Grey Templar wrote: Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?
Nope. So we can do the same thing here.
We were, actually, and it was a very dangerous situation that got damn close to outright WWIII. It's often considered either an excellent example of statesmanship or sheer blind miraculous luck that we didn't explode into full-scale war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I wouldn't want a repeat of the CMC. JFK was a considerably more level-headed person than Trump; imagine the reaction if one of our ships was rammed by a Chinese warship!
I can't seem to find anywhere that War was actually declared during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was armed conflict during the Bay of Pigs, but it wasn't actually an official war.
The US didn't declare war in the Vietnam War either.
I suppose it's just a Vietnam Police Action then.
Doesn't matter anyway. We are actually at war with North Korea, so a blockade is fully legal anyway. If anybody actually cares.
Just as an FYI, a blockade is internationally recognized as an act of war.
The Cuban Missile Crisis came absurdly close to triggering a nuclear holocaust, and in fact has Kennedy's military advisors had their way that's exactly what woulf have occurred. The blockade of Cuba was organized under the pretenses of a "Quarantine" that did not block everything but was only interdicting offensive weapons systems, they were not blocking food and other items, but were intent on inspecting every vessel.
That said, with a long land border with China, unless China was on board, a naval blockade wouldnt do much. However, currently China is the primary enforcer of most NK sanctions, they wont let NK fall as long as US forces remain, but they are willing to play ball in some situations.
Everybody remembers the wisely worded declaration of war of course.
Edit: since we never declares war and are acting on a UN resolution, couldn't the UN just pass a resolution telling us to get out? (Not that it would ever pass)
d-usa wrote: Everybody remembers the wisely worded declaration of war of course.
Edit: since we never declares war and are acting on a UN resolution, couldn't the UN just pass a resolution telling us to get out? (Not that it would ever pass)
Umm Korean war is on pause..
It never ended. It's just. Muktindecade cease fire.
Both sides could scarily restart without new declarations or same legal steps as new.
There was meant to a peace agreement but that never happened.
d-usa wrote: Everybody remembers the wisely worded declaration of war of course.
Edit: since we never declares war and are acting on a UN resolution, couldn't the UN just pass a resolution telling us to get out? (Not that it would ever pass)
Umm Korean war is on pause..
It never ended. It's just. Muktindecade cease fire.
Both sides could scarily restart without new declarations or same legal steps as new.
There was meant to a peace agreement but that never happened.
So like I said; since we never declared war and are there because the UN passed a resolution, could the UN pass another resolution to revoke the prior authorization and tell us to pack up?
Again, our seat and veto on the security council makes it a very unlikely scenario.
NK is a really difficult Topic and there really is no easy solution to this feth.
The Problem is that the People of NK are not only heavily indoctrinated by their government but also have no way of learning about the rest of the world. They only know what they've been allowed to know about the world which isnt much. There is no Internet or travelling or international TV for them. Every bit of Information is controlled by the government. The majority of citizens would never understand that getting rid of that absurd Regime would be just for their own good. They'd fight rigorously against the "capitalists".
I have, and I'm so sorry to say that, no hope for the citizens of North Korea. If the Kim regime goes to war they will too. And they will die by the millions for that stupid fat fethboy. There will be no peaceful way to solve this. If the conflict escalates NK will have to be eradicated. The brainwashed cattle will never be able to open their minds for the rest of the world. They will fight and die for nothing and the survivors will have no place in this world. I hope i'm wrong tho.
I'm not sure if calling people "brainwashed cattle" is a good thing to do, regardless of the situation.
Furthermore, there is a thriving black market, there are the SK propaganda speakers blaring at least something not controlled by NK's party line into the country and there are a few people crossing every now and then. And we all know gossip and rumours spread.
I think the risk of a C&C RA2 Yuri Style mob of desperate people brainwashed enough to go completely against self-preservation is not that likely.
feeder wrote: Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.
We're not starving anybody. It's the North Korean regime which is doing that. We are not responsible for this even if we blockade the country, that is 100% on the Kim regime. They're the ones refusing to stop the suffering for their pride and power.
We would be the ones meddling with their sovereignity.
How you think US would deal with other countries using power to demand replacement of US goverment with their choosing? Not well I think.
Whole thing is US wanting to be world leader. US doesn't approve you, you go.
Because I can tell you they do a lot of business with Iran, Pakistan, and friends. Food is not a high-tech item. Food is something those countries can provide.
We're not "cutting him off till they starve and revolt" we're "driving him to want to trade functioning nuclear weapons and material for food."
Are you assuming we'd just let ships continue to go to North Korea? No, we'd be blockading them.
So good old piracy and robbing of foreign soveregn country vessels. Why am I not surprised.
Hopefully you realize this would result in massive sanctions against USA from other countries. Invading foreign country or robbing their vessels messing with their sovereignity would be pretty damn sure way to get sanctions against US. US is all about sanctions over Russia over the east europe situation and here US would be doing worse even more blatantly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morkphoiz wrote: NK is a really difficult Topic and there really is no easy solution to this feth.
The Problem is that the People of NK are not only heavily indoctrinated by their government but also have no way of learning about the rest of the world. They only know what they've been allowed to know about the world which isnt much. There is no Internet or travelling or international TV for them. Every bit of Information is controlled by the government. The majority of citizens would never understand that getting rid of that absurd Regime would be just for their own good. They'd fight rigorously against the "capitalists".
I have, and I'm so sorry to say that, no hope for the citizens of North Korea. If the Kim regime goes to war they will too. And they will die by the millions for that stupid fat fethboy. There will be no peaceful way to solve this. If the conflict escalates NK will have to be eradicated. The brainwashed cattle will never be able to open their minds for the rest of the world. They will fight and die for nothing and the survivors will have no place in this world. I hope i'm wrong tho.
Well situation isn't going to change in a hurry but nothing is permanent so things are going to change eventually. Now it's just matter of US not deciding to sacrifice hundreds of thousands if not more plus trillions of dollars worth of money to get rid of yet another leader they disagree with.
Morkphoiz wrote: NK is a really difficult Topic and there really is no easy solution to this feth.
The Problem is that the People of NK are not only heavily indoctrinated by their government but also have no way of learning about the rest of the world. They only know what they've been allowed to know about the world which isnt much. There is no Internet or travelling or international TV for them. Every bit of Information is controlled by the government. The majority of citizens would never understand that getting rid of that absurd Regime would be just for their own good. They'd fight rigorously against the "capitalists".
I have, and I'm so sorry to say that, no hope for the citizens of North Korea. If the Kim regime goes to war they will too. And they will die by the millions for that stupid fat fethboy. There will be no peaceful way to solve this. If the conflict escalates NK will have to be eradicated. The brainwashed cattle will never be able to open their minds for the rest of the world. They will fight and die for nothing and the survivors will have no place in this world. I hope i'm wrong tho.
Do you really not expect to get mocked for posting like this? At any point while advocating for the wholesale murder of every last North Korean you could simply have decided to stop typing and use your browser to go somewhere else.
Sorry if this has already been covered, but I heard on the radio this morning that China has a new reason to be concerned with NK. It seems the mountain that the North Koreans have been testing their nukes in is in danger of collapsing, leaking out radiation that would reach into China.
We should start bombing NK with money bombs. Big bushels of $1 to $100 bills. We could get several allied countries to start dropping their own currency as well. That would destablize the regime faster than anything else.
Of course, this plan is incredibly foolish and stupid.
Hopefully you realize this would result in massive sanctions against USA from other countries. Invading foreign country or robbing their vessels messing with their sovereignity would be pretty damn sure way to get sanctions against US. US is all about sanctions over Russia over the east europe situation and here US would be doing worse even more blatantly.
No it wouldn't. First off because we are actually at War with them and have been since 1950. So it's perfectly legal in every sense.
And no, this would not be worse than the Ukraine situation. Russia destabilizing and invading Ukraine is far worse than the US dealing with a country we've been at war with for 67 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: We should start bombing NK with money bombs. Big bushels of $1 to $100 bills. We could get several allied countries to start dropping their own currency as well. That would destablize the regime faster than anything else.
Of course, this plan is incredibly foolish and stupid.
And it wouldn't do anything. Dropping foreign currency into a closed country where it's worthless(except as toilet paper) isn't going to do anything to destabilize their regime.
The US is not technically at war with NK. South Korea is, but the US is not, and the US is there under the auspices of UN peacekeeping action, the United States congress has never voted, passed, and declared a state of war between the United States of America and North Korea. We are there to protect and assist South Korea, not because we are at formal war with North Korea.
More to the point, the war has been over from a practical standpoint and frozen in tense but largely stable stable ceasefire for a lifetime.
Frazzled wrote: Russia has refused to stop oil shipments to NK. On top of china refusing to embargo NK. So much for that allies nonsense.
China is not going to completely embargo NK, they arent going to let the NK regime collapse as long as US forces are present on the Korean peninsula, especially with the prospect of a large scale humanitarian disaster and hundreds of thousands or a couple million North Koreans attempting to flee to China if the regime does collapse. Anyone expecting otherwise is being naieve.
However, China has also backed sanctions in the past and has executed probably some of the most painful sanctions on NK of late, including turning back most coal imports that are NK's biggest source of foreign currency.
Considering trade between China and NK increased in he last year, including coal, any arguments that they are supporting sanctions or doing anything besides using NK are a distraction from their trade imbalance is,at best, specious.
Just Tony wrote: So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?
I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...
China doesn't have any need for territorial expansion?
No disrespect Iron captain, but have you ever heard of Tibet?
Annexed by the Qing, far removed from the Maoists that currently rule China. It has been a Chinese territory ever since, apart from a short interlude in the early 20th century when the Qing collapsed and China entered a period of anarchy and war that lasted until the Maoists defeated all rival factions and established control over most of the Qing dynasty's former territory including Tibet, giving rise to the modern-day Chinese state.
Saying China might invade Korea because they once invaded Tibet is like saying England might try to invade and annex France because some English king once upon a time annexed Scotland.
Just because a previous government centuries ago engaged in territorial expansion does not mean the current, modern-day government wants more territorial expansion. Every modern country has engaged in conquest and annexation in the past. By your logic, because of those past territorial expansions, now all countries in the world would want to invade Korea?
Wait, are you defending the invasion and annexation of Tibet?
Frazzled wrote: Russia has refused to stop oil shipments to NK. On top of china refusing to embargo NK. So much for that allies nonsense.
China is not going to completely embargo NK, they arent going to let the NK regime collapse as long as US forces are present on the Korean peninsula, especially with the prospect of a large scale humanitarian disaster and hundreds of thousands or a couple million North Koreans attempting to flee to China if the regime does collapse. Anyone expecting otherwise is being naieve.
However, China has also backed sanctions in the past and has executed probably some of the most painful sanctions on NK of late, including turning back most coal imports that are NK's biggest source of foreign currency.
Russia is mostly just trolling at this point.
To be fair I don't think the western world should hope that NK collpases either. Suppose that did happen. If anything recent is to go by the ability of large nations to stop countries going into free fall after a regime collapse is wishful thinking. Therefore a regime collapse may see internal fights between people who try and take over and it probably will be a bloody struggle. That requires weapons and hence money. If you happened to be sitting on the nuke technology then there will be 'factions' out there that would happily pay a lot for whoever is holding on to it at the time. In essence a destabilised NK is likely to result in nukes being placed on the open market and the risks that then involves.
Easy E wrote: We should start bombing NK with money bombs. Big bushels of $1 to $100 bills. We could get several allied countries to start dropping their own currency as well. That would destablize the regime faster than anything else.
Of course, this plan is incredibly foolish and stupid.
GreyTemplar wrote: And it wouldn't do anything. Dropping foreign currency into a closed country where it's worthless(except as toilet paper) isn't going to do anything to destabilize their regime.
Frazzled wrote: Russia has refused to stop oil shipments to NK. On top of china refusing to embargo NK. So much for that allies nonsense.
China is not going to completely embargo NK, they arent going to let the NK regime collapse as long as US forces are present on the Korean peninsula, especially with the prospect of a large scale humanitarian disaster and hundreds of thousands or a couple million North Koreans attempting to flee to China if the regime does collapse. Anyone expecting otherwise is being naieve.
However, China has also backed sanctions in the past and has executed probably some of the most painful sanctions on NK of late, including turning back most coal imports that are NK's biggest source of foreign currency.
Russia is mostly just trolling at this point.
To be fair I don't think the western world should hope that NK collpases either. Suppose that did happen. If anything recent is to go by the ability of large nations to stop countries going into free fall after a regime collapse is wishful thinking. Therefore a regime collapse may see internal fights between people who try and take over and it probably will be a bloody struggle. That requires weapons and hence money. If you happened to be sitting on the nuke technology then there will be 'factions' out there that would happily pay a lot for whoever is holding on to it at the time. In essence a destabilised NK is likely to result in nukes being placed on the open market and the risks that then involves.
Which the US will buy up at insane prices, and therefore fund that faction onto victory!
Fraz, I hate to point this out to you but you've been chasing your tail in this thread.
There's no leaving Korea. There's no Ignoring Korea. There are no easy, simple answers in Korea, but there may just be a war there yet again.
I'd like to get into a debate with Iron Captain about Tibet, but that's an argument for another thread, and I think it's tangentially related to his justifications over Crimea, but that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: He's not going to stay in power long if he keeps blasting missiles over Japan.
And he's going to lose power and end up dead if he rolls over and meekly accepts a nuclear disarmament deal. So Kim plays this constant game of brinkmanship. And what you keep on ignoring is that brinkmanship can quickly go to a place no-one intended in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: If China truly put their foot down and locked down the border with North Korea, the regime would fold fairly fast due to internal problems.
China has turned the tap off on the oil pipeline off before, you know. NK didn't fold. The military has large stockpiles of gas, and between social pressure, government rationing and just letting people go without and freeze through winter, NK absorbed the loss. When negotiations were reached, no-one felt the loss of oil weakened NK's position at all.
The NK economy is fragile. But this idea that China or the US could just choose to collapse the country economically tomorrow is nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Sure. They'll say that is what is happening. But their people aren't going to listen to them when they're starving. And we're not talking everybody in the country isn't getting enough food. We're talking nobody in the country will have any food at all except in whatever bunker Kim hides in.
Right now NK exports food. A couple of times in the past when they had massive crop failures they needed food imports, but most years they export a lot of fish and other foodstuffs, and the only food imported is grain. They're not going to starve if China and the US stops trade, unless that also coincides with another crop failure.
Even then, the last time the crops failed and negotiations over the provision of food dragged out, people were starving and the regime still didn't collapse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: And this is called trying to have it both ways.
Great pick up. Nicely done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?
Nope. So we can do the same thing here.
The US avoided war only by making sure the action they took against Cuba was explicitly not a blockade, because a blockade is an act of war. So instead the US put in place a quarantine that still allowed ships in to Cuba, as long as the US was first able to inspect them and seize any offensive weaponry.
The US already has a quarantine in place with Cuba, claiming the right to stop any nuclear materials entering the country. Shifting to a blockade, stopping any goods, would be an act of war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I wouldn't want a repeat of the CMC. JFK was a considerably more level-headed person than Trump; imagine the reaction if one of our ships was rammed by a Chinese warship!
And remember, however level headed JFK may or may not have been, he never backed down and didn't stop the event. Kruschev was the guy who backed down, stopped the brinkmanship and avoided nuclear war. And it cost him his the premiershipwithin a year.
And if Kim backs down, he doesn't just lose his job, he gets killed, and probably most of his family as well. So its unlikely that he will back down.
How the rest of us deal with that is a question that no-one has anything approaching a decent answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: That said, with a long land border with China, unless China was on board, a naval blockade wouldnt do much. However, currently China is the primary enforcer of most NK sanctions, they wont let NK fall as long as US forces remain, but they are willing to play ball in some situations.
Mostly China is uninterested ramping up escalation with no endgame in sight. Which is a pretty reasonable position to hold, to be honest.
In the past, when the US has brought forward a deal that reasonably balances the concerns of all sides, then China has been willing to cut off supplies to force North Korea to the table. The same is almost certainly true now. Only issue is the US is floundering on the issue, and not only aren't close to any kind of deal, they don't seem sure how to actually even start on that process. This is in part due to the failings of, you know, the thing we can't mention on dakka, but also because this is a nightmare of a problem with no clear way forward.
Just Tony wrote: So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?
I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea. China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...
China doesn't have any need for territorial expansion?
No disrespect Iron captain, but have you ever heard of Tibet?
Annexed by the Qing, far removed from the Maoists that currently rule China. It has been a Chinese territory ever since, apart from a short interlude in the early 20th century when the Qing collapsed and China entered a period of anarchy and war that lasted until the Maoists defeated all rival factions and established control over most of the Qing dynasty's former territory including Tibet, giving rise to the modern-day Chinese state.
Saying China might invade Korea because they once invaded Tibet is like saying England might try to invade and annex France because some English king once upon a time annexed Scotland. Just because a previous government centuries ago engaged in territorial expansion does not mean the current, modern-day government wants more territorial expansion. Every modern country has engaged in conquest and annexation in the past. By your logic, because of those past territorial expansions, now all countries in the world would want to invade Korea?
Wait, are you defending the invasion and annexation of Tibet?
No, I am simply stating the factual situation. Tibet was part of China, rebelled against Chinese authority and China put the rebellion down when it finally could spare the manpower. Personally, I would like to see a free Tibet if that is what the people of Tibet want, as I believe that when a people want to be independent or join a different state, and these people are a large majority in a certain area, then that area should be allowed to secede if they do things in a peaceful manner. Should you want to discuss this matter further, please PM me, I don't think the mods will like this thread being derailed.
BaronIveagh wrote: Fraz, I hate to point this out to you but you've been chasing your tail in this thread.
There's no leaving Korea. There's no Ignoring Korea. There are no easy, simple answers in Korea, but there may just be a war there yet again.
I'd like to get into a debate with Iron Captain about Tibet, but that's an argument for another thread, and I think it's tangentially related to his justifications over Crimea, but that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish.
Related to Crimea? To be honest, I wasn't thinking about Crimea at all when I wrote that. I only tried to present the factual situation regarding Tibet. Anyways, if you want to continue the conversation, feel free to PM me. Or maybe we could start a Tibet thread if there is enough interest.
As to North Korea, I agree there are no easy answers. I think it is important that we do not corner them (people get very dangerous when cornered) and keep open dialogue. Reducing tensions and avoiding war of any kind should be the main priority I feel.
Hopefully you realize this would result in massive sanctions against USA from other countries. Invading foreign country or robbing their vessels messing with their sovereignity would be pretty damn sure way to get sanctions against US. US is all about sanctions over Russia over the east europe situation and here US would be doing worse even more blatantly.
No it wouldn't. First off because we are actually at War with them and have been since 1950. So it's perfectly legal in every sense.
And no, this would not be worse than the Ukraine situation. Russia destabilizing and invading Ukraine is far worse than the US dealing with a country we've been at war with for 67 years.
No you aren't and you would be invading foreign country vessels and stealing them(china etc who). Hardly legal. And would result in war with china.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Fraz, I hate to point this out to you but you've been chasing your tail in this thread.
There's no leaving Korea. There's no Ignoring Korea. There are no easy, simple answers in Korea, but there may just be a war there yet again.
I'd like to get into a debate with Iron Captain about Tibet, but that's an argument for another thread, and I think it's tangentially related to his justifications over Crimea, but that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish.
Nah unless Trump goes nuts(well okay that's likely) and Us's checks against idiots like him fail there won't be war. Odds are bigger Kim is flattened by a meteorite.
