapons development. There's no reason to think this time is any different.

It's really important to realise that fundamentally the NK leadership don't want re-unification. It's their meal ticket.

 jhe90 wrote:
BREAKING NEWS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5279309/North-South-Korea-agree-form-joint-Olympic-team.html

it seems... somthing impossible has happened.

As long as the South Korean teams don’t ruin it. Apparently the ice hockey team is getting upset that having to have a joint team might damage their medal chances. Seems rather against the spirit of the Olympics to me.

squidhills wrote:
My guess is they will only defect if they don't win any medals, since I'd expect Kim has a bullet waiting for them in Pyongyang should they "fail the country" and any NK athlete would know it.

No they won’t. The same was said about the 2010 World Cup team. NK athletes don’t get killed, or put in prison, if they don’t win. People who do win medals are treated like gods (and the Kim family claims it was their inspirational input and coaching). Those who don’t apparently get a lecture about the ideals of the country and how great the Kim family are etc.

 Steve steveson wrote:
No they won’t. The same was said about the 2010 World Cup team. NK athletes don’t get killed, or put in prison, if they don’t win. People who do win medals are treated like gods (and the Kim family claims it was their inspirational input and coaching). Those who don’t apparently get a lecture about the ideals of the country and how great the Kim family are etc.

The stories of executions and the like aren't true, but there are still consequences. Athletes have been sent to the coal mines for losing. One year after a dismal World Cup performance the team's coach was forced to become a labourer.

The reaction appears largely to depend on Kim's mood, the amount of international attention, and whether you lost to a South Korean.

 sebster wrote:
The stories of executions and the like aren't true, but there are still consequences.

I can't say that for certain about NK, but I do know that some despots have made their team's lives hell. I seem to recall one of the Iraqi football team was extensively tortured after receiving a red card because it embarrassed Saddam's sons.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
BREAKING NEWS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5279309/North-South-Korea-agree-form-joint-Olympic-team.html

it seems... somthing impossible has happened.

As long as the South Korean teams don’t ruin it. Apparently the ice hockey team is getting upset that having to have a joint team might damage their medal chances. Seems rather against the spirit of the Olympics to me.

To be fair even the Olympic Committee frequently goes against the spirit of the Olympics

I can understand the South Korean team though. Succes at the Olympics can bring with it significant financial and perhaps you could say social benefits. Why should they like giving that up for a cynical ploy by Kim to garner some international goodwill? Imagine how you would feel about having your professional career basically neutered for some political show. Olympics only come by once every four years and as an athlete you might only get one or two before getting too old or running into some health problem related to your sport.

It's definitely a heartening bit of news, regardless of the motivations for it.

It's really important to realise that fundamentally the NK leadership don't want re-unification. It's their meal ticket.

From my time spent in the country, what also surprised me is how many SK people don't want re-unification. Even if it is a heartfelt desire from the now very old population that can remember the unified nation, SK's current financial strength and status as a 'developed' country was hard won and people remember the times of having much less.

It's said W. Germany had an economy 4 times larger than the east when they re-unified, and it was a period of tremendous economic, political and social upheaval. The estimates are that SK's economy is about 20 times larger than the North - any kind of unification would bring a tremendous upheaval for the people.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You know, OT is going to overflow with 'I Told You So' posts the moment a US city disappears in a nuclear fireball.

No one is stupid enough to use nuclear bombs. It would be suicide for both sides. They are solely used as a deterrent and for sabre-rattling.

If you think you have already lost.. then you have nothing to lose, and it becomes an option.

This is one of the biggest risks in all of the sabre-rattling, my-button-is-bigger-than-yours twitter war, and the current administrative unpredictability. There is the potential for a message to be understood or misconstrued. If combined with another accident of some sort (imagine.. a false incoming bombers, or missile launch warning, received by the NK leadership), and it looks like the fall of a regime is on the cards, then NK would have every reason to give a bloody nose to the US even if it is completely destroyed in the process.

This is one of the big factors in the doomsday clock moving as close to midnight as it has been since the 1950s.

 Pacific wrote:

It's definitely a heartening bit of news, regardless of the motivations for it.

It's really important to realise that fundamentally the NK leadership don't want re-unification. It's their meal ticket.