Whole thing is US wanting to be world leader. US doesn't approve you, you go.
So good old piracy and robbing of foreign soveregn country vessels. Why am I not surprised.
Hopefully you realize this would result in massive sanctions against USA from other countries. Invading foreign country or robbing their vessels messing with their sovereignity would be pretty damn sure way to get sanctions against US. US is all about sanctions over Russia over the east europe situation and here US would be doing worse even more blatantly.
Piracy by it's definition must be carried out by a non-state actor. And no one is going to sanction the USA at this point in history for basically anything because we are still the beating heart of the world economy.
What exactly do you think the world at large would do if we walked nukes down the entire northern half of the Korean peninsula? Would China cripple their own economy to spite us? Or would Europe stop shipping us automobile parts, liquor and furniture? I think we'd survive.
Piracy by it's definition must be carried out by a non-state actor.
Tell that to William Kidd. or Sir Francis Drake. or the Dey of Algiers. or any number of Somali warlords who's armies are financed by piracy and have pretensions of rule.
Hell, if you want to get American, I might draw your eye toward the infamous CSS Alabama.
The only definition of pirate that holds any water is the first one. Hostis humani generis. 'Enemy of Mankind'
Piracy by it's definition must be carried out by a non-state actor.
Tell that to William Kidd. or Sir Francis Drake. or the Dey of Algiers. or any number of Somali warlords who's armies are financed by piracy and have pretensions of rule.
Hell, if you want to get American, I might draw your eye toward the infamous CSS Alabama.
The only definition of pirate that holds any water is the first one. Hostis humani generis. 'Enemy of Mankind'
Privateers are not pirates. That's why there is a different word for it.
Also, some of the folks you brought up are just straight up non- state actors... so I would 'tell that to them'.
Witzkatz wrote: I'm not sure if calling people "brainwashed cattle" is a good thing to do, regardless of the situation.
Furthermore, there is a thriving black market, there are the SK propaganda speakers blaring at least something not controlled by NK's party line into the country and there are a few people crossing every now and then. And we all know gossip and rumours spread.
I think the risk of a C&C RA2 Yuri Style mob of desperate people brainwashed enough to go completely against self-preservation is not that likely.
It isnt a good thing to do. Drastic situations require drastic words. This is not about the US wanting to get rid of another Country they are not okay with. This is about ending one of the worst crimes one can do to People. I feel for the North koreans. The Kim Regime is still a thing not because he's a wise leader doing good for his People but because they are preventing the People from learning about the world outside of NK. This one of the worst crimes I can think of. What would you do If you found out everything you ever learned about the world was a lie? I think the People would either refuse to believe it or be completely destroyed by the truth.
Of course theres a black market and of course there are some individuals who manage to flee the country but that does still leave about 25 Million People trusting in their god-emperor. What is going on there is evil and it needs to end sooner than later because the way the Regime set it up it could go on like this for a very Long time because the citizens of NK have no way of knowing it better!
I dont know. Maybe carpet bomb the Country with Pictures of the world and some sort of "we are not your enemies" illustrations? Many of the People of nk cant even read. It'd be very difficult to educate them.
Bromsy wrote: Piracy by it's definition must be carried out by a non-state actor.
See this is where dakka just really pisses me off. tneva82's claim that it'd be piracy is completely wrong, but then you are also wrong when you claim it doesn't fit the definition of piracy. There's nothing in the definition of piracy that limits it to non-state actors. Maybe you got confused by the presence of privateers and thought that all state and semii-state actors were privateers and therefore couldn't be pirates? Even if that were true, 'oh they're not pirates, they're privateers' would be an absurd position to argue.
I mean, why even go there? It's so easy to just point out that piracy has a primary motive of profit, from capturing boats and cargo. So it involves actively taking to the water and hunting down boats to capture. In contract a blockade is about preventing the movement of goods in to another country, it is not motivated by the desire to capture goods and boats, and so it is not piracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morkphoiz wrote: It isnt a good thing to do. Drastic situations require drastic words. This is not about the US wanting to get rid of another Country they are not okay with. This is about ending one of the worst crimes one can do to People. I feel for the North koreans. The Kim Regime is still a thing not because he's a wise leader doing good for his People but because they are preventing the People from learning about the world outside of NK. This one of the worst crimes I can think of. What would you do If you found out everything you ever learned about the world was a lie? I think the People would either refuse to believe it or be completely destroyed by the truth.
Dude, it was just explained to you that they're not hopelessly brainwashed people who believe absolutely in dear leader. This is a story repeated by NK refugees, by SK aid workers who've worked there, and by Chinese traders (official and non-official).
Probably the biggest misconception about NK other than Kim being totally crazy is that the country is completely isolated. The border with China is nothing like the border with SK, with China there is a constant flow of goods, people and information. Alongside the official trade there is a vast blackmarket. And in the last couple of decades what's been trafficked has really changed, bootleg SK media is still there, but now there's a huge market in cell phones that let NKs talk to their SK family. And the NK government is slowly giving up this battle on information control, years ago a mobile phone or USB might have netted 3 years in a detention camp, now it's likely to receive a threat of punishment that is never followed up on, simply because authorities are realising they can't imprison the huge share of the population with these kinds of devices.
See this is where dakka just really pisses me off. tneva82's claim that it'd be piracy is completely wrong, but then you are also wrong when you claim it doesn't fit the definition of piracy. There's nothing in the definition of piracy that limits it to non-state actors. Maybe you got confused by the presence of privateers and thought that all state and semii-state actors were privateers and therefore couldn't be pirates? Even if that were true, 'oh they're not pirates, they're privateers' would be an absurd position to argue.
Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.
"Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
"Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft (or) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state;
"Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
"Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described (above)"
Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.
Piracy by it's definition must be carried out by a non-state actor.
Tell that to William Kidd. or Sir Francis Drake. or the Dey of Algiers. or any number of Somali warlords who's armies are financed by piracy and have pretensions of rule.
Hell, if you want to get American, I might draw your eye toward the infamous CSS Alabama.
The only definition of pirate that holds any water is the first one. Hostis humani generis. 'Enemy of Mankind'
Privateers are not pirates. That's why there is a different word for it.
Also, some of the folks you brought up are just straight up non- state actors... so I would 'tell that to them'.
Whether someone is a privateer or a pirate very much depends on which side you are on. Just ask the many privateers hung for piracy by other states. Its like with terrorists and freedom fighters.
What exactly do you think the world at large would do if we walked nukes down the entire northern half of the Korean peninsula? Would China cripple their own economy to spite us? Or would Europe stop shipping us automobile parts, liquor and furniture? I think we'd survive.
Also, if you launch nukes in the general direction of China and Russia (both of which border North Korea), then they'll do a lot more than cripple the economy. Likely, they will walk nukes down the entire US from coast to coast. I don't think you (or me, or many people in general) would survive that.
Morkphoiz wrote: The brainwashed cattle will never be able to open their minds for the rest of the world. They will fight and die for nothing and the survivors will have no place in this world. I hope i'm wrong tho.
Yeah, just like we exterminated all the Germans and Japanese after the war because they clearly had no hope of turning in to productive nations in the global community after being brainwashed by their leaders.
But seriously WTF, it scares me that anyone would say what you just said. I doubt you even know what the NK people think about or care about on an individual level.
Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.
And have lots of loopholes for a government to pretend there is no problem, such as the issue of Chinese naval vessels committing acts of piracy off Australia without going though the trouble of mutiny.
Privateers are not pirates. That's why there is a different word for it.
Also, some of the folks you brought up are just straight up non- state actors... so I would 'tell that to them'.
Kidd was hung out to dry for piracy, despite working on behalf of representatives of the Crown. The Dey of Algiers did not issue letters of Marque. Drake was pretty questionable and had to be pardoned. And as for the Somalis, just ask them if they're the government.
Bromsy wrote: Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.
Fair enough, point taken.
It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.
Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.
It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.
This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.
Bromsy wrote: Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.
Fair enough, point taken.
It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.
Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.
It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.
This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.
Shiver me timbers! This 'ere be a good excuse next time I be seizin' a ship! "Arr me hearties, we not be robbin' ye, we be simply blockadin' this 'ere old port!"
I agree that piracy and a blockade are different things though, and afaik in international law blockades are a legal method of warfare as long as things like food and medicine are still allowed through.
Bromsy wrote: Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.
Fair enough, point taken.
It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.
Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.
It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.
This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.
Shiver me timbers! This 'ere be a good excuse next time I be seizin' a ship! "Arr me hearties, we not be robbin' ye, we be simply blockadin' this 'ere old port!"
I agree that piracy and a blockade are different things though, and afaik in international law blockades are a legal method of warfare as long as things like food and medicine are still allowed through.
Pretty sure a blockade doesn't have to allow anything through. Thats the point of a blockade.
You can have a limited blockade where you only disallow certain things, or you can have a total blockade.
The only possible international rules on blockades I could find is the San Remo Manuel(which is not ratified by the way, so there is no need to even follow this). And even it only says you can't Blockade an area if it's sole purpose is to starve people out. You can however starve them out if there is enough military presence in the area to justify a total blockade.
North Korea would certainly qualify as they have the largest army in the world. Roughly 30% of their total population is either active or part of their reserves.
Bromsy wrote: Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.
Fair enough, point taken.
It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.
Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.
It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.
This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.
Shiver me timbers! This 'ere be a good excuse next time I be seizin' a ship! "Arr me hearties, we not be robbin' ye, we be simply blockadin' this 'ere old port!"
I agree that piracy and a blockade are different things though, and afaik in international law blockades are a legal method of warfare as long as things like food and medicine are still allowed through.
Pretty sure a blockade doesn't have to allow anything through. Thats the point of a blockade.
You can have a limited blockade where you only disallow certain things, or you can have a total blockade.
You can, but it would make you a war criminal. Blockading food and medicine is prohibited by the laws of war. The concept of 'total war', in which the combatants make no distinction between military and civilians (such as happened in WW2) is forbidden. So basically any military action that deliberately harms civilians (such as trying to starve them to death by blocking their food supply) is outlawed.
feeder wrote: The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?
Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...
The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.
Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.
feeder wrote: The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?
Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...
The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.
This is where it gets odd...there is no declared state of war between NK and the US. The US is there under the auspices of the UN to protect SK, not in a formal state of war.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This means that the UN would have to do the blockade, I think, which also means getting that through the voting and Security Council.
I believe it's already allowed under the UN's SK/NK resolutions... as a blockade was implemented at the start of that war.
If the UN didn't want that... they can certainly pass another resolution to update that.
feeder wrote: The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?
Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...
The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.
Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.
I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.
The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This means that the UN would have to do the blockade, I think, which also means getting that through the voting and Security Council.
I believe it's already allowed under the UN's SK/NK resolutions... as a blockade was implemented at the start of that war.
If the UN didn't want that... they can certainly pass another resolution to update that.
feeder wrote: The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?
Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...
The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.
Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.
I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.
The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.
A modern blockade could be maintained further back if you can get a accurate track and intercept further out.
No need to enter arty range.
No modern ship is built to take arty fire.
Have to be on a Iowa to find a ship designed to take that kind of punishment and shrug casually at it.
No amount of external pain is going to stop NK's nuclear program. As Putin said, theyll starve before they give it up.
The Kim regime sees it as an ironclad guanatee of safety (Im sure they recall Hussein and Gaddaffi), it gives them meaningful retaliatory capability beyond just levelling Seoul, as well as a major bargaining chip depending on how it is used, and offers a nationalistic icon to rally the patriotic masses behind.
There are no sanctions or actions that are going to get NK to give that capability up voluntarily, at least none that other parties (US, China, Russia, SK) wont sink for their own reasons (e.g. the US is not going to withdraw from SK with the current regime in place even if it gave up its nuclear arms).
Is there an option to remove that capability? Many. The trick has always been, how do we do that without the 5 digits worth of big guns within range of Seoul and its suburbs providing a counter-retort, and now, what happens to such nuclear weapons of the Kim regime is brought down or severely disrupted?
That's ultimately what it comes down to, and is why the situation has been allowed to develop as it has. There just isnt a terribly great and clear cut answer :(
Vaktathi wrote: No amount of external pain is going to stop NK's nuclear program. As Putin said, theyll starve before they give it up.
The Kim regime sees it as an ironclad guanatee of safety (Im sure they recall Hussein and Gaddaffi), it gives them meaningful retaliatory capability beyond just levelling Seoul, as well as a major bargaining chip depending on how it is used, and offers a nationalistic icon to rally the patriotic masses behind.
There are no sanctions or actions that are going to get NK to give that capability up voluntarily, at least none that other parties (US, China, Russia, SK) wont sink for their own reasons (e.g. the US is not going to withdraw from SK with the current regime in place even if it gave up its nuclear arms).
Is there an option to remove that capability? Many. The trick has always been, how do we do that without the 5 digits worth of big guns within range of Seoul and its suburbs providing a counter-retort, and now, what happens to such nuclear weapons of the Kim regime is brought down or severely disrupted?
That's ultimately what it comes down to, and is why the situation has been allowed to develop as it has. There just isnt a terribly great and clear cut answer :(
They will starve.,run out of power and have half the country dead of famine before they give anything up.
The die hards, are exactly that and will sacrifice however many millions to keep this nuclear program funded.
Though i also forsee another issue, if kim does get nukes and does have delivery.
if they keep up the threats, with VERY real ability to kill many many thousands of people in countries across the globe. his threats might have far more serious conquenses when someone is going up defcon levels and preparing potential counter strike protocols and targeting data.
I think Japan needs THADD batteries installing and not just south Korea.
This has to stop. Japan's citizens should demand their government take firm and required actions to do there duty and protect there people.
Tolerate. No.
If I had safe room to do so, the weapons capable and the systems to track the estimated trajectory post intercept I'd blast it out of the sky to prove a point.
Though a thought. The amount of intelligence gained on there capacity and ranges, angles, speeds etc must be pretty extensive. Launch sites. Maybe rough set up times.
Kim is giving away alot of info if you can gather it.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.
The issue isn't NK response. For starters the blockade won't be run within 20-30 kms of the coast, so coastal artillery is not a factor. And NK doesn't have the massive stockpile of anti-ship missiles it would take to do serious damage to a meaningful number of US ships.
But there are three big reasons a blockade won't happen;
1) A complete blockade, that prevents any supplies, except perhaps food and medicine, would be putting NK in to a corner where they will be pressured in to firing the nukes and unloading all the conventional arty on Seoul.
2) A blockade limited to inspecting for military supplies, ie a quarantine, would be insanely expensive but put no pressure on NK to come to the table. It's an open ended commitment to tying up a huge number of warships possibly forever.
3) If China and Russia aren't on board with the blockade, then it's meaningless thanks to the land borders shared with those two countries. If China and Russia are on board then all major countries can just agree to stop their boats traveling to NK, without a military presence being needed.
whembly wrote: I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.
The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.
Of course then you also need to blockade China who wouldn't be blockading NK so anybody could get food etc to NK via China anyway. You want to start war with China?
And alternative ugly? Alternative happens to be status quo as usual. They keep saying harsh words, west says harsh words, nobody shoots a gun at the other. Whopedoo. It's starting war with China by trying to forcibly prevent them from providing NK(which would require sending armed troops INTO either NK or China) that would be ugly.
...or, you simply *deal* with the fact that NK becomes a fully armed and operationally-toting nuke nation.
There are no good options... but, you'd think it'd behooves the rest of the world to try convince NK to stop being a bitch.
We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.
tneva82 wrote: We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.
Your assumption that China is so protective of NK that they'll go to war with the US and risk global annihilation is more than a stretch. China's days of seeing NK as a nation to protect as one of their only friends is literally generations out of date. The situation now is China now has a large international footprint and a lot of countries who want to be in China's good graces. NK is a historical legacy, an issue they want solved, but not in a way that puts a triggers a refugee flood in to China.
This is why China pass the latest UN sanctions, though only after reducing their severity. They want NK to move back from the brink, but they don't want to create a refugee crisis that they will have to clean up.
So obviously a shooting match would piss China off, but the US isn't starting shooting match out of nowhere, despite what some people on dakka seem to want.
tneva82 wrote: We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.
Your assumption that China is so protective of NK that they'll go to war with the US and risk global annihilation is more than a stretch. China's days of seeing NK as a nation to protect as one of their only friends is literally generations out of date. The situation now is China now has a large international footprint and a lot of countries who want to be in China's good graces. NK is a historical legacy, an issue they want solved, but not in a way that puts a triggers a refugee flood in to China.
This is why China pass the latest UN sanctions, though only after reducing their severity. They want NK to move back from the brink, but they don't want to create a refugee crisis that they will have to clean up.
So obviously a shooting match would piss China off, but the US isn't starting shooting match out of nowhere, despite what some people on dakka seem to want.
If US sends in armed troops into China to enforce blockade you really think China will just pat their head for what amounts to act of war?
How you think US would react if China sent their troops into US? Not well I suspect...
And China has already said they will defend NK if US strikes first. They aren't abandoning NK so attempt to starve country to death by blockade won't be met with China's approval there.
Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over yourcountry?
Does it really matter? Over is not the same as into, the missile passed 500 miles above Japan (well into space), on a trajectory that couldn't possibly hit Japan. It's a symbolic statement to provoke everyone again, but in practical terms it was not even close to being a threat.
tneva82 wrote: We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.
Your assumption that China is so protective of NK that they'll go to war with the US and risk global annihilation is more than a stretch. China's days of seeing NK as a nation to protect as one of their only friends is literally generations out of date. The situation now is China now has a large international footprint and a lot of countries who want to be in China's good graces. NK is a historical legacy, an issue they want solved, but not in a way that puts a triggers a refugee flood in to China.
This is why China pass the latest UN sanctions, though only after reducing their severity. They want NK to move back from the brink, but they don't want to create a refugee crisis that they will have to clean up.
So obviously a shooting match would piss China off, but the US isn't starting shooting match out of nowhere, despite what some people on dakka seem to want.
China has gone to war with the US over North Korea before. China has gotten a lot stronger since that time and it hasn't really become more fond of the US. Why do you assume they would not go to war over NK again? NK might have become a liability to China, having a US ally and US troops on your doorstep is even more of a liability. Just ask Russia how much fun it is to be surrounded by the US. China has in the past been willing to go to great lengths to prevent such a scenario, and I do not think that willingness has decreased at all. It seems you assume that the Chinese will only care about their economy, but from the Chinese I have met I think they value their national pride and status as a great military power a lot more than their economy. They are not a country that suffers provocations lightly.
Also, it would not be smart to build an entire strategy towards NK based on an assumption of what China might or might not do. If the US takes an aggressive stance and China does decide to protect NK, the US will be in big trouble. China always remains a somewhat unpredictable factor. Any strategy would have to be made in cooperation with China. Without China's cooperation, a solution to the NK problem simply is not possible.
Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over yourcountry?
Does it really matter? Over is not the same as into, the missile passed 500 miles above Japan (well into space), on a trajectory that couldn't possibly hit Japan. It's a symbolic statement to provoke everyone again, but in practical terms it was not even close to being a threat.
North Korean missiles aren't exactly what you'd call reliable. If the engines cut out half way or it veers off the intended trajectory, and hits a tower block or something even more interesting (say, the Imperial Palace), NK will suddenly have some very fast talking to do. You have to remember; these long range missile launches are experimental ones, they're gathering data as they go. That means that there's an inherent risk in firing them over a populated area. The sensible thing to do would be to fire them over other empty sea, but the NK leadership has clearly decided that the potential risk is worth it in order to make the political statement you allude to.
It's worth noting too that the North Koreans have made a point to make TELARs for all of their missiles, including the Hwasong-2. So wherever it is launched from in any given test is where it probably wouldn't be launched from in an actual war.
Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over yourcountry?
Does it really matter? Over is not the same as into, the missile passed 500 miles above Japan (well into space), on a trajectory that couldn't possibly hit Japan. It's a symbolic statement to provoke everyone again, but in practical terms it was not even close to being a threat.
North Korean missiles aren't exactly what you'd call reliable. If the engines cut out half way or it veers off the intended trajectory, and hits a tower block or something even more interesting (say, the Imperial Palace), NK will suddenly have some very fast talking to do. You have to remember; these long range missile launches are experimental ones, they're gathering data as they go. That means that there's an inherent risk in firing them over a populated area. The sensible thing to do would be to fire them over other empty sea, but the NK leadership has clearly decided that the potential risk is worth it in order to make the political statement you allude to.
Well that's just it, isn't it. Their repeated open hostility to Japan coupled with their mind-numbingly irresponsible testing of ICBM's over that country makes a syntax debate irrelevant. Over/Into...really? This stupidity on the part of NK is on a wholly unique level. The question is, what is the response should one of these not-so-state-of-the-art ICBMs sputters out, or goes off course and lands on a friendly nation/asset? God forbid if said malfunction causes friendly casualties.
The chances of one of these rockets failing and causing meaningful damage or actual casualties in Japan is...likely to be lottery odds low. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.
Not to excuse the socio-political tensions such tests obviously stir up, but the chances of one of these test rockets actually being a threat in and of themselves is pretty low.
But yeah, NK is poking the lion pretty hard here, taking full advantage of the fact they have Seoul by the cajones, testing the extreme limits of their boundaries.
whembly wrote: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2017/09/15/0200000000AEN20170915005653315.html
President Moon Jae-in condemned North Korea:
“In case North Korea undertakes provocations against us or our ally, we have the power to destroy (the North) beyond recovery"
It's possible Moon made the earlier statement and ordered the ballistic missile test in a fit of anger. Poor choices, since neither do anything to help the situation. They demonstrate resolve, but a resolve to what?
I guess we'll see if Moon's determined to keep playing his one man good cop/bad cop routine. He best tread carefully since the Korean municipal and gubernatorial elections are rapidly approaching next summer and it's likely he won't have time to deliver on his original campaign platform.
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that an act of war against Japan? Don't we have treaties that require us to come to their aid if they go all "fire the reflex cannon!!!" on NK??
Basically Congress didnt want to bear that burden and responsibility (or blame) anymore and gave the President all those abilities for practical purposes, retaining control only through spending controls, which have become impossible to pull (or at least pull hard enough for Congress to abort ot majorly change a conflict) once the President committed the nation to a conflict.
Dan Carlin did a great podcast on that and how the existence of nuclear weapons fundamentally and by stealth basically rewrote the US Constitution and functionality of the US government by vesting the President with the power of their use and the timescales required for MAD deterrence and whatnot.
Dan Carlin did a great podcast on that and how the existence of nuclear weapons fundamentally and by stealth basically rewrote the US Constitution and functionality of the US government by vesting the President with the power of their use and the timescales required for MAD deterrence and whatnot.
To be fair, nuclear weapons do make having to go through congress to use them in self-defense impossible. You can't call an emergency session to get authorization to use them if enemies have already launched them. You'd all be dead before you even finished the phone call.
Right, which is why it developed the way it did, but it has changed the way the US govt operates, where the balance of power is, definitely how the US has gotten into every conflict post WW2 (especially including those without any Nuclear capable adversary), and why the US hasnt declared a formal war in over 70 years despite being involved in many conflicts.
We are all at something of a stand-still, sort of like a pair of pawns facing each other with other pieces on their sides; whichever side strikes first puts itself at a decided disadvantage.
See, if we strike NK first, you really think China and Russia won't jump in? We would jump in if anyone else struck Mexico or Canada first. However, China doesn't want NK to actually strike first, since then world opinion can't feasibly tell the US not to use all of their toys.
As someone who was in the Army for 7 years, I don't want the US to strike first. What? Well, yea that fat turd needs to be thrown in a wood chipper but, if we strike first, it'll cause the US to have to tango with the whole world, which -will- cause a nuclear armageddon. The US got good toys, real good but, the world has 20,000 usable weapons, only 400 of which are needed to cause the extinction of every living thing on the planet except roaches and deep water weird gak.
Easy E wrote: Clearly, we need a nother vague and poorly worded AUMF on the subject! Perferably one that asks for open ended, forever war on the Korean peninsula.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
More
I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad!
"Rocket Man"
Hey... Photoshop wiz... can you put Kim's pict in this/
tneva82 wrote: If US sends in armed troops into China to enforce blockade you really think China will just pat their head for what amounts to act of war?
Um, lurching from vague plans about a blockade to deciding out of the blue that the blockade would be a US sole effort that involved occupying both Chinese (and presumably Russian) territory is not a sensible or a normal thing. You might as well start asking about what the Chinese will do when the US starts stealing Chinese citizens and eating them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: China has gone to war with the US over North Korea before. China has gotten a lot stronger since that time and it hasn't really become more fond of the US. Why do you assume they would not go to war over NK again?
The natures of China, NK and SK are massively different than they were seven decades ago. The relationships between each of them and their relationships with the US are even more different.
NK might have become a liability to China, having a US ally and US troops on your doorstep is even more of a liability.
Which is why an operation is likely to involve dealmaking between the US and China, where the interests of both parties are assured. For instance, the US might commit to only using airpower to supplement SK ground troops, with China given power and authority to control the subsequent administration and reconstruction of NK.
It seems you assume that the Chinese will only care about their economy, but from the Chinese I have met I think they value their national pride and status as a great military power a lot more than their economy. They are not a country that suffers provocations lightly.
No, I just understand that telephones exist and that world leaders use them. This leads me to conclude the most likely outcome is one where all the essential requirements of the major parties that can be reconciled will be.
Also, it would not be smart to build an entire strategy towards NK based on an assumption of what China might or might not do. If the US takes an aggressive stance and China does decide to protect NK, the US will be in big trouble. China always remains a somewhat unpredictable factor. Any strategy would have to be made in cooperation with China. Without China's cooperation, a solution to the NK problem simply is not possible.
You have lost track of the conversation and gotten yourself confused. tneva82 was talking absolutely, that military action by the US against NK would always produce a Chinese response. I was telling him that was a nonsense statement. China's relationship with NK is actually quite complex, there's historical legacy there, but NK is now a long way from there modern China is, and where China wants to go in the future. There are plenty of circumstances in which China would agree to remain on the sidelines in a US operation, the most obvious being in response to a NK missile attack, but there are others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that an act of war against Japan? Don't we have treaties that require us to come to their aid if they go all "fire the reflex cannon!!!" on NK??
Whether it represents an act of war is, first and foremost, for the Japanese to decide. If they say it is and call for the support of their allies, then the US can decide for itself whether it agrees it was an act of war and what their treaty obligations would be.
Neither the Japanese nor the US seem to be saying it was an act of war, so that's that.
RancidHate wrote: See, if we strike NK first, you really think China and Russia won't jump in? We would jump in if anyone else struck Mexico or Canada first. However, China doesn't want NK to actually strike first, since then world opinion can't feasibly tell the US not to use all of their toys.
Not really seeing China has already noted they will defend NK against US first strike.
In it China stated that they had basically terms to a scenario where they would help defend NK.
That was that the US or allies mounted a preemptive attack on the north and that there was no act of war by the north.
They would not defend NK if they triggered the confrontation with the US and allies and where the original aggressor aka missile strikes on Guam etc.
Lastly, China has not had as good relations with kim 3 as the other two, kim 2 rocked the boat yes, and he did push it at times but never to the same degree and earlier insults kim 3 made to China would of been unthinkable.
Large segments of economic powerhouses within the world political community are anti-American enough that, sadly, it would take NK to kill 1,000 or more Americans on American national soil before the US could stomp NK without China and Russia getting directly involved.
It really does seem unreasonable that 1,000 Americans should've killed by NK before the USA can kill thousands upon thousands of North Koreans, and getting thousands of South Koreans killed as well.
To add what might appear as a flippant answer. I get that we may care more about the lives of Americans than those of other people. But does that mean they are really worth more than those of other people? And even if American lives are worth more to ourselves than those of others, why should any other country care more about American lives than North Korean lives?
In reality, a life is a life. The life of an American doesn't inherently have any more value than the life of a North Korea. U US service person doesn't inherently have any more value than the life of a German service person, or a Turkish service person, or a North Korean service person. A North Korean child doesn't have any more value than an American child. A life is a life, there really is no international exchange to determine how many lives of country X are equal to one life of country Y.
And honestly, even if North Korea kills some Americans, will it even be worth it to respond to that?
3,000 people were killed on 9/11. We have send 60,000 US service members to their deaths to avenge them. Many US soldiers continue to die every day because of injuries and disabilities they sustained during that conflict. 22 veterans kill themselves every day, many of them veterans of OIF/OEF/OND.
We decided that the life of a single US civilian is worth, at a minimum, the lives of 20 US servicemen and 330 Iraqi/Afghani citizens. We are killing more Americans in retaliation than people kill in direct attack.
We could probably save a lot more lives by ignoring North Korea, pulling our military out of South Korea, and spending the money we spend over there on the veterans of all the other conflicts we participated in.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively we announce we are leaving NK and Japan in 24 months.and are turning over 500 nuke systems to both them and Japan,..
Oh... ... Russia/China would say no.
Now thats proper shaking up the system...message to Trump. "Ok Rocket Man, both Japan and SK have 500 20 meg delivery systems pointed at your face. Hey China, you wanted us out, we're out, but just insuring our allies are properly protected when we leave. Whats thats Vietnam? hey no hard feelings about that beating us thing, here's 200 for you too.Phillipines? Sure why the hell not, here's a few dozen. Now all of yall can sit down and discuss that China Sea / NK tantrum thing."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Japan and South Korea have the same right to be a Nuclear State as North Korea.
d-usa wrote: Are our lives worth more than others?
3,000 people were killed on 9/11. We have send 60,000 US service members to their deaths to avenge them. Many US soldiers continue to die every day because of injuries and disabilities they sustained during that conflict. 22 veterans kill themselves every day, many of them veterans of OIF/OEF/OND.
Where are you getting 60,000 from?
10,000 Americans have died and that includes the 3,000 civilians on 9/11.
`60,000 was "casualties", which includes killed and wounded.
So turns out "only" twice as many Americans died to avenge the death of those killed. Not counting all those that died from injuries later and from suicide down the line.
d-usa wrote: Sorry, I looked at the wrong column on the chart.
`60,000 was "casualties", which includes killed and wounded.
So turns out "only" twice as many Americans died to avenge the death of those killed. Not counting all those that died from injuries later and from suicide down the line.
I'm pretty sure they include deaths from combat related injuries. Outside of those that occur years and years down the road. You can't really include the suicides because you don't know how many would have occurred regardless. The male civilian population commits suicide at a rate of 20/100,000 vs 32/100,000 for veterans.
RancidHate wrote: Large segments of economic powerhouses within the world political community are anti-American enough that, sadly, it would take NK to kill 1,000 or more Americans on American national soil before the US could stomp NK without China and Russia getting directly involved.
Well that's a pretty perfect example of the nationalistic self-martyrdom fantasy.
Yes, the problem with throwing more nukes into Asia is that China might not like the plan. That's the only problem with that otherwise insightful and extensively considered plan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Japan and South Korea have the same right to be a Nuclear State as North Korea.
While countries have rights to choose their own military capability, we also agree its in everyone's best interest if as few nations as possible choose to have nuclear capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
trexmeyer wrote: I'm pretty sure they include deaths from combat related injuries. Outside of those that occur years and years down the road. You can't really include the suicides because you don't know how many would have occurred regardless. The male civilian population commits suicide at a rate of 20/100,000 vs 32/100,000 for veterans.
A lot of early deaths aren't recorded. For instance a person might be saved on the operating table, but the stress of the injury greatly reduced life expectancy. You can't point to any man who died of a heart attack 20 years after his service and say it was because of the injury he took in the field, but we can look at whole populations of injured soldiers and note that things like heart attacks a decade or two later are a lot more common.
There's also a problem with only looking at deaths to measure the impact of a war. A major reason that casualties have declined in recent wars is our advances in medical tech and improvements in rapid response. But while this saves lives, it doesn't always get people back to where they were before their injury. Don't get me wrong, it's great that we save these people's lives, and even with a serious injury they still can and do live fulfilling lives, but it doesn't mean that soldier didn't pay a heavy price for being sent to war, and we shouldn't ignore those sacrifices when counting the cost of the war.
RancidHate wrote: Large segments of economic powerhouses within the world political community are anti-American enough that, sadly, it would take NK to kill 1,000 or more Americans on American national soil before the US could stomp NK without China and Russia getting directly involved.
Well that's a pretty perfect example of the nationalistic self-martyrdom fantasy.
This is no fantasy, all outcomes are nightmarish. I would not wish that even 1 American, Japanese, South Korean or any civilian die as some justification for us to pre-emptively attack North Korea... an attack that would almost immediately cost many thousands of Korean and Japanese lives in retaliation.
The ideal circumstance would be for America and China to make a deal where America takes out the cadre of North Korean leaders, China can keep the land of North Korea, and put in whatever shills they want. Unfortunately, parties in botb China and America would never agree to such a deal. So, here we are, stuck with someone constantly threatening nuclear attack and hoping he never actually follows through. We don't want more war, we already don't pay for the hurt veterans we have...
Well, Trump laid the NK cards on the table today at his UN debut.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said on Tuesday. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
So I guess this topic is settled. I may get slammed for saying this, but honestly, it feels a bit refreshing to have finally pushed in and just called this melon-fether on this nonsense. Unnerving but admittedly, in an odd way, refreshing.
Dont see where thats any different from earlier statements from this administration. That said, it also feeds perfectly into NK's own narrative that they feed to their population to maintain power and push their nuclear program even further.
d-usa wrote: It really does seem unreasonable that 1,000 Americans should've killed by NK before the USA can kill thousands upon thousands of North Koreans, and getting thousands of South Koreans killed as well.
Strike on US would not be alone.
It's probbly safe to say he would take advantage of surprise to hit gaum. Japan, Sk. And others all at same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: Well, Trump laid the NK cards on the table today at his UN debut.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said on Tuesday. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
So I guess this topic is settled. I may get slammed for saying this, but honestly, it feels a bit refreshing to have finally pushed in and just called this melon-fether on this nonsense. Unnerving but admittedly, in an odd way, refreshing.
Least he made his lines clear.
NK know exactly where Trumps line is, the concquences and the results.
BigWaaagh wrote: Well, Trump laid the NK cards on the table today at his UN debut.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said on Tuesday. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
So I guess this topic is settled. I may get slammed for saying this, but honestly, it feels a bit refreshing to have finally pushed in and just called this melon-fether on this nonsense. Unnerving but admittedly, in an odd way, refreshing.
works for me. It's literally just restarting existing policy.
The fething USN 7th Fleet can't even keep awake at the wheel and they just started cleaning house at the top. And you want to bluff with an inside straight, that the North Koreans know you're holding?
Of course Americans will eat up that biggest dick military in the world rigmarole. Sigh...
whembly wrote: Ya... not really seeing the differences between what he said than the previous administration*.
*'cept for that "Rocket Man" spiel that you know Trump ad libed during the speech.he needs to quit that. I keep busting out Elton John in my head, and have the need to light a lighter, hold it up, and swig Jim Beam from the bottle.
Of course its a fantasy. You said that it would take 1,000 Americans dying on American soil before the US could stomp NK without Chinese and Russian resistance. This means you think that if NK launched attacks that killed 500 Americans, then the world would resist US retaliation, just because they hate America just so much. It's a silly fantasy.
The ideal circumstance would be for America and China to make a deal where America takes out the cadre of North Korean leaders, China can keep the land of North Korea, and put in whatever shills they want. Unfortunately, parties in botb China and America would never agree to such a deal.
That deal makes zero sense. The idea that you can just take out the leadership of a country in a clean coup is a thing for gakky military novels. Real world power doesn't work like that. There is no clear line where loyal high level power ends and unaligned bureacracy begins. You also need some kind of alternative government ready to go from day one, one that has some kind of legitimacy within the country.
Nor would China want anything to do with that offer. This isn't Risk, where everyone is always looking for a chance to conquer another country. In the real world occupying an impoverished people who've been largely isolated from the rest of the world for a couple of generations causes you nothing but troubles for decades to come. You need to realise China's primary aim with NK at this point is to avoid being left with a huge humanitarian crisis that will cause political and economic chaos for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Dont see where thats any different from earlier statements from this administration. That said, it also feeds perfectly into NK's own narrative that they feed to their population to maintain power and push their nuclear program even further.
The difference is he said it in a formal, diplomatic setting. That makes Trump's blustering bar talk ignorance that much more jarring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Ya... not really seeing the differences between what he said than the previous administration*.
It's diplomacy, how you say something is crucial. There's a massive difference between 'if attacked we will have no choice but to respond' and 'if attacked we will annihilate every one of you'. Previous admins stuck to the former, Trump chose the latter.
Both statements are literal defensive statements, but the latter will cause the recipient to be far more alarmed, far less trusting of a purely defensive posture. So if NK is less trusting that the US will passively accept NK actions, won't that force NK to the table? Except Trump is also banging on constantly about tearing up the Iran deal*, so why would NK think the US will stick to any deal it makes with the US? Remember NK would have to begin dismantling nuke capability before receiving anything, it would be a huge leap of faith on their part. And remember deals have been struck in the past, and while both sides broke the deal NK can reasonably believe that failings started on the US side.
So now NK is given a president who is adding a lot more aggression to his statements on NK, and who is openly talking about walking away from the other nuclear deal. So its pretty clear where NK is being pushed.
*Which doesn't even make sense. It isn't a US-Iran deal, its a P5+1 deal with Iran.
BigWaaagh wrote: Well, Trump laid the NK cards on the table today at his UN debut.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” Trump said on Tuesday. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
So I guess this topic is settled. I may get slammed for saying this, but honestly, it feels a bit refreshing to have finally pushed in and just called this melon-fether on this nonsense. Unnerving but admittedly, in an odd way, refreshing.
That just shows how Trump is the most likely candinate to actually start a war there. US has track record of invading countries so frankly for NK removing nuclear weapons would actually be invitation for US to invade at their earliest preference.
Not that's surprising. Trump has always been warhawk from the day 1 he started aiming for presidency.
sebster wrote: Both statements are literal defensive statements, but the latter will cause the recipient to be far more alarmed, far less trusting of a purely defensive posture. So if NK is less trusting that the US will passively accept NK actions, won't that force NK to the table? Except Trump is also banging on constantly about tearing up the Iran deal*.
This is one of the biggest problems with a diplomatic solution: why would anyone think Trump would honor any commitments the US made? He's been more than willing to, for example, throw NATO under the bus, and that's an incredibly important alliance.
sebster wrote: Both statements are literal defensive statements, but the latter will cause the recipient to be far more alarmed, far less trusting of a purely defensive posture. So if NK is less trusting that the US will passively accept NK actions, won't that force NK to the table? Except Trump is also banging on constantly about tearing up the Iran deal*.
This is one of the biggest problems with a diplomatic solution: why would anyone think Trump would honor any commitments the US made? He's been more than willing to, for example, throw NATO under the bus, and that's an incredibly important alliance.