From my time spent in the country, what also surprised me is how many SK people don't want re-unification. Even if it is a heartfelt desire from the now very old population that can remember the unified nation, SK's current financial strength and status as a 'developed' country was hard won and people remember the times of having much less.

It's said W. Germany had an economy 4 times larger than the east when they re-unified, and it was a period of tremendous economic, political and social upheaval. The estimates are that SK's economy is about 20 times larger than the North - any kind of unification would bring a tremendous upheaval for the people.

Yeah, a reunification of Korea would need to be a very slow, gradual process. Handling it like Germany did would become a disaster.

Send in some Primaris Space Marines and let them run riot throughout the country. They could take on Kim Jung.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah, a reunification of Korea would need to be a very slow, gradual process. Handling it like Germany did would become a disaster.

Obviously, the unification will completely ruin the economy of South Korea. They understand this and will be careful about actual unification.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yeah, a reunification of Korea would need to be a very slow, gradual process. Handling it like Germany did would become a disaster.

Obviously, the unification will completely ruin the economy of South Korea. They understand this and will be careful about actual unification.

Yes, it would be very taxing on their economy. Therefore need to do it slowly and gradually, lest their economy is completely destroyed.

Well, I called it earlier in this thread. . . and its hints like these that tell you something is brewing:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/south-korea-expert-victor-cha-warned-white-house-on-north-korea.html

Trump's team stopped returning Cha's calls in December after the strategist made his concerns known about attacking the North, the FT continued, noting that Cha was reportedly asked whether he could help manage the evacuation of American citizens from South Korea.

I truly believe this is coming.

If they could keep it just between them, that'd be terrific.

I don't much fancy dying because some giant orange man-baby and a fat get with stupid hair.

KTG17 wrote:
Well, I called it earlier in this thread. . . and its hints like these that tell you something is brewing:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/south-korea-expert-victor-cha-warned-white-house-on-north-korea.html

Trump's team stopped returning Cha's calls in December after the strategist made his concerns known about attacking the North, the FT continued, noting that Cha was reportedly asked whether he could help manage the evacuation of American citizens from South Korea.

I truly believe this is coming.

To be fair this might not be an actual hint. Being able to help manage the evacuation of citizens seems like it should be a pretty standard part of the job for ambassadors to volatile countries. One could argue South Korea bordering North Korea fitting the potentially volatile description. Only way to find out is what other ambassadors from other admins have been told, but then again the Trump admin is pretty unorthodox, so it might mean little by itself (as in who were the members of that team asking questions). As for the fact he wasn't picked, that might just be for his opposition, they might want a more hawkish representative.

The major indicator would be troop movements but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. This episode is from when tensions were more pronounced and the Trump Admin seems to have calmed down on North Korea somewhat.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To be fair this might not be an actual hint. Being able to help manage the evacuation of citizens seems like it should be a pretty standard part of the job for ambassadors to volatile countries. One could argue South Korea bordering North Korea fitting the potentially volatile description. Only way to find out is what other ambassadors from other admins have been told, but then again the Trump admin is pretty unorthodox, so it might mean little by itself (as in who were the members of that team asking questions). As for the fact he wasn't picked, that might just be for his opposition, they might want a more hawkish representative.

The major indicator would be troop movements but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. This episode is from when tensions were more pronounced and the Trump Admin seems to have calmed down on North Korea somewhat.

I think it is a major hint, especially if you are in the early stages of planning. None of this stuff happens quickly. When it does its because plans and logistics happen to already be in place.

And I am not sure we'll see major troop movements. I think it will primarily be an air campaign. I read over the weekend that North Korean artillery is on the reverse slopes of the hills facing Seoul, and that this air force general was stating that they have been able to pin-point and map each and every mounted artillery piece the North Koreas have along the DMZ. Basically most of these artillery pieces would come out of a cave, fire OVER the mountain into South Korea, move back into the cave to reload, and repeat. He was basically saying that with smart bombs, you can basically go down the line and knock the vast majority of these out in the opening days of a campaign. Whether or not that would happen isn't important, what is is that they believe that it would be possible.