What do you mean? Just curious cause I'm currently serving on a NATO rotation with Canadians and Romanians, and I haven't heard a single grumble from our partners.
Ouze wrote: This is one of the biggest problems with a diplomatic solution: why would anyone think Trump would honor any commitments the US made? He's been more than willing to, for example, throw NATO under the bus, and that's an incredibly important alliance.
Yep, and Trump playing with the Iran deal is the classic example. Trump is threatening to tear that deal up, basically by refusing to sign off that Iran met its conditions while having no evidence to support that claim. There is no way the other key players in the deal, China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany are going to reapply sanctions because the US tore up the deal in a fit of petulance.
Which means Iran will find itself free to restart its nuclear program with no viable global sanction response possible.
NK can look at that and make a couple of conclusions. The first is that any deal that is made will be abandoned by the US before long. So there's no way that NK will destroy the very expensive and difficult to acquire bomb and missile making facilities they've already developed, in the hope that the US will honour its word in witholding sanctions and giving aid. And the second part is that NK can look at the Iran deal falling apart, look at Trump's work to undermine NATO, and make an assessment that the already difficult alliance of countries maintaining sanctions on NK will come apart sooner or later.
sebster wrote: Both statements are literal defensive statements, but the latter will cause the recipient to be far more alarmed, far less trusting of a purely defensive posture. So if NK is less trusting that the US will passively accept NK actions, won't that force NK to the table? Except Trump is also banging on constantly about tearing up the Iran deal*.
This is one of the biggest problems with a diplomatic solution: why would anyone think Trump would honor any commitments the US made? He's been more than willing to, for example, throw NATO under the bus, and that's an incredibly important alliance.
What do you mean? Just curious cause I'm currently serving on a NATO rotation with Canadians and Romanians, and I haven't heard a single grumble from our partners.
Halperin, March 23: Should America be the leader of NATO or not necessarily?
Trump: I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago — many, many years ago when things were different. Things are different now. We were a rich nation then. We had nothing but money. We had nothing but power. And you know, far more than we have today, in a true sense. And I think NATO — you have to really examine NATO. And it doesn’t really help us, it’s helping other countries. And I don’t think those other countries appreciate what we’re doing.
Heilemann: So, just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments there and I just want to clarify. One of them is that you might want to see the U.S. pay less money into NATO because …
Trump: That one definitely. That one definitely.
Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of?
Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it. And I’d want more help from other people. The one thing definitely — we’re paying too much. As to whether or not it’s obsolete, I’ll make that determination.
NK know exactly where Trumps line is, the concquences and the results.
Yeah he's a madman threatening destruction. Fuelling Kims narrative for self defense.
Your statement is typical. He's threatening massive retaliation if the US or it's allies is attacked. That's the same policy as NATO genius.
They keyword is "threatened" here IMO.
It's not "just" if we are attacked, and nobody would have a problem with retaliating against an attack.
The problem is that if we decide that we "feel threatened" enough, we will simply launch a preemptive strike and go to war against them, even though they haven't attacked us. Basically Iraq all over again.
So now NK needs nuclear weapons to ensure that we don't conduct a first strike against them. NK has a valid justification for having a nuclear deterrent against a country that is on record before the entire UN threatening them with total destruction just because we "feel" threatened, and not just as a means of retaliation. And NK doesn't even have to fabricate news to show their population about how the US is threatening them with destruction, they can just play the UN speech.
Edit:
Anyway, NK knows they will be wiped off the face of the earth if they throw a nuke around. They want the nuke for the same reason we have the nuke, to make sure nobody throws nukes at us.
Of course its a fantasy. You said that it would take 1,000 Americans dying on American soil before the US could stomp NK without Chinese and Russian resistance. This means you think that if NK launched attacks that killed 500 Americans, then the world would resist US retaliation, just because they hate America just so much. It's a silly fantasy.
Not at all. You see, we really do not like America. Maybe when Rocket Man sits in the White House, maybe then we will stop protecting him
Just kidding of course. An attack on the US would be a pretty solid reason for the US to strike back. I don't think Russia or even China would object to that. Not that NK is ever going to attack the US. Unlike the guys over at ISIS, the North Koreans are not suicidal. They just want the nuke to protect them from a certain nation that has always been incredibly hostile to them, has tried to destroy them in the past and that has an incredibly bad track record regarding international laws, invading other countries, human rights etc. It is very reasonable for Rocket Man to push for becoming a nuclear power, and being under the constant existential threat they are, NK has every right to do so.
Of course its a fantasy. You said that it would take 1,000 Americans dying on American soil before the US could stomp NK without Chinese and Russian resistance. This means you think that if NK launched attacks that killed 500 Americans, then the world would resist US retaliation, just because they hate America just so much. It's a silly fantasy.
Not at all. You see, we really do not like America. Maybe when Rocket Man sits in the White House, maybe then we will stop protecting him
Just kidding of course. An attack on the US would be a pretty solid reason for the US to strike back. I don't think Russia or even China would object to that.
Not that NK is ever going to attack the US. Unlike the guys over at ISIS, the North Koreans are not suicidal. They just want the nuke to protect them from a certain nation that has always been incredibly hostile to them, has tried to destroy them in the past and that has an incredibly bad track record regarding international laws, invading other countries, human rights etc.
It is very reasonable for Rocket Man to push for becoming a nuclear power, and being under the constant existential threat they are, NK has every right to do so.
Then why are they shooting missiles over Japan, and the nonsense about attacking Guam?
whembly wrote: D... that only works if NK is a rational actor. That's the concern...
When has NK attacked the US with conventional weapons? And what evidence is there that NK would make a first strike with a nuclear weapon when they haven't attacked us with conventional weapons?
What has NK done to the US, that the US hasn't done to NK? We have our army stationed next to their border, our navy surrounding them, our air force practicing bombing them and flying nuclear bombers right next to them, and we have nuclear armed weapons constantly aimed at them, all while our POTUS is standing in the world stage going "come at me bro, we will end you".
NK has every right to have a nuclear program, NK has every right to defend itself, and NK is threatened just as much and just as often by the US as they are threatening us.
NK will never negotiate a treaty with us that has them giving up their nuclear weapons, even less so with an administration that has shown zero evidence that it intends to honor any treaty the US negotiates. Any escalation with North Korea will be one where the US strikes first, which should be condemned by the rest of the world.
Frazzled wrote: You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents.
South Korea's domestic border issues are a valid reason for the US to engage in full scale war?
Also the Pueblo Incident.
It's the cost of spying, no different than the U2 plane the Russians shot down. And maybe we shouldn't start a full scale military conflict because North Korea got one of our spy ships and killed someone in the process 49 years ago.
Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.
And we are debating attacking North Korea. So again, what's the difference?
Frazzled wrote: You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.
Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.
Foreign assassinations...
Torture of "visiting" foreigners...
Real Handmaiden Tales... (NK sells women to China and others to be raped, carry baby and leave baby behind)
The list goes on and on...
Again, I'm not sure these are characteristics of a rational government... such that the idea of wanting nukes to main MAAD principles seems dubious... if that.
Frazzled wrote: You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents.
South Korea's domestic border issues are a valid reason for the US to engage in full scale war?
We have a treaty with them to defend them, so yes it very much is, same as with Japan and NATO. Now if you want to abrogate those treaties than welcome brother, but warning everyone else is going to make fun of you like they do me.
Also the Pueblo Incident.
It's the cost of spying, no different than the U2 plane the Russians shot down. And maybe we shouldn't start a full scale military conflict because North Korea got one of our spy ships and killed someone in the process 49 years ago.
Just noting that there have been ongoing events. Actually this is one of the mellower periods of relations.
Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.
And we are debating attacking North Korea. So again, what's the difference?
Only in response to an attack. They are the ones doing the launching.
Again, I am fine with doing nothing unless they attack. I am even more fine with getting the feth out of there. However the left freaking out about Trump is typical in ignoring what NK has been doing for the last decade.
d-usa wrote: How many countries would we be invading if those are the criteria for us to declare war?
Classic strawman.
We're talking about NK..
Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
It's not a strawman to argue that if X is a good enough justification to attack, then it's a good enough justification to attack anyone.
These things either justify a military attack and regime change, or they don't. It doesn't matter what the country is.
It's not "just" if we are attacked, and nobody would have a problem with retaliating against an attack.
The problem is that if we decide that we "feel threatened" enough, we will simply launch a preemptive strike and go to war against them, even though they haven't attacked us. Basically Iraq all over again.
If they throw a missile to attack us, then respond.
Simple stuff.
If they do anything other than attacking the US, stop the "come at me bro, I will feth you up, hold me back UN, I'll punch the fether" routine and actually engage with the other countries. Practice our fancy "shoot rockets down" technology we are supposed to be working on.
Do what we've been doing for the past 50 years which has resulted in zero attacks against the United States.
As long as we threaten North Korea, they have every right to threaten us back and have zero reason to back down.
Frazzled wrote: You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.
Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.
Foreign assassinations...
Torture of "visiting" foreigners...
Real Handmaiden Tales... (NK sells women to China and others to be raped, carry baby and leave baby behind)
The list goes on and on...
Again, I'm not sure these are characteristics of a rational government... such that the idea of wanting nukes to main MAAD principles seems dubious... if that.
I mean...with all the stuff the US has been involved in over the existence of NK as a nation, lets be real, it's more like NK is the little kid playing amateur hour in the major leagues rather than being engaged in behavior others arent. Thats not to excuse any of the horrific things NK is engaged in, but if we're comparing sins...
From the perspective of a totalitarian leader ruling what is effectively an impoverished and technically/technologically limited divine right monarchy, maintaining power through cult of personality, fear, and the threat (real or perceived) of imminent foreign invasion, against the backdrop of Gaddafi and Saddam (who had their nuclear capabilites destroyed and then "voluntarily" relinquished them and ended up dead for it) the actions on NK arent inconceivable.
The Kim regime needs things to be on a knife edge to maintain power. Thats where they want to be. The closer to the apocalypse they are, the stronger their grip on domestic power, and the more they have to bargain with at the negotiating table. If things are calm, then there is no internal pressure valve to draw energy away from pushing back against the Kim regime domestically, and no reason for foreign powers to consider them (or the Kim family) relevant for anything.
Erm... the previous administrations essentially told NK the same thing.
I guess you're objecting to the Trumpian blunt speech yesterday. That's a fair criticism d... but, in practical terms I'm not seeing a big shift in our stance from the last 50ish years.
The big change is the fact that NK is getting better missile tech... launching them over allied head, and apparent advances to nuke tech.
The problem is, IMO, the fact that we threatened total annihilation not only if attacked but also simply if we feel threatened enough.
...that's a concern in the sense that you're worried about a repeat of the Iraq war.
I get that.
But, I'm not sure you've fully appreciated the fact that the US/UN/SK is still at war with NK, in an armistice stance ready to go hot in seconds... That's a major difference between what led up to the Iraq war. There is no peaceful nation-state interaction between these entities.
I still like the idea of making peace with the Kim regime by buying all their nukes and let 'em retire on some beach somewhere, while re-unification is laboriously enacted, ala Marshall Plan 2.0. That's gotta be waaaaaay cheaper than flaring up hostility again.... especially in terms of lives.
That would be a good option, but would probably cut into our self imposed "don't negotiate with terrorists" mindset. Just look at how unpopular the Iran deal is, now think of something even bigger deal with NK.
Doing the same thing we've always done is the best option IMO. Attack if attacked, and contain otherwise. I would be fine with stopping our war games or withdrawing from NK in exchange for no more rocket tests over sovereign countries. Nuclear NK is a thing, it's time to get used to it. Short of invasion there is no way to change that, and invasion just isn't justified. Yes they do crappy stuff, but no worse than many others do.
I still like the idea of making peace with the Kim regime by buying all their nukes and let 'em retire on some beach somewhere, while re-unification is laboriously enacted, ala Marshall Plan 2.0. That's gotta be waaaaaay cheaper than flaring up hostility again.... especially in terms of lives.
avantgarde wrote: The fething USN 7th Fleet can't even keep awake at the wheel and they just started cleaning house at the top. And you want to bluff with an inside straight, that the North Koreans know you're holding?
Of course Americans will eat up that biggest dick military in the world rigmarole. Sigh...
Yeah, we've had far too many incidents in the past year, and we're running out of Ageis destroyers at this rate. I think Japan was actually going to "lend" us some of their Kongou-class DDs to make up for the loss. But of course Trump wants us to just keep our Nimitz in operation instead of mothballing them when the Ford's are completed, instead of getting us the ships we really need right now and making sure the ones we have are at full operating capacity.
Let's say kim 3 and NK get nuclear and get decent range missiles and they manage to make a working warhead that can be mounted on a ICBM.
Now if kim does fire a missile test without warning. Suddenly we have to work out if this is a test or nuclear attack.
If current pattern of firing over Japan. Well is it a warhead bound for Japan?
If it fails and starts to dive and engines fail every air defense radar screams to full power and Fleet bases and air bases scramble to battle stations.
And the vector. If he had range is it bound for Japan, is it bound for US etc.
Suddenly everyone is very twitchy and Sk, Pacific Command, JDF all are wondering is a second wave come and potentially a preemptive attack?
If this phase does happen. Kim 3 will have to realise that random missile tests could start a war at worst case.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively we announce we are leaving NK and Japan in 24 months.and are turning over 500 nuke systems to both them and Japan,..
When I said something similar earlier, people pointed out to me that neither of those countries really wants to be Nuclear Powers.
Well, no. They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.
As an action, it is also really specifically contrary to the non-proliferation treaty, and would severely disrupt both the global balance of power and international relations, so... yeah. Not an option.
Abandoning the only firm allies in the region would also just be a baffling action for the US. Not unheard of, but not in anyone's best interest.
Voss wrote: They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.
Remember that Japan having a military at all is technically unConsitutional. It's taken some fancy legal footwork just to have the very, very limited JSDF. To grasp what would follow any Japanese politician accepting NUCLEAR arms: imagine the Arab Spring but with people cutting their OWN heads off.
The only nuclear powered thing popular in Japan is Gojira.
Frazzled wrote: Your statement is typical. He's threatening massive retaliation if the US or it's allies is attacked. That's the same policy as NATO genius.
And your statement is reducing a comment down to the literal.
"If I could be her boyfriend it would be great to have sex with her" is literally the same thing as "If that ho were my girl I would smash that ass so hard". But they mean totally different things, and will be heard totally differently.
Trump's way of describing retaliation was the national equivalent of 'smash dat ho'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Then why are they shooting missiles over Japan, and the nonsense about attacking Guam?
Because they want to force a new peace deal, that will allow the leadership access to more trade and thereby make themselves much richer.
Voss wrote: They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.
Remember that Japan having a military at all is technically unConsitutional. It's taken some fancy legal footwork just to have the very, very limited JSDF. To grasp what would follow any Japanese politician accepting NUCLEAR arms: imagine the Arab Spring but with people cutting their OWN heads off.
The only nuclear powered thing popular in Japan is Gojira.
Except you know, the large amount of people who are attempting to change that very law so that they may start their own military. It is not as unpopular as you think. Abe has been having a lot of issues with pro-military politicians lately.
Frazzled wrote: You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.
NK is close to a mafia regime. International law and common morality don't stop them, no doubt about that. But they aren't driven by anything close to self-destructive, irrational lunacy.
This doesn't mean the situation isn't serious and can't escalate to nukes, because brinkmanship can always get out of hand, but a sensible approach to this issue requires first and foremost understanding that the primary aim of the NK leadership is that the NK leadership is secure and wealthy. Everything else, from the kidnappings to the nuclear threats, is just a means to that end.
Real Handmaiden Tales... (NK sells women to China and others to be raped, carry baby and leave baby behind)
The list goes on and on...
Again, I'm not sure these are characteristics of a rational government... such that the idea of wanting nukes to main MAAD principles seems dubious... if that.
There's nothing irrational about being criminal thugs. Capone wasn't irrational either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You seem okay with them having nukes. That's fine.
Not everyone shares that perspective.
I am not okay with NK having nukes. I am also not okay with engaging with NK on a fundamentally false premise, that they are irrational crazies.
These two things are connected. When we don't understand NK, it becomes impossible to find a solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: However the left freaking out about Trump is typical in ignoring what NK has been doing for the last decade.
Oh, yes, that damned left. Because I'm sure you were posting endlessly about GW Bush's failures when he walked away from the previous deal with NK, despite the fact that it was working and had stopped NK's nuclear program.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Erm... the previous administrations essentially told NK the same thing.
I guess you're objecting to the Trumpian blunt speech yesterday. That's a fair criticism d... but, in practical terms I'm not seeing a big shift in our stance from the last 50ish years.
The big difference is that in the past there have been deals in place, or progress towards deals. Those deals have falled apart, and no doubt most of the failure has been on the NK end.
But now we're in a position where not only is there no deal being worked towards, I don't think anyone can even see our way to a place where work on a deal could begin. Both sides have blundered in to positions that they will find it very difficult to back down from, but must in order for a deal to be struck.
Voss wrote: They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.
Remember that Japan having a military at all is technically unConsitutional. It's taken some fancy legal footwork just to have the very, very limited JSDF. To grasp what would follow any Japanese politician accepting NUCLEAR arms: imagine the Arab Spring but with people cutting their OWN heads off.
The only nuclear powered thing popular in Japan is Gojira.
Not true, what their constitution disobeys is having an offensive force. Plus there's been a huge push to amend the constitution slightly, and there's been next to no pushback against Abe's "allowed to come to the defense of an ally" thing.
Now nukes are something where it would be political suicide to push for but that's not about the constitution but about the whole getting nuked twice thing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not true, what their constitution disobeys is having an offensive force.
Sort of. The constitution originally stated that Japan would never use force to settle international disputes, and no military force would be maintained. There was nothing in there at all about it being okay if they were purely defensive, it is pretty clear cut. But that was always a ridiculous limit on any nation state, and within about a decade Japan had their first work around, they just called them "Peacekeepers".
And of course even with that workaround it is still a very limiting factor, and has shaped the Japanese military in lots of ways. So they're not just ignoring it completely, it has limited the military's size and stopped them getting carriers & ICBMs, the two key things for smacking around another country.
Plus there's been a huge push to amend the constitution slightly, and there's been next to no pushback against Abe's "allowed to come to the defense of an ally" thing.
I think the push to change the constitution has been more difficult than you suggest, it has been stalled more often than not. Abe's put a deadline down for a year or two to make it happen, but it is by no means certain that it will. And the amendment is minor or huge depending on how you look at it. In terms of what Japan is doing already the change is nothing, it just confirms that Japan is allowed to have the military is already has. But in terms of what the constitution says compared to what it will say, the difference is literally between not having an army and having one.
And funnily enough the biggest pushback against Japan's change to come to the defense of an ally came from South Korea. As much as they want solidarity against NK, they've also got some pretty sharp memories of the last time Japan started landing troops in parts of Asia to help them.
Presidential Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), section 1 of title II of Public Law 65-24, ch. 30, June 15, 1917, as amended (50 U.S.C. 191), sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code; and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2321 of November 30, 2016, UNSCR 2356 of June 2, 2017, UNSCR 2371 of August 5, 2017, and UNSCR 2375 of September 11, 2017, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that:
The provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, including its intercontinental ballistic missile launches of July 3 and July 28, 2017, and its nuclear test of September 2, 2017, each of which violated its obligations under numerous UNSCRs and contravened its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six‑Party Talks; its commission of serious human rights abuses; and its use of funds generated through international trade to support its nuclear and missile programs and weapons proliferation, constitute a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and a disturbance of the international relations of the United States.
In order to take further steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, as modified in scope by and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders, I hereby find, determine, and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to operate in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea;
(ii) to own, control, or operate any port in North Korea, including any seaport, airport, or land port of entry;
(iii) to have engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology;
(iv) to be a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea;
(v) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(vi) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order. The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section are in addition to export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce.
(c) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) No aircraft in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed at a place in North Korea may land at a place in the United States within 180 days after departure from North Korea.
(b) No vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has called at a port in North Korea within the previous 180 days, and no vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship‑to‑ship transfer with such a vessel within the previous 180 days, may call at a port in the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 3. (a) All funds that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person and that originate from, are destined for, or pass through a foreign bank account that has been determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be owned or controlled by a North Korean person, or to have been used to transfer funds in which any North Korean person has an interest, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) No United States person, wherever located, may approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by subsection (a) of this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of this order:
(i) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, or this order, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea‑related activities; or
(ii) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction in connection with trade with North Korea.
(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may:
(i) prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States; or
(ii) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
(d) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (b)(ii) of this section.
(e) The prohibitions in subsection (b)(ii) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 5. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is therefore hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "North Korean person" means any North Korean citizen, North Korean permanent resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of North Korea or any jurisdiction within North Korea (including foreign branches). For the purposes of section 1 of this order, the term "North Korean person" shall not include any United States citizen, any permanent resident alien of the United States, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States, or any alien holding a valid United States visa;
(e) the term "foreign financial institution" means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. The term includes, among other entities, depository institutions; banks; savings banks; money service businesses; trust companies; securities brokers and dealers; commodity futures and options brokers and dealers; forward contract and foreign exchange merchants; securities and commodities exchanges; clearing corporations; investment companies; employee benefit plans; dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels; and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury; and
(f) the term "knowingly," with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA and UNPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 11. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, September 21, 2017.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 20, 2017.
###
This seems like it haz serious teef here...
This seems written such that the downstream result from any economic engagement with NK will effectively cut off that entity from engaging commerce or any economic activity with the US.
Seems like why China is officially telling their banks to stop doing business to NK.
Presidential Executive Order on Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), section 1 of title II of Public Law 65-24, ch. 30, June 15, 1917, as amended (50 U.S.C. 191), sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code; and in view of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2321 of November 30, 2016, UNSCR 2356 of June 2, 2017, UNSCR 2371 of August 5, 2017, and UNSCR 2375 of September 11, 2017, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that:
The provocative, destabilizing, and repressive actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, including its intercontinental ballistic missile launches of July 3 and July 28, 2017, and its nuclear test of September 2, 2017, each of which violated its obligations under numerous UNSCRs and contravened its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six‑Party Talks; its commission of serious human rights abuses; and its use of funds generated through international trade to support its nuclear and missile programs and weapons proliferation, constitute a continuing threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and a disturbance of the international relations of the United States.
In order to take further steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, as modified in scope by and relied upon for additional steps in subsequent Executive Orders, I hereby find, determine, and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to operate in the construction, energy, financial services, fishing, information technology, manufacturing, medical, mining, textiles, or transportation industries in North Korea;
(ii) to own, control, or operate any port in North Korea, including any seaport, airport, or land port of entry;
(iii) to have engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology;
(iv) to be a North Korean person, including a North Korean person that has engaged in commercial activity that generates revenue for the Government of North Korea or the Workers' Party of Korea;
(v) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(vi) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order. The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section are in addition to export control authorities implemented by the Department of Commerce.
(c) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (a) of this section.
(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) No aircraft in which a foreign person has an interest that has landed at a place in North Korea may land at a place in the United States within 180 days after departure from North Korea.
(b) No vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has called at a port in North Korea within the previous 180 days, and no vessel in which a foreign person has an interest that has engaged in a ship‑to‑ship transfer with such a vessel within the previous 180 days, may call at a port in the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 3. (a) All funds that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person and that originate from, are destined for, or pass through a foreign bank account that has been determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be owned or controlled by a North Korean person, or to have been used to transfer funds in which any North Korean person has an interest, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(b) No United States person, wherever located, may approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by subsection (a) of this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.
(c) The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of this order:
(i) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, Executive Order 13687 of January 2, 2015, Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016, or this order, or of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 in connection with North Korea‑related activities; or
(ii) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction in connection with trade with North Korea.
(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may:
(i) prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States; or
(ii) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the effective date of this order.
(d) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsection (b)(ii) of this section.
(e) The prohibitions in subsection (b)(ii) of this section include:
(i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection (b)(ii) of this section; and
(ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 5. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is therefore hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government or the United Nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States;
(d) the term "North Korean person" means any North Korean citizen, North Korean permanent resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of North Korea or any jurisdiction within North Korea (including foreign branches). For the purposes of section 1 of this order, the term "North Korean person" shall not include any United States citizen, any permanent resident alien of the United States, any alien lawfully admitted to the United States, or any alien holding a valid United States visa;
(e) the term "foreign financial institution" means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. The term includes, among other entities, depository institutions; banks; savings banks; money service businesses; trust companies; securities brokers and dealers; commodity futures and options brokers and dealers; forward contract and foreign exchange merchants; securities and commodities exchanges; clearing corporations; investment companies; employee benefit plans; dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels; and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury; and
(f) the term "knowingly," with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA and UNPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 11. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, September 21, 2017.
Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 20, 2017.
###
This seems like it haz serious teef here...
This seems written such that the downstream result from any economic engagement with NK will effectively cut off that entity from engaging commerce or any economic activity with the US.
Seems like why China is officially telling their banks to stop doing business to NK.
China still deal under the table... Let's be honest. Back channels never close.
But damn. I did not expect China to comply with that so easily... Somthing went on in the background for sure.
China Don, t just agree with Trump so easily... Somthing hidden here.
Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
Are we underestimating Trump and his cabinet?
His speech was... Well intresting to day thr least but he did state a few things clearly like he was a firming US interests come before the UN.
This seems to be if there has been deals etc a well thought out plan...
Is the bluster and such more than it seems on the surface?
whembly wrote: This seems like it haz serious teef here...
This seems written such that the downstream result from any economic engagement with NK will effectively cut off that entity from engaging commerce or any economic activity with the US.
Seems like why China is officially telling their banks to stop doing business to NK.
This is the US following the sanctions set out in the UN resolution, which China agreed to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: China still deal under the table... Let's be honest. Back channels never close.
But damn. I did not expect China to comply with that so easily... Somthing went on in the background for sure.
China Don, t just agree with Trump so easily... Somthing hidden here.
China has been on board with sanctions punishing NK's nuke program for a long time now.
People have some really weird ideas about this whole thing. It's like the ceasefire was signed, and then not one diplomatic position or relationship changed in the next seven decades.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
Are we underestimating Trump and his cabinet?
His speech was... Well intresting to day thr least but he did state a few things clearly like he was a firming US interests come before the UN.
This seems to be if there has been deals etc a well thought out plan...
Is the bluster and such more than it seems on the surface?
The speech was Trump just throwing some red meat to his base, in the wake of his backdown on DACA. In terms of actual international deals it meant nothing. Speaches rarely do, except when they're used as a means to change culture, as groundwork for doing different deals in the future.
In terms of these sanctions, there's really nothing much to say about them. They're good, and necessary, and were inevitable after the ridiculous provocations that came from North Korea. In terms of the inside baseball story of how the deal got done, it's been noted that Tillerson was almost completely absent from discussions, and in fact the State Dept itself had much reduced presence, on account of Tillerson forgetting to employ anyone to work there. Nikki Haley is getting the credit for the deal, another instance of her quietly going about and doing the work not of UN ambassador but as defacto Secretary of State.
But in terms of anyone getting credit for this deal, people should be a little restrained. Seriously, this was not a tough one. NK shot missiles over Japan. Getting a deal on sanctions in response to that does not take master diplomat.
sebster wrote: In terms of the inside baseball story of how the deal got done, it's been noted that Tillerson was almost completely absent from discussions, and in fact the State Dept itself had much reduced presence, on account of Tillerson forgetting to employ anyone to work there. Nikki Haley is getting the credit for the deal, another instance of her quietly going about and doing the work not of UN ambassador but as defacto Secretary of State.
But in terms of anyone getting credit for this deal, people should be a little restrained. Seriously, this was not a tough one. NK shot missiles over Japan. Getting a deal on sanctions in response to that does not take master diplomat.
As a quick side note, if this winds up with Haley getting the spot when Tillerson is inevitably forced out, it would be an incredible improvement. As I understand it, diplomacy is more effective when one party shows up. We've made a pretty fine distinction between US politics (domestic, and forbidden) and US politics as they pertain to international issues (allowed) and I think one of the bigger legacies of the former that will greatly impact the latter will be the slow-motion destruction of the US State Department.
sebster wrote: In terms of the inside baseball story of how the deal got done, it's been noted that Tillerson was almost completely absent from discussions, and in fact the State Dept itself had much reduced presence, on account of Tillerson forgetting to employ anyone to work there. Nikki Haley is getting the credit for the deal, another instance of her quietly going about and doing the work not of UN ambassador but as defacto Secretary of State.
But in terms of anyone getting credit for this deal, people should be a little restrained. Seriously, this was not a tough one. NK shot missiles over Japan. Getting a deal on sanctions in response to that does not take master diplomat.
As a quick side note, if this winds up with Haley getting the spot when Tillerson is inevitably forced out, it would be an incredible improvement. As I understand it, diplomacy is more effective when one party shows up. We've made a pretty fine distinction between US politics (domestic, and forbidden) and US politics as they pertain to international issues (allowed) and I think one of the bigger legacies of the former that will greatly impact the latter will be the slow-motion destruction of the US State Department.
Not to sway into domestic but has maybe the scandals and fact State Department has a few contraversal events managed to damage the image of that department short term under Hillary Clinton.?
And at this point means it's harder to fill state positions and also damaged its internal prestige against others like defense.
Ouze wrote: As a quick side note, if this winds up with Haley getting the spot when Tillerson is inevitably forced out, it would be an incredible improvement. As I understand it, diplomacy is more effective when one party shows up. We've made a pretty fine distinction between US politics (domestic, and forbidden) and US politics as they pertain to international issues (allowed) and I think one of the bigger legacies of the former that will greatly impact the latter will be the slow-motion destruction of the US State Department.
There's seems to be a way of working around Trump on international issues. Tillerson doesn't have it, he clashed directly with Trump, got sidelined to the point where he doesn't even know Trump's positions on major issues or even what he's publicly stated. So he has just reduced his role down to the bare minimum press work and meet and greets, while going about destaffing the State Dept. Meanwhile Haley has found a way of maintaining a pretty straight, conventional policy set largely independent of Trump.
All the rumours seem to be beating for Haley to replace Tillerson, and as you say this will be a really good thing. However, there's two caveats. The first is that there's been jungle drums suggesting firings in the past, and they're probably more right than wrong, but there's been some noticeable survivors, like Sessions. The second is that Haley might be doing better just because her role, away from so much public and Trump attention is an easier place to get real work done. In SoS she might also get stuck with the same circumstances that Tillerson has struggled with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Not to sway into domestic but has maybe the scandals and fact State Department has a few contraversal events managed to damage the image of that department short term under Hillary Clinton.?
And at this point means it's harder to fill state positions and also damaged its internal prestige against others like defense.
No, no-one with a passion for international affairs is going to decide against the State Department because the previous SoS had an issue with email security.
The lack of hires in the State Dept comes from Tillerson choosing not to fill positions. Most alarming are the lack of political appointees, these are staff connected to the Whitehouse, who guide career diplomats in the Whitehouse's preferred career direction. 24 out of 148 of these roles are filled. Tillerson isn't struggling to find Republicans to fill those roles because of Clinton's emails. They are unfilled because many of Tillerson's suggestions are shot down by Trump, and because he is making suggestions at a glacial rate, largely because Tillerson barely even communicates with his own department.
I'm not sure if this is getting in too far in to politics? I'll hold off until we get an okay or a stop from the mods.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
They have shot missiles over allies, detonated nukes underground (which has affected countries negatively already), threatened to detonate atomic devices in the atmosphere, then there is the whole dictatorial regime that abuses it population all the time.
This is what happens when the can gets kicked down the road for all of bushs and obamas 16 years.
d-usa wrote: Much better approach than name calling and threatening total destruction in an international forum, but I still don't think we will ever get that nuclear genie back into the bottle.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
They have shot missiles over allies, detonated nukes underground (which has affected countries negatively already), threatened to detonate atomic devices in the atmosphere, then there is the whole dictatorial regime that abuses it population all the time.
This is what happens when the can gets kicked down the road for all of bushs and obamas 16 years.
Forget atomic devices. NK has had first strike capability against a massive civilian populace for 60 years and it has only improved with every passing decade. Thankfully the rulers have seemed content with their little hellhole until now.
djones520 wrote: This is a can that has been kicked for 60 years.
Pretty much, unfortunate really... there were better solutions that were easier to implement, with much less risk, but they are gone now that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
The North Korean government is not a bunch of gibbering imbeciles. They make rational choices. The problem is that the range of things they have to rationally choose between is quite limited and so going on about how you are totally going to destroy them when you've already been intensely antagonistic towards them and have a history of invading countries that displease you is really quite stupid.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
The North Korean government is not a bunch of gibbering imbeciles. They make rational choices. The problem is that the range of things they have to rationally choose between is quite limited and so going on about how you are totally going to destroy them when you've already been intensely antagonistic towards them and have a history of invading countries that displease you is really quite stupid.
Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
India has nukes. They are not firing missiles all over the place and threatening their neighbors. The world does a collective meh.
Frazzled wrote: India has nukes. They are not firing missiles all over the place and threatening their neighbors. The world does a collective meh.
Well, India doesn't really need to. The NK knows they can't win in any scenario and they also know last time there was a war the UN forces (or pretty much the US Air Force) bombed anything where they still had two bricks on top of each other. Most northern cities were like 90% destroyed after the Korea war and that's the stuff they are brought up on. The reasons and so on are shortened a bit I'm sure, so basically (in their history books) the evil UN and it's American stooges bombed the place back to the stone age for no sensible reason at all. Or possibly to stop the Great Wisdom of the Great Leader from being distributed to other nations in need of it.
They know you're just waiting for an excuse to unleash the bombers and squadrons of rabid wiener dogs on them again. They need nukes in order to deter an attack.
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
The North Korean government is not a bunch of gibbering imbeciles. They make rational choices. The problem is that the range of things they have to rationally choose between is quite limited and so going on about how you are totally going to destroy them when you've already been intensely antagonistic towards them and have a history of invading countries that displease you is really quite stupid.
Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
Nah, this is what you get when you constantly violate international laws and sovereignty to happily invade every country in the world that you do not like. Now all those countries that you do not like are looking for a way to stop you. Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack the US is what every sensible country would do if the US was constantly threatening to wipe them out. They want to protect themselves by making it clear to the US that the cost of acting on those threats would be crazily high. The only insane thing here is Trump and his idiotic warmongering. If he had left North Korea alone and ignored it like all sensible people do, then nothing of this would have happened.
I do find it a little silly that the Kim regime is essentially saying:
"North Koreans! Your People's Democratic Republic is the last bastion of freedom and the world hates you for what you are!"
And the world is like "Yeah we hate you!" off in the distance.
By constantly sabre-rattling we're just reinforcing the North Korean propaganda. The regime would be more likely to collapse under it's own weight if the rest of the world went 'meh' and kept on trading with them without any embargoes or anything, I suspect.
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
but we are not itching to invade them. That statement lacks lucidity.
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
but we are not itching to invade them. That statement lacks lucidity.
Haven't you been following the news lately? I can barely hear all other news through all the US threats like "They will be totally destroyed", "We will show you fire and fury like never before" and "They won't be around much longer". No, the US seems like a perfectly normal, peaceful country to me. Totally not itching for a fight.
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
but we are not itching to invade them. That statement lacks lucidity.
Haven't you been following the news lately? I can barely hear all other news through all the US threats like "They will be totally destroyed", "We will show you fire and fury like never before" and "They won't be around much longer". No, the US seems like a perfectly normal, peaceful country to me. Totally not itching for a fight.
You're leaving off all the parts about "if they attack first". That's kind of an important thing.
Is Japan and South Korea wrong too? They are being threatened as well. Japan is getting air raid warnings go off when these missiles are fired.
If China doesn't want a nuclear SK and Japan in the next five years, they better get control of the situation. You want flying robot suits shooting nukes, this is how you get flying robot suits shooting nukes...
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
When they know there's big country(US) that's just itching to invade them(along with many others) not really. They are desperate to ensure attacking them is too expensive that US doesn't want. Seoul has been good chip for that but it's got this one tiny little issue...What about when US decides they don't care much about SK's casualties anymore? That can and likely will happen one day since nothing is permanent including US-SK alliance. So NK is unsurprisingly interested in having threat that ensures US cannot simply ignore payback for invading them. Specifically tons of own citizens dying.
US has invaded lots of countries but none with WMD's that can threaten US. No wonder NK wants to join that club. If they don't sooner or later US invades.
but we are not itching to invade them. That statement lacks lucidity.
Haven't you been following the news lately? I can barely hear all other news through all the US threats like "They will be totally destroyed", "We will show you fire and fury like never before" and "They won't be around much longer". No, the US seems like a perfectly normal, peaceful country to me. Totally not itching for a fight.
Frazzled wrote: Is Japan and South Korea wrong too? They are being threatened as well. Japan is getting air raid warnings go off when these missiles are fired.
Are they threatening NK with total annihilation?
We are talking about what the US is doing and saying to NK and what NK is doing and saying to the US.
If China doesn't want a nuclear SK and Japan in the next five years, they better get control of the situation. You want flying robot suits shooting nukes, this is how you get flying robot suits shooting nukes...
Doesn't really matter what China wants, as neither Japan nor SK want nukes.
There are two countries escalating this, and neither of them are China, Japan, or South Korea.
I don't understand what taunting North Korea gets the United States in the long term. It's almost like Donald Trump is baiting them to nuke us so he can have an excuse to invade them.
PM Shinzo Abe is calling a new snap election set for October after dissolving the lower house of the Diet on Thursday. Gambling on his rising popularity from the North Korean crisis to cut opposition off at the knees as the fumble to rush together a platform.
This is a political tactic employed by Mr Abe in the past to call early elections ahead of schedule in order to throw opposition parties into disarray while the Liberal Democratic Party sweeps up. The Governor of Tokyo, Yuriko Koike's new Hope Party is still finding its legs and the main opposition Democratic Party is reeling from the departure of their rising star Shiori Yamao for infidelity. Abe believes the snap election will result in a new "mandate" for the LDP but there is the threat of voters being turned off by such a nakedly political move. With the other parties presenting very little to be excited about, the LDP may win again by virtue of being the best of several bad choices.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't understand what taunting North Korea gets the United States in the long term. It's almost like Donald Trump is baiting them to nuke us so he can have an excuse to invade them.
The US does not have anything to gain from taunting NK, but really the US is not doing that; Trump is. I don't mean to say the US should be blameless here; it is our POTUS and therefore our position, but when looking at motivation it's important to realize that the taunting sources from Trump and no one else. We know that his Tweets can come from the perspective of his emotions at a particular time, so a potential benefit to the US does not need to exist for Trump to be motivated in taking such action.