When you hear about air assets being moved around, get ready. As in, sell your equities.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To be fair this might not be an actual hint. Being able to help manage the evacuation of citizens seems like it should be a pretty standard part of the job for ambassadors to volatile countries. One could argue South Korea bordering North Korea fitting the potentially volatile description. Only way to find out is what other ambassadors from other admins have been told, but then again the Trump admin is pretty unorthodox, so it might mean little by itself (as in who were the members of that team asking questions). As for the fact he wasn't picked, that might just be for his opposition, they might want a more hawkish representative.

The major indicator would be troop movements but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. This episode is from when tensions were more pronounced and the Trump Admin seems to have calmed down on North Korea somewhat.

I think it is a major hint, especially if you are in the early stages of planning. None of this stuff happens quickly. When it doesn't its because plans and logistics happen to already be in place.

And I am not sure we'll see major troop movements. I think it will primarily be an air campaign. I read over the weekend that North Korean artillery is on the reverse slopes of the hills facing Seoul, and that this air force general was stating that they have been able to pin-point and map each and every mounted artillery piece the North Koreas have along the DMZ. Basically most of these artillery pieces would come out of a cave, fire OVER the mountain into South Korea, move back into the cave to reload, and repeat. He was basically saying that with smart bombs, you can basically go down the line and knock the vast majority of these out in the opening days of a campaign. Whether or not that would happen isn't important, what is is that they believe that it would be possible.

When you hear about air assets being moved around, get ready.

The problem with declaring it a major hint is that we know next to nothing about the context in which the evacuation question was asked. Who asked the question, what was the underlying motivation behind the question, is it just standard to the 'job interview' etc etc.

Also, we would see major troop movements even if it was just an air campaign. All the air power would still have to be concentrated and brought in. All the logistical personnel and naval groups would have to move in to. And an air campaign isn't even guarenteed to achieve any goal, seizing or stopping the production of North Korean nuclear weapons would likely not be accomplished by air power alone. Plus any air campaign would also trigger a North Korean reaction, so South Korea might appreciate if the US would also contribute ground troops for the defense of SK that would be caught in the middle.

Regardless, moving the air assets required for an air war would still be considered as major troop movements.

Ok well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Time will tell.

Something is coming. Trump is doing a pretty good job delivering on campaign promises, however much people hate him. And he has said he is disgusted this issue persists, and he will not allow it to continue.

All the ingredients are there, whether you think they are making soup are not is up to you. But once the ball gets rolling, its hard to stop.

KTG17 wrote:
Ok well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Time will tell.

Something is coming. Trump is doing a pretty good job delivering on campaign promises, however much people hate him. And he has said he is disgusted this issue persists, and he will not allow it to continue.

All the ingredients are there, whether you think they are making soup are not is up to you. But once the ball gets rolling, its hard to stop.

Yeah of course. I'm just saying that this doesn't have to mean much. It might still happen, but for the sake of South Korea and Japan I hope Trump won't, because its kinda too late anyway.

Yeah, just when you think that the world dodged becoming a flaming nuclear briquette, here we go again...

KTG17 wrote:
Ok well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Time will tell.

Something is coming. Trump is doing a pretty good job delivering on campaign promises, however much people hate him. And he has said he is disgusted this issue persists, and he will not allow it to continue.

Man you are working hard AF for a hat trick thread lock.

Well, it’s pretty hard to talk about what to do with about options on North Korea, when some of those options might be political, and involve US politics at that. This thread might as well be locked.

And oddly enough, it's managed to remain open this long...

 Spinner wrote:
And oddly enough, it's managed to remain open this long...

To be fair though, sometimes there have been some truly elaborate tap dances around the issue.

KTG17 wrote:
When you hear about air assets being moved around, get ready. As in, sell your equities.

Sell some equities, sure. But go long on Boeing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Something is coming. Trump is doing a pretty good job delivering on campaign promises, however much people hate him. And he has said he is disgusted this issue persists, and he will not allow it to continue.

I'm going to keep this short, and non-political, and hope this doesn't end up about Trump and get locked, but what you said about Trump isn't true and it matters for understanding the Trump position on NK.