And to avoid going into forbidden territory; I intend the above as a statement of fact and not any sort of political commentary.
Frazzled wrote: Is Japan and South Korea wrong too? They are being threatened as well. Japan is getting air raid warnings go off when these missiles are fired.
Are they threatening NK with total annihilation?
We are talking about what the US is doing and saying to NK and what NK is doing and saying to the US.
If China doesn't want a nuclear SK and Japan in the next five years, they better get control of the situation. You want flying robot suits shooting nukes, this is how you get flying robot suits shooting nukes...
Doesn't really matter what China wants, as neither Japan nor SK want nukes.
There are two countries escalating this, and neither of them are China, Japan, or South Korea.
You know, the thing about being the hegemon, you gotta kinda wear the hat for it.
Japan and South Korea don't have the strength to do it solo. We, the big brother, are the ones who have to step in. Everyone has their role to play. We're the big stick. China is doing the speak softly, like with how they just cut off a significant flow of money into N. Korea. Japan and S. Korea are definitely building their sticks up.
Frazzled wrote: Is Japan and South Korea wrong too? They are being threatened as well. Japan is getting air raid warnings go off when these missiles are fired.
Are they threatening NK with total annihilation?
We are talking about what the US is doing and saying to NK and what NK is doing and saying to the US.
If China doesn't want a nuclear SK and Japan in the next five years, they better get control of the situation. You want flying robot suits shooting nukes, this is how you get flying robot suits shooting nukes...
Doesn't really matter what China wants, as neither Japan nor SK want nukes.
There are two countries escalating this, and neither of them are China, Japan, or South Korea.
You know, the thing about being the hegemon, you gotta kinda wear the hat for it.
Japan and South Korea don't have the strength to do it solo. We, the big brother, are the ones who have to step in. Everyone has their role to play. We're the big stick. China is doing the speak softly, like with how they just cut off a significant flow of money into N. Korea. Japan and S. Korea are definitely building their sticks up.
There slowly backing NK into a corner..
However. Ancient wisdom is to leave a gap to let a enemy escape to in battle.
Don, t cut off every option because they end up being backed up, nothing to lose. Nothing to lose makes people very dangerous.
Gotta leave ernough to let em flee as such.
So leave them abit of room to work with but strengthen allies and keep working with China.
easysauce wrote: When you are dealing with actual crazies with nukes like north korea, simply stating plainly that they will be wiped off the map if they actually do anything isnt the least bit out of order.
Just to repeat the point for maybe the 20th time in this thread, the NK leadership aren't crazy. What they are doing is playing a very dangerous game of brinkmanship, but it is a game they need to play in order to maintain their own positions in NK, and extort resources they need to keep their country functioning.
This isn't a defense of NK. They're criminals running a protection racket. It is a call for people to please understand the actual problem, so that solutions can be attempted that make sense given that problem. Deciding they are erratic crazies that might just decide to commit suicide by attacking the West for no reason is not a sensible view of the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Pretty much, unfortunate really... there were better solutions that were easier to implement, with much less risk, but they are gone now that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.
There was never a solution that wouldn't have got hundreds of thousands killed in Seoul.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Launching missiles over other countries and threatening to attack US territory is positively insane.
Launching missiles over Japanese territory was just the next step in the escalation.
It's like if a guy with a heavy italian accent, wearing a pin stripe suit and carrying a violin case threatens to burn down your fruit stand unless you pay protection, he isn't crazy he's a criminal running an extortion racket. If you don't pay and he burns down your fruit stand, he still isn't crazy he's just escalated to the next step.
India has nukes. They are not firing missiles all over the place and threatening their neighbors. The world does a collective meh.
India getting nuclear weapons was a freakout, in response to Pakistan getting nuclear weapons.
Japan and NK have been remarkably restrained. People right now are freaking out about the missiles over Japan, but they seem to have forgotten about the SK soldiers who were killed by unprovoked NK attacks, NK sinking a SK warship, and firing artillery at SK soldiers.
The US was also restrained, and a positive force for resolving this issue. That is to say the US was, before he who cannot be mentioned became president.
If China doesn't want a nuclear SK and Japan in the next five years, they better get control of the situation. You want flying robot suits shooting nukes, this is how you get flying robot suits shooting nukes...
This idea floating around that China can just choose to resolve this issue whenever they want is completely false and needs to just please fething stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't understand what taunting North Korea gets the United States in the long term. It's almost like Donald Trump is baiting them to nuke us so he can have an excuse to invade them.
It gets the US nothing. But it lets Trump appear to be a hard man, and it distracts from his various domestic disasters and criminal investigations.
Just to repeat the point for maybe the 20th time in this thread, the NK leadership aren't crazy. What they are doing is playing a very dangerous game of brinkmanship, but it is a game they need to play in order to maintain their own positions in NK, and extort resources they need to keep their country functioning.
Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise. Repetition of your viewpoint has no effect on its validity.
And yes, you are being an apologist for NK and diminishing their responsibility for all this, and yes there very much were better solutions in the past before NK got nukes. None without bloodshed, but all with less bloodshed then anything available now...
Kicking the can down the road just made the problem worse.
The only person who could ever have stopped this was kim or his father, if they cared one bit for the people they rule they could have sorted out a peacefull transition of power, or let the UN in to make sure people are not living in modern slavery, but they simply care more about being in charge then their people.
Trump hasnt been sporting brinkmanship, he spoke words, harsh words? sure... mean words? sure... but that is nothing even close to brinkmanship, especially when those words are simply voicing what is already NATO policy.
Launching missiles over japan, is actually the far end of brinkmanship and tantamount to declaring war to many.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy fething gak words actually fething mean things.
Being willing to do really depraved, awful things doesn't mean you are crazy.
Repetition of your viewpoint has no effect on its validity.
The point I have made isn't more or less valid because of its repetition. I hold the many variations of "NK is not a crazy regime, they are a criminal regime who are using nukes to strengthen their protection racket" to be a plain reading of the evidence at hand.
The relevance of the repetition is that I've had to repeat this point so many times, because so many people are running with that "NK so cra-cra" argument, because they don't seem to actually give a gak about figuring out what's actually going on and what should be done about.
And yes, you are being an apologist for NK and diminishing their responsibility for all this
Yeah, that's it. I'm here calling NK a mafia like organisation running an extortion racket, and you call that being an apologist. That's not a very sensible thing to say.
and yes there very much were better solutions in the past before NK got nukes. None without bloodshed, but all with less bloodshed then anything available now...
You're assuming bloodshed is now certain, and that the chance of avoiding bloodshed was so low that it was okay to trade hundreds of thousands of people in SK to achieve it.
Something really ugly happens when people become simultaneously cynical and naive.
The only person who could ever have stopped this was kim or his father, if they cared one bit for the people they rule they could have sorted out a peacefull transition of power, or let the UN in to make sure people are not living in modern slavery, but they simply care more about being in charge then their people.
Even this statement from you, which is about as vague as things can be, still manages to be utterly incoherent. If any generation of Kim's cared about the people they ruled then peace wouldn't have been dependent on a transition of power, because the problem is that they don't care about their people. If that changed, then NK could settle down to being just another third rate dictatorship like all the others.
Trump hasnt been sporting brinkmanship, he spoke words, harsh words? sure... mean words? sure... but that is nothing even close to brinkmanship, especially when those words are simply voicing what is already NATO policy.
Launching missiles over japan, is actually the far end of brinkmanship and tantamount to declaring war to many.
And now you're trying to start some kind of debate over who is and who isn't attempting brinkmanship. I don't know why.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy fething gak words actually fething mean things.
Being willing to do really depraved, awful things doesn't mean you are crazy.
Actually, showing a distinct lack of empathy towards your fellow man is a very troubling thing. It is a sign of deep rooted mental health issues.
But yes, you are right. Words do mean things. But that is about the only thing you are right about here.
Dreadwinter wrote: Actually, showing a distinct lack of empathy towards your fellow man is a very troubling thing. It is a sign of deep rooted mental health issues.
But yes, you are right. Words do mean things. But that is about the only thing you are right about here.
It is simply not useful to go around calling every brutal tyrant crazy, and assuming them to all be erratic lunatics that cannot possibly be trusted on to do anything reasonable, even if it is in their own interest. al-Assad has done abhorrent things while in power, but to assume he was crazy and therefore incapable of balancing the tightrope act needed to fight a civil war dependent on foreign aid would be completely wrong.
And that's what this discussion is. Whether we go with the simple but stupid narrative that the NK leadership is provoking more powerful countries, therefore they're crazy and therefore they're erratic and must be killed, or whether we actually spend just a few minutes learning about the power dynamics that cause a country like NK to play brinkmanship with more powerful countries.
sebster wrote: Whether we go with the simple but stupid narrative that the NK leadership is provoking more powerful countries, therefore they're crazy and therefore they're erratic and must be killed, or whether we actually spend just a few minutes learning about the power dynamics that cause a country like NK to play brinkmanship with more powerful countries.
But from the POV of those more powerful countries, especially the regular joe who just knows of the power (and little else), it would indeed seem crazy to provoke someone so powerful. Personally I find your "criminal protection racket" to be a very good way of describing the NK leadership and elite.
Feeding people to dogs, well, wasn't that mostly rumors through Chinese newspapers? But any good criminal organisation needs some rumors about their ruthlessness to keep their racket going and I'm sure few citizens want to find out what will get them fed to the dogs. Anyone who stays in line and praises Kim gets to keep on living. Slavery aka rented workers in richer countries? That exactly what organized crime does when (possibly not even illegal) immigrants to the US/Europe are being exploited in underpaid jobs or the sex trade.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy fething gak words actually fething mean things.
Being willing to do really depraved, awful things doesn't mean you are crazy.
Actually, showing a distinct lack of empathy towards your fellow man is a very troubling thing. It is a sign of deep rooted mental health issues.
But yes, you are right. Words do mean things. But that is about the only thing you are right about here.
Lack of empathy is a bright line symptom of a serial killer profile or sociopaths in general.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy fething gak words actually fething mean things.
Being willing to do really depraved, awful things doesn't mean you are crazy.
Actually, showing a distinct lack of empathy towards your fellow man is a very troubling thing. It is a sign of deep rooted mental health issues.
But yes, you are right. Words do mean things. But that is about the only thing you are right about here.
Lack of empathy is a bright line symptom of a serial killer profile or sociopaths in general.
Great so let's pretend they are all psychopaths and irrational. Where does that really leave you as a strategy? It leaves you at a dead end, over and over and over again.
That is a terrible strategy, no it is worse than terrible because there is no strategy. Hope is not a strategy.
Besides, we have seen time and time again that NK is a rational actor. They understand brinkmanship diplomacy and MAD very well, perhaps better than the U.S. They have had defacto MAD in place in the Korean Pennisula since the 50's.
The only reason you would choose to assume they are irrational is because you have all ready chosen destruction as the only solution. If that is the case, just come out and say it and stop wasting everyone's time in this thread and then go sign-up to do your part.
Easy E wrote: Great so let's pretend they are all psychopaths and irrational. Where does that really leave you as a strategy? It leaves you at a dead end, over and over and over again.
That is a terrible strategy, no it is worse than terrible because there is no strategy. Hope is not a strategy.
Besides, we have seen time and time again that NK is a rational actor. They understand brinkmanship diplomacy and MAD very well, perhaps better than the U.S. They have had defacto MAD in place in the Korean Pennisula since the 50's.
The only reason you would choose to assume they are irrational is because you have all ready chosen destruction as the only solution. If that is the case, just come out and say it and stop wasting everyone's time in this thread and then go sign-up to do your part.
I think most are recommending the existing strategy (which Trump is fyi) not destruction. What's your play?
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy f^cking sh^t words actually fething mean things.
Yes... words do indeed mean things, you resorting to foul, rude, and insulting language and tone says more about you then it does about me or my assertion that Kim is crazy.
There is this "crazy" thing called reality, in it words have definitions which don't bend whichever way you in the (current year) want them to bend.
cra·zy
ˈkrāzē/
informal
adjective
adjective: crazy; comparative adjective: crazier; superlative adjective: craziest
1.
mentally deranged, especially as manifested in a wild or aggressive way.
Easy E wrote: Great so let's pretend they are all psychopaths and irrational. Where does that really leave you as a strategy? It leaves you at a dead end, over and over and over again.
That is a terrible strategy, no it is worse than terrible because there is no strategy. Hope is not a strategy.
Besides, we have seen time and time again that NK is a rational actor. They understand brinkmanship diplomacy and MAD very well, perhaps better than the U.S. They have had defacto MAD in place in the Korean Pennisula since the 50's.
The only reason you would choose to assume they are irrational is because you have all ready chosen destruction as the only solution. If that is the case, just come out and say it and stop wasting everyone's time in this thread and then go sign-up to do your part.
I think most are recommending the existing strategy (which Trump is fyi) not destruction. What's your play?
Containment with a healthy dose of ignoring them for the most part.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy f^cking sh^t words actually fething mean things.
Yes... words do indeed mean things, you resorting to foul, rude, and insulting language and tone says more about you then it does about me or my assertion that Kim is crazy.
There is this "crazy" thing called reality, in it words have definitions which don't bend whichever way you in the (current year) want them to bend.
cra·zy
ˈkrāzē/
informal
adjective
adjective: crazy; comparative adjective: crazier; superlative adjective: craziest
1.
mentally deranged, especially as manifested in a wild or aggressive way.
*edited for punctuation
Perhaps you could demonstrate in which way the NK regime could be called crazy. Note that brutal, inhumane, barbaric behaviour is not crazy. It's disturbing, it's deplorable, and it's despicable, but it's not crazy.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy f^cking sh^t words actually fething mean things.
Yes... words do indeed mean things, you resorting to foul, rude, and insulting language and tone says more about you then it does about me or my assertion that Kim is crazy.
There is this "crazy" thing called reality, in it words have definitions which don't bend whichever way you in the (current year) want them to bend.
cra·zy
ˈkrāzē/
informal
adjective
adjective: crazy; comparative adjective: crazier; superlative adjective: craziest
1.
mentally deranged, especially as manifested in a wild or aggressive way.
*edited for punctuation
Perhaps you could demonstrate in which way the NK regime could be called crazy. Note that brutal, inhumane, barbaric behaviour is not crazy. It's disturbing, it's deplorable, and it's despicable, but it's not crazy.
Paranoid... Cruel. Believes his own kook aid.
Cult leading dictator, had his own brother killed.
Even of not crazy. We ain't short of charecter flaws.
easysauce wrote: Actually, when you feed people to dogs and force your own people into slavery, yeah that fits the bill for crazy, it takes a lot of squinting and half truths to even try to state otherwise.
No, it doesn't. Holy f^cking sh^t words actually fething mean things.
Yes... words do indeed mean things, you resorting to foul, rude, and insulting language and tone says more about you then it does about me or my assertion that Kim is crazy.
There is this "crazy" thing called reality, in it words have definitions which don't bend whichever way you in the (current year) want them to bend.
cra·zy
ˈkrāzē/
informal
adjective
adjective: crazy; comparative adjective: crazier; superlative adjective: craziest
1.
mentally deranged, especially as manifested in a wild or aggressive way.
*edited for punctuation
Perhaps you could demonstrate in which way the NK regime could be called crazy. Note that brutal, inhumane, barbaric behaviour is not crazy. It's disturbing, it's deplorable, and it's despicable, but it's not crazy.
Paranoid... Cruel. Believes his own kook aid.
Cult leading dictator, had his own brother killed.
Even of not crazy. We ain't short of charecter flaws.
Right, no one is saying the whole rotten regime isn't evil. But they aren't crazy.
Perhaps you could demonstrate in which way the NK regime could be called crazy. Note that brutal, inhumane, barbaric behaviour is not crazy. It's disturbing, it's deplorable, and it's despicable, but it's not crazy.
Already listed the definition of crazy, and Kim has fulfilled those requirements, if you cannot see this that just shows how far off your moral compass must be. That you hand waive away things already listed for Kim fitting the definition in your post with a " Muh classic signs of being crazy are not classic signs of being crazy" is another example of someone bending a definition when it suits them.
Here is another great word for kim : "psychopathic" 1. a mental disorder in which an individual manifests amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
Even here, he also shows examples of this kind of behavior with the killing of family through unnecessarily brutal and creative ways, extreme ego, and failure to learn from the past Kim's.
You seem to think that crazy/psychopathic people cannot also be cold, calculating, intelligent, goal driven, effective in achieving those goals, ect, which is veritably untrue and extremely naive.
Perhaps you could demonstrate in which way the NK regime could be called crazy. Note that brutal, inhumane, barbaric behaviour is not crazy. It's disturbing, it's deplorable, and it's despicable, but it's not crazy.
Already listed the definition of crazy, and Kim has fulfilled those requirements, if you cannot see this that just shows how far off your moral compass must be. That you hand waive away things already listed for Kim fitting the definition in your post with a " Muh classic signs of being crazy are not classic signs of being crazy" is another example of someone bending a definition when it suits them.
Here is another great word for kim : "psychopathic" 1. a mental disorder in which an individual manifests amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
Even here, he also shows examples of this kind of behavior with the killing of family through unnecessarily brutal and creative ways, extreme ego, and failure to learn from the past Kim's.
You seem to think that crazy/psychopathic people cannot also be cold, calculating, intelligent, goal driven, effective in achieving those goals, ect, which is veritably untrue and extremely naive.
Gotcha. You can't adequately demonstrate that the NK regime is crazy, apart from repeating the simplistic "evil=crazy" line, and resort to juvenile attacks on my character. Class act.
You seem to think that crazy/psychopathic people cannot also be cold, calculating, intelligent, goal driven, effective in achieving those goals, ect, which is veritably untrue and extremely naive.
And besides the point. What you posted makes him the opposite of 'crazy'. Mental disorder does not mean crazy in the sense that people are talking about.
Easy E wrote: Great so let's pretend they are all psychopaths and irrational. Where does that really leave you as a strategy? It leaves you at a dead end, over and over and over again.
That is a terrible strategy, no it is worse than terrible because there is no strategy. Hope is not a strategy.
Besides, we have seen time and time again that NK is a rational actor. They understand brinkmanship diplomacy and MAD very well, perhaps better than the U.S. They have had defacto MAD in place in the Korean Pennisula since the 50's.
The only reason you would choose to assume they are irrational is because you have all ready chosen destruction as the only solution. If that is the case, just come out and say it and stop wasting everyone's time in this thread and then go sign-up to do your part.
I think most are recommending the existing strategy (which Trump is fyi) not destruction. What's your play?
Containment with a healthy dose of ignoring them for the most part.
I am down with that. We tried constructive engagement in the past and will again in the future. For the life of me I don't see why they don't go the China/Vietnam route and get filthy rich.
Dreadwinter wrote: Actually, showing a distinct lack of empathy towards your fellow man is a very troubling thing. It is a sign of deep rooted mental health issues.
But yes, you are right. Words do mean things. But that is about the only thing you are right about here.
It is simply not useful to go around calling every brutal tyrant crazy, and assuming them to all be erratic lunatics that cannot possibly be trusted on to do anything reasonable, even if it is in their own interest. al-Assad has done abhorrent things while in power, but to assume he was crazy and therefore incapable of balancing the tightrope act needed to fight a civil war dependent on foreign aid would be completely wrong.
And that's what this discussion is. Whether we go with the simple but stupid narrative that the NK leadership is provoking more powerful countries, therefore they're crazy and therefore they're erratic and must be killed, or whether we actually spend just a few minutes learning about the power dynamics that cause a country like NK to play brinkmanship with more powerful countries.
Did anybody say that they could not be trusted to do reasonable things in their own interest? A crazy person can do just that, but guess what, they are still mentally ill.
Regardless of what you say, Kim shows signs of mental illness and being "crazy." That is a fact, you cannot dispute that. I don't really give a damn about your this or that argument you have going on. What I do care about is you attempting to hand wave away this issue just because you are trying to push your own view. Accept it and move on.
Scrabb wrote: I remember watching a North Korean refugee's testimony of how she believed the great leader could read her mind. Because that's what she was told.
The man who perpetuates that environment.... it's creepy.
You know what's really funny? Communism/Socialism is directly responsible for this. How many off the rails regimes like this come from red roots? Far too many, from what I can gather. That's why I really laugh when people suggest giving NK other people's money to alleviate the situation. Other people's money is what got them here.
Spetulhu wrote: But from the POV of those more powerful countries, especially the regular joe who just knows of the power (and little else), it would indeed seem crazy to provoke someone so powerful.
For people in the West who see a tiny, backward nation making those provocations, I understand why their first thought it that they must be crazy. That's fine. It's when they see an explanation pointing out what is actually going on, and then keep believing the crazy explanation that it gets frustrating.
Personally I find your "criminal protection racket" to be a very good way of describing the NK leadership and elite.
For what it's worth, it isn't my description. It's how a fair few experts have described the NK leadership in various articles and radio interviews I've read and listened to.
Feeding people to dogs, well, wasn't that mostly rumors through Chinese newspapers?
Yeah, when I read it I half-remembered that one being untrue, but decided it didn't matter because the regime has done plenty of abhorrent things so the overall truth of that point was fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: He, s a genuine phycopath.
Not much else to say.
There's a lot to say if you want to have a useful and constructive discussion on how to stabilise and then resolve the NK issue.
Of course, that's a lot more work than just saying 'he's crazy' and pretending that's a useful insight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Yes... words do indeed mean things, you resorting to foul, rude, and insulting language and tone says more about you then it does about me or my assertion that Kim is crazy.
Oh look, moralism about language. Good job. Great contribution.
There is this "crazy" thing called reality, in it words have definitions which don't bend whichever way you in the (current year) want them to bend.
And now you're posting dictionary definitions, and not even noticing that your dictionary definition doesn't even touch on your earlier argument that NK's craziness is proven by their brutal executions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Even of not crazy. We ain't short of charecter flaws.
Yes, but exactly which character flaws there are matter, because it decides how we need to react.
If NK were genuinely crazy, and actually wanted to build a bomb to attack their enemies and end the world in a blaze of nuclear hellfire, then the only option would be to attack as soon as possible and prevent them, no matter the cost.
But NK isn't actually crazy in that way, and saying so just makes the whole conversation about NK dumber and less constructive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Did anybody say that they could not be trusted to do reasonable things in their own interest? A crazy person can do just that, but guess what, they are still mentally ill.
When a person says "NK are crazy" they do not mean "NK does awful, psychopathic things but can be trusted to do reasonable things in their own self interest". That's an absurd position you've backed yourself in to. I would stop trying to dig deeper, if I were you.
Regardless of what you say, Kim shows signs of mental illness and being "crazy." That is a fact, you cannot dispute that. I don't really give a damn about your this or that argument you have going on. What I do care about is you attempting to hand wave away this issue just because you are trying to push your own view. Accept it and move on.
I state that any attempt to use 'crazy' in this thread and any similar discussion has been used to describe Kim and the greater NK leadership as erratic and unable to rely on for a deal. That you and others have attempted to expand 'crazy' out to include all possible mental health issues is disingenuous and more than a little lame.
Scrabb wrote: I remember watching a North Korean refugee's testimony of how she believed the great leader could read her mind. Because that's what she was told.
The man who perpetuates that environment.... it's creepy.
You know what's really funny? Communism/Socialism is directly responsible for this. How many off the rails regimes like this come from red roots? Far too many, from what I can gather. That's why I really laugh when people suggest giving NK other people's money to alleviate the situation. Other people's money is what got them here.
Ehhh, NK has more ideological roots in Japanese fascism, but it's a moot point at this stage.
Scrabb wrote: I remember watching a North Korean refugee's testimony of how she believed the great leader could read her mind. Because that's what she was told.
The man who perpetuates that environment.... it's creepy.
You know what's really funny? Communism/Socialism is directly responsible for this. How many off the rails regimes like this come from red roots? Far too many, from what I can gather. That's why I really laugh when people suggest giving NK other people's money to alleviate the situation. Other people's money is what got them here.
Ehhh, NK has more ideological roots in Japanese fascism, but it's a moot point at this stage.
What? You dont know that north korea fought japan in ww2? And then got supported by china and soviet union in the korean war for being fellow commies?
Scrabb wrote: I remember watching a North Korean refugee's testimony of how she believed the great leader could read her mind. Because that's what she was told.
The man who perpetuates that environment.... it's creepy.
You know what's really funny? Communism/Socialism is directly responsible for this. How many off the rails regimes like this come from red roots? Far too many, from what I can gather. That's why I really laugh when people suggest giving NK other people's money to alleviate the situation. Other people's money is what got them here.
Ehhh, NK has more ideological roots in Japanese fascism, but it's a moot point at this stage.
What? You dont know that north korea fought japan in ww2? And then got supported by china and soviet union in the korean war for being fellow commies?
Yes NK undoubtedly sided with the USSR and China politicly, but I was talking more about their ideology and it's roots. Brian Reynolds Myers has an interesting book/lecture where he talks about it and he links it to Japanese fascism, which got transplanted into Korea during the occupation by the Japanese. The lecture can be found for free on google if you are interested.
Okey, i was thinking more about having collective farming and everything being state owned and that kind of stuff, its what i think about when hearing the word communism but ok you mean something else then me.
ulgurstasta wrote: Yes NK undoubtedly sided with the USSR and China politicly, but I was talking more about their ideology and it's roots. Brian Reynolds Myers has an interesting book/lecture where he talks about it and he links it to Japanese fascism, which got transplanted into Korea during the occupation by the Japanese. The lecture can be found for free on google if you are interested.
Oh man, I remember that from when it was released but had completely forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder. Its a fascinating argument made in the book, if perhaps not a complete one (just judging from reviews, both the book and the counter argument seem to assume NK ideology is a single, consistent thing, when it's likely evolved over time).
Dreadwinter wrote: Did anybody say that they could not be trusted to do reasonable things in their own interest? A crazy person can do just that, but guess what, they are still mentally ill.
When a person says "NK are crazy" they do not mean "NK does awful, psychopathic things but can be trusted to do reasonable things in their own self interest". That's an absurd position you've backed yourself in to. I would stop trying to dig deeper, if I were you.
Regardless of what you say, Kim shows signs of mental illness and being "crazy." That is a fact, you cannot dispute that. I don't really give a damn about your this or that argument you have going on. What I do care about is you attempting to hand wave away this issue just because you are trying to push your own view. Accept it and move on.
I state that any attempt to use 'crazy' in this thread and any similar discussion has been used to describe Kim and the greater NK leadership as erratic and unable to rely on for a deal. That you and others have attempted to expand 'crazy' out to include all possible mental health issues is disingenuous and more than a little lame.
I am sorry, words have meaning. The meaning of crazy is pretty well defined. I apologize that you do not like the meaning of the word, but you cannot change it to fit your argument.
I would stop if I were you. You have contradicted yourself here and it is just painful to see.
Actually "crazy" has far too many generalised connotations and definitions to too many people to be worth anything. Now, there are many, many defined types of mental instability and psychosis that all have proper definitions and applications, but using "crazy" as a catch all is redundant and meaningless.
China has told North Korean companies operating in its territory to close down as it implements United Nations sanctions against the reclusive state.
The companies will be shut by early January. Joint Chinese and North Korean ventures will also be forced to close.
China, Pyongyang's only major ally, has already banned textile trade and limited oil exports.
The move is part of an international response to North Korea's sixth and most powerful nuclear test.
The UN Security Council, of which China is a member, voted unanimously for fresh sanctions on 11 September.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Actually "crazy" has far too many generalised connotations and definitions to too many people to be worth anything. Now, there are many, many defined types of mental instability and psychosis that all have proper definitions and applications, but using "crazy" as a catch all is redundant and meaningless.
This is true.
I suppose you might say Kim is crazy in the sense that he is an egomaniac, and likely a sociopath. But when I hear the word "crazy", I tend to think of it more in the sense of someone gibbering about how the squirrels are plotting to steal his underwear. Not someone who has a skewed moral code.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Actually "crazy" has far too many generalised connotations and definitions to too many people to be worth anything. Now, there are many, many defined types of mental instability and psychosis that all have proper definitions and applications, but using "crazy" as a catch all is redundant and meaningless.
This is true.
I suppose you might say Kim is crazy in the sense that he is an egomaniac, and likely a sociopath. But when I hear the word "crazy", I tend to think of it more in the sense of someone gibbering about how the squirrels are plotting to steal his underwear. Not someone who has a skewed moral code.
Why do you apply it to one mental illness but not the other?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Actually "crazy" has far too many generalised connotations and definitions to too many people to be worth anything. Now, there are many, many defined types of mental instability and psychosis that all have proper definitions and applications, but using "crazy" as a catch all is redundant and meaningless.
This is true.
I suppose you might say Kim is crazy in the sense that he is an egomaniac, and likely a sociopath. But when I hear the word "crazy", I tend to think of it more in the sense of someone gibbering about how the squirrels are plotting to steal his underwear. Not someone who has a skewed moral code.
Why do you apply it to one mental illness but not the other?
Because when I think of crazy, I think of a total departure from rational thinking. Sociopaths are still rational actors.
Mental Illness has a whole lot more to it than simply departure from rational thinking.
Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
China has told North Korean companies operating in its territory to close down as it implements United Nations sanctions against the reclusive state.
The companies will be shut by early January. Joint Chinese and North Korean ventures will also be forced to close.
China, Pyongyang's only major ally, has already banned textile trade and limited oil exports.
The move is part of an international response to North Korea's sixth and most powerful nuclear test.
The UN Security Council, of which China is a member, voted unanimously for fresh sanctions on 11 September.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
He was educated in Switzerland.
He has seen the west and was not in thr NK bubble his entire life.
Also yes. He has a rather much God complex, his people worship him, he had ultimate power, he does not know what "no" means in his current role.
If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
It's an impossible situation. Either we pat the back of a tyrannical regime and give up all pretense of standards when it comes to human rights, or we'll be in perennial conflict with them until something eventually escalates out of control.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
He was educated in Switzerland.
He has seen the west and was not in thr NK bubble his entire life.
Also yes. He has a rather much God complex, his people worship him, he had ultimate power, he does not know what "no" means in his current role.
This assumes Kim is the genuine power and not merely a figurehead.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
He was educated in Switzerland.
He has seen the west and was not in thr NK bubble his entire life.
Also yes. He has a rather much God complex, his people worship him, he had ultimate power, he does not know what "no" means in his current role.
This assumes Kim is the genuine power and not merely a figurehead.
True. But things like killing his brother. All him. A puppet master. Why would they need to do that?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
He was educated in Switzerland.
He has seen the west and was not in thr NK bubble his entire life.
Also yes. He has a rather much God complex, his people worship him, he had ultimate power, he does not know what "no" means in his current role.
This assumes Kim is the genuine power and not merely a figurehead.
True. But things like killing his brother. All him. A puppet master. Why would they need to do that?
I don't know. The devious machinations of the NK political elite would probably read like Game of Thrones.
The whole discussion about definitions of “crazy” on the continuum of mental illnesses is really dragging this thread into hostile territory.
Can we just settle on agreeing on something like “he’s not clinically insane and pushing nuke-test buttons because the voice telling him he’s a god tells him to, but he is definitely cold and ruthless and lacks empathy and compassion and probably has daddy isssues”?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
He was educated in Switzerland.
He has seen the west and was not in thr NK bubble his entire life.
Also yes. He has a rather much God complex, his people worship him, he had ultimate power, he does not know what "no" means in his current role.
This assumes Kim is the genuine power and not merely a figurehead.
True. But things like killing his brother. All him. A puppet master. Why would they need to do that?
I don't know. The devious machinations of the NK political elite would probably read like Game of Thrones.
True. The fact is NK is a hard country to confirm anything.
Yet alone understand its exact internal structure.
d-usa wrote: The whole discussion about definitions of “crazy” on the continuum of mental illnesses is really dragging this thread into hostile territory.
Can we just settle on agreeing on something like “he’s not clinically insane and pushing nuke-test buttons because the voice telling him he’s a god tells him to, but he is definitely cold and ruthless and lacks empathy and compassion and probably has daddy isssues”?
When it gets right down to it, the NK leadership is no different than any other modern politician in their motivations: they'll do whatever it takes to retain their power to live the lifestyle they want. It's the methods they use to achieve that goal that make them seem so very different from other politicians/leaders. There is no possible future for them in a free/democratic North Korea that would allow them to continue to live the life they have to come to enjoy, and they know that.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Thing is, Kim most likely does not suffer any form of mental illness or psychosis. What everyone seems to neglect to remember is that he was a child of power brought up in that regime. With a father who probably told him constantly that all you survey is yours to do with as you like and all those dirty westerners are nothing but the enemy. He most probably wanted for nothing and has never had anyone tell him no. and on top of that, constant, false adoration of every person in his country. If you want a complex to apply, it's going to be superiority because it's most likely all he has ever known.
He does not exhibit the traits of a superiority complex. He exhibits traits of an inferiority complex.
Seriously, we really need to start teaching people about mental illness because this last page has proven that people know jack gak about it.
He was educated in Switzerland.
He has seen the west and was not in thr NK bubble his entire life.
Also yes. He has a rather much God complex, his people worship him, he had ultimate power, he does not know what "no" means in his current role.
He also went to a NK Military academy where he earned a degree as well as a degree in Physics from a NK University.
d-usa wrote: The whole discussion about definitions of “crazy” on the continuum of mental illnesses is really dragging this thread into hostile territory.
Can we just settle on agreeing on something like “he’s not clinically insane and pushing nuke-test buttons because the voice telling him he’s a god tells him to, but he is definitely cold and ruthless and lacks empathy and compassion and probably has daddy isssues”?
Dreadwinter wrote: I am sorry, words have meaning. The meaning of crazy is pretty well defined. I apologize that you do not like the meaning of the word, but you cannot change it to fit your argument.
I would stop if I were you. You have contradicted yourself here and it is just painful to see.
You know, when someone has actually contradicted themselves and you want to make a point of it, it's pretty normal to actually, you know, show the contradiction. You could even quote some stuff, that's one of the good things about text based mediums.
But you don't, and there's no points for guessing why.
Also, claiming that crazy is pretty well defined is some incredible nonsense, that doesn't just show that you don't know much about crazy. If crazy was a simple concept with a clean and constant definition we wouldn't have highly trained specialists to making individual assessments on lots of people, and disagreeing among themselves about who is and who isn't crazy.
It also shows you don't know much about words, because different people in different circumstances use words very differently. If a guy on the street says 'that guy is crazy' no-one on God's earth will assume he means 'that person is displaying personality traits that are identified in psychiatry as very mentally unhealthy, but the person is still likely to be a rational person who can be trusted to keep up bargains for their own self interest'.
feeder wrote: This assumes Kim is the genuine power and not merely a figurehead.
True. But things like killing his brother. All him. A puppet master. Why would they need to do that?
He isn't a figurehead, but he also isn't a puppet. Dictators never have absolute power, there is always a collection of elites underneath him who both grant him power and in turn are granted power by him. That's the complex dynamic, which means in order to keep his position Kim has to maintain a constant appearance of strength and also ensure the elites all get a nice bit of power and wealth.
This is why Kim has to kill potential rivals, and it's also why it is so hard for him to back down from nuclear ambitions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Can we just settle on agreeing on something like “he’s not clinically insane and pushing nuke-test buttons because the voice telling him he’s a god tells him to, but he is definitely cold and ruthless and lacks empathy and compassion and probably has daddy isssues”?
I'd rather go with US Navy Admiral and SC NATO James Stavridis, who was paraphrased in a report saying "(Kim is) a fundamentally rational leader whose overiding goals are to ensure the survival of his regime and his personal control over North Korea."
That's what matters. If people want to go off and make personal diagnoses about Kim, well I guess they do whatever makes them happy, as long as they agree to the key part above.
For fun times, in the same article Stavridis says the chance of nuclear war with NK is about 10%, and conventional war about 20 to 30%. So that's fairly terrifying.
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
It's an impossible situation. Either we pat the back of a tyrannical regime and give up all pretense of standards when it comes to human rights, or we'll be in perennial conflict with them until something eventually escalates out of control.
Or he would not stop. Being friends with US is no quarantee they won't turn you and invade as history has shown.
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
It's an impossible situation. Either we pat the back of a tyrannical regime and give up all pretense of standards when it comes to human rights, or we'll be in perennial conflict with them until something eventually escalates out of control.
The US is already a proud ally of Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy that sponsors wahabist terror cells across the Middle East. The US could pivot on a dime to support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the entire political class wouldn't blink to pretend that things were ever otherwise.
For fun times, in the same article Stavridis says the chance of nuclear war with NK is about 10%, and conventional war about 20 to 30%. So that's fairly terrifying.
Interesting. I wonder what factors would lead to North Korea using their normal forces but withholding nukes?
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
Yes but in past few years he damaged the key China allience further than it had degraded.
Now they backing sanctions.
Shutting NK companies in China and closing there joint investments for now.
Kim 2 had a good relationship with China, one kim 3 does not.
He has managed to damage the only nation that backs then support.
it's weird to see china coming down on NK, but then I have to wonder if the tactile factories they closed were the ones that makes the trumps line of clothes.
Perhaps China values it's good relations with the US more than it's good relations with NK. Perhaps China does not want a nuclear NK anymore than the rest of the world does. Perhaps Kim3 made a pass at Jinping's favorite niece.
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
Yes but in past few years he damaged the key China allience further than it had degraded.
Now they backing sanctions.
Shutting NK companies in China and closing there joint investments for now.
Kim 2 had a good relationship with China, one kim 3 does not.
He has managed to damage the only nation that backs then support.
Absolutely the relationship with China has degraded. However, as long as that external threat remains or can be manufactured, and is needed to keep the Kim family in Power, the North Koreans will continue with their course even if they starve. It feeds into that whole mentality and political narrative, and gives them a meaningful deterrent capability to boot, which they can then use as a negotiating tool.
China can and will make life suck even more for NK, is getting serious about doing just that and has obviously had enough of their antics, however, as long as US forces remain in Korea, China isnt going to allow NK to collapse either. They dont want US forces up to the border, and they dont want to deal with the refugees.
We can hope that China getting more serious however knocks some sense into people on all sides of this, but unless theres something to address US forces and refugees, China isnt going to allow NK to fall either, unless they become a bigger threat than the US. Which is not impossible, it could eventually sway that way, but doesnt appear to be there yet.
It's true that the DPRK needs a boogeyman to justify its totalitarian stance on the face of things, but that fairy tale is losing its importance one way or another. Even with the profound amount of constraints around the populace, people in North Korea are generally aware that their government is lying to them and that the outside world is not what it's claimed to be. They just don't have any choice but to go along with it. As time goes on it will be harder and harder to keep the civilian population from getting outside information. So the regime will need outside support (or at least a complicit passiveness) in order to stay in power and keep its population under control.