Trump's campaign promise on NK was that it wasn't a US problem to solve. He said China should solve it, and because he was such a clever negotiator he could make that happen, something former presidents had failed to do. Whether he did this out of ignorance or indifference to the complexities of the issue is irrelevant. And of course this is far from the only promise Trump has failed to keep or ignored entirely.

So trying to argue now that we can predict what Trump will do on NK based on what he's now promising is a fool's errand. The only thing we can say is whatever Trump does will depend on the immediate political situation, and whoever had Trump's ear at that moment.

The plus side of the US apparently trying to be the biggest idiot possible on the Korea issue is that North and South are increasingly committed to working nicely together. If we have very weird luck, the US will blunder its way into both China and Japan agreeing to cooperate with the Koreas and leave the US outside of it.

 sebster wrote:
Sell some equities, sure. But go long on Boeing.

Or Lockheed Martin.

I'm going to keep this short, and non-political, and hope this doesn't end up about Trump and get locked, but what you said about Trump isn't true and it matters for understanding the Trump position on NK.

Trump's campaign promise on NK was that it wasn't a US problem to solve. He said China should solve it, and because he was such a clever negotiator he could make that happen, something former presidents had failed to do. Whether he did this out of ignorance or indifference to the complexities of the issue is irrelevant. And of course this is far from the only promise Trump has failed to keep or ignored entirely.

Trump has said a lot of things, even going back and forth on the same issue. He has repeatedly said he will not allow North Korea to be able to threaten us. Yes, he has tried passing the buck to China for it to resolve, but why would they? They like things the way that they are.

So trying to argue now that we can predict what Trump will do on NK based on what he's now promising is a fool's errand. The only thing we can say is whatever Trump does will depend on the immediate political situation, and whoever had Trump's ear at that moment.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/politics/north-korea-trump-bloody-nose-dispute/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/us/politics/white-house-pentagon-north-korea.html

You guys can keep telling yourselves that the cost would be too great and so on and so on and nothing is going to happen, but I keep seeing signs that Trump has the character to do it. Not saying it is the right thing to do or that I want it to happen, but he loves saying he has done things other presidents haven't, and this issue has been going on for decades. I think he would love to be able to be the one who 'resolved' it.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The plus side of the US apparently trying to be the biggest idiot possible on the Korea issue is that North and South are increasingly committed to working nicely together. If we have very weird luck, the US will blunder its way into both China and Japan agreeing to cooperate with the Koreas and leave the US outside of it.

Well, if you knew anything about North Korea and its long history at negotiating, you would realize all this is a ploy. Nothing is going to change from North Korea's side, despite how naive and wishful the South Koreans are. North Korea is suddenly putting on a good show to try and isolate the US, and maybe even get food out of some deal. But after the Olympics is over it will be back to business as usual.

But would there be a need to change anything? Change in such a volatile area is dangerous. The situation has been stable since the end of the Korean War. I say we leave it that way.
If anything, I believe we should commit to end the isolation of North Korea. Work together with the regime to improve the conditions of the North Korean people. With standards of living improving, and the regime losing its big evil bogeyman to rally the population against, the North Korean people will soon start making trouble about their lack of freedom. It may sound counterintuitive, but being friendly to North Korea and making concessions is the surest way to bring about their downfall.
Of course, I doubt this is going to happen as long as the US is led by someone with the intellectual capabilities of a 4-year old. I still think it is highly unlikely Trump will go to war though. Even 4-year olds know they should not poke in a hornet's nest, and Trump can't start a war anyway without the support of South Korea. And South Korea definitely won't support the US in starting a war. They would much prefer not being on the receiving end of NK's artillery and nukes.
But as can be understood from the diverse opinions and predictions in this very thread, it is evident that US foreign policy towards Korea is very unpredictable. And that is dangerous.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Of course, I doubt this is going to happen as long as the US is led by someone with the intellectual capabilities of a 4-year old. I still think it is highly unlikely Trump will go to war though. Even 4-year olds know they should not poke in a hornet's nest.

In before the lock!

Well, I can't think of a former US President that would have launched cruise missiles at an airbase of a country that not only was supported by Russia, but actually had troops in country to support it. Maybe in the early days of the Cold War, but not in the last few decades. I can't see anyone from Carter on to Obama who would have done that.

We're in new times here.

Looks like we've reached the end.

Of this thread anyway.