The DPRK is constantly paying political consulting groups in the U.S. to find out how it can understand the political situation here and probing for any kind of support it might garner. They want to sit at the adults' table, but they're just not willing to lose any face to do so. Either we kiss and make up with them and turn a blind eye to whatever it is they're doing, or they keep up the rhetoric and saber rattling. But that's a pattern that is only going to last so long, one way or another.
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
So the best thing to do is just ignore them then. Check.
Strange how avoiding simplistic labeling like "crazy" actually engenders interesting discussion of nuance and strategy in the last few posts. Who would have thunk it? Keep it up dakka folks.
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
Yes but in past few years he damaged the key China allience further than it had degraded.
Now they backing sanctions.
Shutting NK companies in China and closing there joint investments for now.
Kim 2 had a good relationship with China, one kim 3 does not.
He has managed to damage the only nation that backs then support.
Absolutely the relationship with China has degraded. However, as long as that external threat remains or can be manufactured, and is needed to keep the Kim family in Power, the North Koreans will continue with their course even if they starve. It feeds into that whole mentality and political narrative, and gives them a meaningful deterrent capability to boot, which they can then use as a negotiating tool.
China can and will make life suck even more for NK, is getting serious about doing just that and has obviously had enough of their antics, however, as long as US forces remain in Korea, China isnt going to allow NK to collapse either. They dont want US forces up to the border, and they dont want to deal with the refugees.
We can hope that China getting more serious however knocks some sense into people on all sides of this, but unless theres something to address US forces and refugees, China isnt going to allow NK to fall either, unless they become a bigger threat than the US. Which is not impossible, it could eventually sway that way, but doesnt appear to be there yet.
Well China values two things that seem to conflict abit..
Money and stability.
US is a massive trade partner and major block of their exports abroad, a key foundation to there economy.
NK. Well they do not want them becoming unstable on their border so they cannot let them fail. It seems they would happy for a balenced maybe of a more weaker NK?
Reliance on them is expensive for China but when you control their main food and fuel supply you have substantial leverage.
Easier to reign kim 3 in of he now struggling to keep the Pyongyang set happy, and the elites who prop up his rule alone without China's "generous" aid.
sebster wrote:He isn't a figurehead, but he also isn't a puppet. Dictators never have absolute power, there is always a collection of elites underneath him who both grant him power and in turn are granted power by him. That's the complex dynamic, which means in order to keep his position Kim has to maintain a constant appearance of strength and also ensure the elites all get a nice bit of power and wealth.
This is why Kim has to kill potential rivals, and it's also why it is so hard for him to back down from nuclear ambitions.
Here's a nice (and a bit abstract) video that explains some of the stuff you need to stay in power:
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
So the best thing to do is just ignore them then. Check.
Not really. There are two reasons we can't ignore them
1) They can control what their population sees of the outside world, so even if we do nothing they can still lie to their people and say how we are threatening them.
2) They're not just staying inside their borders and shaking their fists at us. They shoot artillery at South Korea with a good amount of regularity. And now they're looking at testing a Hydrogen bomb in the middle of the pacific, potentially harming many other countries.
sebster wrote:It also shows you don't know much about words, because different people in different circumstances use words very differently. If a guy on the street says 'that guy is crazy' no-one on God's earth will assume he means 'that person is displaying personality traits that are identified in psychiatry as very mentally unhealthy, but the person is still likely to be a rational person who can be trusted to keep up bargains for their own self interest'.
You need to make up your mind. Do words have meaning or are we able to change the meaning of words on a whim to whatever we wish?
Luciferian wrote: If the international community recognized North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power and invited Kim over for dinner and cocktails at the White House he would cease being belligerent and aggressive immediately. Unfortunately that's a hard thing to justify when he's basically holding all of his own people for ransom.
The issue here is that without a big existential threat, a great enemy, his internal powerbase collapses and Kim ends up like Mussolini, Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, etc.
The entire political philosophy of the DPRK is built around the fairy tale story of an isolated land of pure people, violently oppressed for centuries by foreign powers, currently under threat of existential annihilation by an imperialist foreign power that occupies half the country, and that the Kim family is keeping them safe and the Military is their instrument. Once you take out that foreign aggression part, the Kim's serve no purpose.
The Kim dynasty has every reason to want to keep things in a proverbial knife edge. It's dangerous for everyone else, but it's also where Kim is safest personally.
So the best thing to do is just ignore them then. Check.
Not really. There are two reasons we can't ignore them
1) They can control what their population sees of the outside world, so even if we do nothing they can still lie to their people and say how we are threatening them.
2) They're not just staying inside their borders and shaking their fists at us. They shoot artillery at South Korea with a good amount of regularity. And now they're looking at testing a Hydrogen bomb in the middle of the pacific, potentially harming many other countries.
The key word here is 'potentially'. As long as we keep ignoring them that potentiality remains very small. Drive them further into a corner however, and the potentiality for harm shoots up like the rocket NK will then be using to nuke Tokyo.
North Korea's leaders know what the consequences of them using a nuclear weapon are. Using such a weapon means losing everything. That is why they are only going to use it whey they have nothing left to lose. Unlike artillery, nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, not weapons you can fire at any target you want simply to make a statement (unless the enemy is already defeated and has no way of retaliating, like when the US nuked Japan in WW2).
North Korea having nuclear weapons is not necessarily a problem. Whether it is a problem or not depends entirely on how the rest of world will react to it.
sebster wrote:It also shows you don't know much about words, because different people in different circumstances use words very differently. If a guy on the street says 'that guy is crazy' no-one on God's earth will assume he means 'that person is displaying personality traits that are identified in psychiatry as very mentally unhealthy, but the person is still likely to be a rational person who can be trusted to keep up bargains for their own self interest'.
You need to make up your mind. Do words have meaning or are we able to change the meaning of words on a whim to whatever we wish?
Some words have meaning. Some words, like "thing" have so many meanings as to be functionally meaningless. "Crazy" is a word that is a catchall that means basically nothing. "She's so crazy, she gonna die her hair pink!" How bout using words that actually mean something? Here is a good place to look for the the words you might want to use that others might get some sort of meaning from, you know words that are defined by people in the field: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm
Hint: nobody who actually knows what they are talking about when discussing mental disorders ever uses the word "crazy".
Frazzled wrote: How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
With that loose definition of the word, you'd think every murder would be found not guilty for reasons of insanity. You'd think manson would be in a clinic instead of a prison, that man is clearly crazy and he didn't even kill anyone. Who in their right mind would ever kill anyone?
If he is as crazy as some of you want to make him out to be, then you have to really wonder about the mental state of anyone trying to provoke him. All that crazy guy has to do is give the word and out ally SK loses a major city. Treading carefully and kid gloves are required here, not another lunatic looking for a fight.
Frazzled wrote: How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
Why is it so important to you that you want to label it as insanity? Fine., That's actually a definable mental problem. Check it out. Learn some stuff. Killing ones own brother is not really insane at all. Cain wasn't insane, just evil. Read you bible. Really folks, we have definitions and history for a reason. Sleeping with sisters, killing brothers, killing mothers, killing fathers. Shakespeare covered it. Not really insanity. By labeling it insanity, you are making the case that he has some sort of excuse for his actions. At the very least he would have a legal excuse for his actions. Nope. He is a horrible human being. He gets no excuse card. He should be responsible for his actions, his thoughts and his deeds, as should we all. Making him "crazy" gives him a simple lazy out. It's the ACCA excuse for everything.. Don't be a liberal. See how stupid labels are, you liberal you?
Frazzled wrote: How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
Why is it so important to you that you want to label it as insanity? Fine., That's actually a definable mental problem. Check it out. Learn some stuff. Killing ones own brother is not really insane at all. Cain wasn't insane, just evil. Read you bible. Really folks, we have definitions and history for a reason. Sleeping with sisters, killing brothers, killing mothers, killing fathers. Shakespeare covered it. Not really insanity. By labeling it insanity, you are making the case that he has some sort of excuse for his actions. At the very least he would have a legal excuse for his actions. Nope. He is a horrible human being. He gets no excuse card. He should be responsible for his actions, his thoughts and his deeds, as should we all. Making him "crazy" gives him a simple lazy out. It the ACA ecuse for everything.. Don't be a liberal. See how stupid labels are, you liberal you?
Because his actions point to that. Also, what do fictional characters in books and plays have anything to do with this? What are you even on about in this post?
Frazzled wrote: How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
Why is it so important to you that you want to label it as insanity? Fine., That's actually a definable mental problem. Check it out. Learn some stuff. Killing ones own brother is not really insane at all. Cain wasn't insane, just evil. Read you bible. Really folks, we have definitions and history for a reason. Sleeping with sisters, killing brothers, killing mothers, killing fathers. Shakespeare covered it. Not really insanity. By labeling it insanity, you are making the case that he has some sort of excuse for his actions. At the very least he would have a legal excuse for his actions. Nope. He is a horrible human being. He gets no excuse card. He should be responsible for his actions, his thoughts and his deeds, as should we all. Making him "crazy" gives him a simple lazy out. It the ACA ecuse for everything.. Don't be a liberal. See how stupid labels are, you liberal you?
Because his actions point to that. Also, what do fictional characters in books and plays have anything to do with this? What are you even on about in this post?
Are you really referencing Shakespeare here?
If you think our friend Frazz is a lib, you are a bit misguided and haven't been reading the posts or have no idea about his history....as to the post. Maybe you should read it and comment on the content of it. Or read some Shakespeare. Weird, I know. . Either way, you might learn something, which is never a bad thing.
Frazzled wrote: How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
Why is it so important to you that you want to label it as insanity? Fine., That's actually a definable mental problem. Check it out. Learn some stuff. Killing ones own brother is not really insane at all. Cain wasn't insane, just evil. Read you bible. Really folks, we have definitions and history for a reason. Sleeping with sisters, killing brothers, killing mothers, killing fathers. Shakespeare covered it. Not really insanity. By labeling it insanity, you are making the case that he has some sort of excuse for his actions. At the very least he would have a legal excuse for his actions. Nope. He is a horrible human being. He gets no excuse card. He should be responsible for his actions, his thoughts and his deeds, as should we all. Making him "crazy" gives him a simple lazy out. It the ACA ecuse for everything.. Don't be a liberal. See how stupid labels are, you liberal you?
Because his actions point to that. Also, what do fictional characters in books and plays have anything to do with this? What are you even on about in this post?
Are you really referencing Shakespeare here?
I know, god forbid a Shakespeare refence slips in to the stupidity of what people talk about on their their cell phones. The travesty!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Are you really asking if I'm really refencing Shakespeare in a debate? Would you like me to reference how pretty the ponies in your world are as well?
Yeah, I guess "crazy" is a trigger word or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Someone brings crazy up again and the intellectual value of posts evaporates again, just leave it alone guys.
yup. When people use words to do stuff, people hurt people. Hulk smash. Is that better? People get that reference as opposed to ole wille shakes? Bit sad bout that.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Someone brings crazy up again and the intellectual value of posts evaporates again, just leave it alone guys.
yup. When people use words to do stuff, people hurt people. Hulk smash. Is that better? People get that reference as opposed to ole wille shakes? Bit sad bout that.
Referring more to the fact that it's arguing in some very well-worn circles without adding anything that hasn't been said at least three times already.
Frazzled wrote:How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
If he sees them as people who could undermine his position of power, that power which in turn keeps him literary alive (against other groups that might want to dethrone and/or harm him) then the rational question for him would be "them or me, who gets to be alive at the end of the month?" In such a situation it's rational to think about who could affect your position and what you can do to stay in power (he's just being proactive). NK isn't as stable as first world democracies and the "political landscape" (so to speak) is different. The solutions to that type of problem (staying in power) is not about winning elections but (in extreme cases) murdering your opponents, especially if staying in power is more or less synonymous with staying alive.
The same goes for why NK wants nukes. For them a possible conflict with the US is not the same as a conflict between the US and the EU (trade deals, bickering, usually nothing murderous) but them fearing that the US might invade them is reasonable from their point of view (like the USA did with Afghanistan, Iraq, and other undesirable regimes). It seems like the USA don't like to invade countries that have nukes so getting nukes (to NK) is a reasonable deterrent against a possible attack.
In such a context it's more rational than whatever Trump's doing (usually whining because his ego got hurt, no matter the consequences).
Frazzled wrote:How about fething insane? He killed his own brother and uncle. That's pretty clinically fething insane no matter how you try to obfiscate it.
If he sees them as people who could undermine his position of power, that power which in turn keeps him literary alive (against other groups that might want to dethrone and/or harm him) then the rational question for him would be "them or me, who gets to be alive at the end of the month?" In such a situation it's rational to think about who could affect your position and what you can do to stay in power (he's just being proactive). NK isn't as stable as first world democracies and the "political landscape" (so to speak) is different. The solutions to that type of problem (staying in power) is not about winning elections but (in extreme cases) murdering your opponents, especially if staying in power is more or less synonymous with staying alive.
The same goes for why NK wants nukes. For them a possible conflict with the US is not the same as a conflict between the US and the EU (trade deals, bickering, usually nothing murderous) but them fearing that the US might invade them is reasonable from their point of view (like the USA did with Afghanistan, Iraq, and other undesirable regimes). It seems like the USA don't like to invade countries that have nukes so getting nukes (to NK) is a reasonable deterrent against a possible attack.
In such a context it's more rational than whatever Trump's doing (usually whining because his ego got hurt, no matter the consequences).
Insane may not be accurate.
But paranoia is. Old Kim likely was too, but new Kim's hold on power seems somewhat less steady.
The increased nuclear, rateof killings close to him are somewhat dramatically higher.
Also rapidly advances on missiles. His rule does not seem as stable as previous eras. Older Kim caused reflectively few waves compared to his son.
But paranoia is. Old Kim likely was too, but new Kim's hold on power seems somewhat less steady.
The increased nuclear, rateof killings close to him are somewhat dramatically higher.
Also rapidly advances on missiles. His rule does not seem as stable as previous eras. Older Kim caused reflectively few waves compared to his son.
I would also say that there's a high degree of paranoia (some of it even justified) and fears that drive those decisions. NK isn't stable in a way that we find familiar, add Trump throwing verbal hand grenades into this and we end up with more disturbances. But it seems they are more interested in the actual NK-US situation than Trump is with his flowery phrases.
"They are trying to piece together what they can about what the US policy is under the new administration," he said. "But even in Washington, we are often confused or have questions about what the parameters of the policies are, so imagine trying to assess Washington from further away, in Seoul, Tokyo, and Pyongyang."
…
However, Trump and Kim's war of words has coincided with an uptick in outreach by North Korean intermediaries seeking to establish alternate channels of communication -- but experts said they noticed a shift in tone from the North Koreans in recent months compared to meetings earlier this year.
…
"The North Koreans were much more self-assured than they had been in previous meetings," Klingner said, adding that the message seemed to be that "denuclearization was completely off the table and there was nothing the US or Seoul could offer that would change that."
…
But from the outside looking in, some experts said the North Koreans are continuing to reach out to these American analysts because Trump has caught Kim off guard with his bluster and there is a real concern about what could happen next.
NK might be paranoid but the more unpredictable one in this relationship seems to be Trump.
Sadly Trump is the unpredictable one here and also the one who actually has mental disability. Coupled with NK brinkmanship and it's easy to see how something could go very wrong very fast.
Grey Templar wrote: Interesting. I wonder what factors would lead to North Korea using their normal forces but withholding nukes?
I think it would be that brinkmanship escalated to the use of force, most likely starting with NK firing on US, SK or Japanese forces, which is retaliated against. Remember that NK have previously shot down a US helicopter killing one, sunk a SK frigate killing many, and fired artillery on a SK controlled island, also killing. In this heated environment those events are more likely, and more likely to be retaliated against. NK will lose that shooting match, badly, and then it's a question of whether NK escalates it to nuclear and commits national suicide. Stavridis says that's a less likely outcome, but he's still giving a horrifying likelihood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Perhaps China values it's good relations with the US more than it's good relations with NK. Perhaps China does not want a nuclear NK anymore than the rest of the world does. Perhaps Kim3 made a pass at Jinping's favorite niece.
We may never know.
China's stance is that they don't want a nation the share a border with a country that blows up in a giant pile of humanitarian mess. Which is pretty much how every country acts when it shares a border with a politically unstable country with major economic issues. Can't really blame China for that to be honest.
What's this meant in the past is that China has given aid when NK has threatened collapse, such as the mid to late 90s famine. But as the issue has moved to nukes and increasingly aggressive NK provocation, China has seen the biggest threat to be NK getting the nuke. So they've moved on board with US led controls on NK nukes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: You need to make up your mind. Do words have meaning or are we able to change the meaning of words on a whim to whatever we wish?
Words have meanings, and the meanings of those words are given by the context of the sentence and conversation they are in.
As I explained to you in PM, the word good can mean many things. The sentence "he was good" can also mean many things. For instance;
"Was our Timmy well behaved at the party?" "He was good." "Did our timmy play well in his football game?" "He was good."
It's like you've wandered in, heard someone ask if Timmy played well, heard the response that Timmy was good, and starting talking about good means moral and there's place for moral behaviour on the football field. And then when it was explained that good in that context meant he played well, you've kept saying that good means moral and started complaining that everyone's changed the meaning of all the words and you've caught everyone in contradictions and lies.
It's been a pretty strange kind of thing to see play itself out. I almost said it's been a strange thing to be part of, but really I feel like the rest of us have kind of been more like witnesses watching the whole thing play out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sadly Trump is the unpredictable one here and also the one who actually has mental disability. Coupled with NK brinkmanship and it's easy to see how something could go very wrong very fast.
I think Trump's role is pretty cynical as well. He is trying to get a political gain from picking a fight just as much as Kim is. I'm not sure there's any value in figuring out who is more crazy, for the same reason there's no value in trying to play arm chair general and try to figure out exactly what mental disorders Kim or any other world leader might have. Obviously on a moral level Kim is miles worse because of all the murders, but what difference does that make? What matters at this point is avoiding the many thousands of deaths at a minimum there would be if Trump and Kim stumbled in to a very avoidable war as a result of their silly brinkmanship game.
Related to this, today on twitter Trump sent out tweets chiding Sec State Tillerson for trying to start a deal with NK, saying it was hopeless. Does Trump actually believe that? If he did he could just instruct Tillerson to end the talks, Trump could even do it using the message function in twitter and the rest of us wouldn't have to know. Instead Trump publicly undermines talks he has sent his Sec State on. Maybe Trump doesn't know Tillerson acts under the discretionary powers of the president and Trump doesn't have to let Tillerson meet if Trump doesn't want him to? Maybe its just a publicity stunt to distract from Puerto Rico? Maybe that rumour about Trump telling his staff to claim Trump is a madman to increase bargaining power was real, and Trump is just trying to boost Tillerson's bargaining position by making Trump withdrawing talks more believable?
I don't know. Maybe any of the above. Maybe all of the above and also aliens.
Dreadwinter wrote: You need to make up your mind. Do words have meaning or are we able to change the meaning of words on a whim to whatever we wish?
Words have meanings, and the meanings of those words are given by the context of the sentence and conversation they are in.
As I explained to you in PM, the word good can mean many things. The sentence "he was good" can also mean many things. For instance;
"Was our Timmy well behaved at the party?" "He was good."
"Did our timmy play well in his football game?" "He was good."
It's like you've wandered in, heard someone ask if Timmy played well, heard the response that Timmy was good, and starting talking about good means moral and there's place for moral behaviour on the football field. And then when it was explained that good in that context meant he played well, you've kept saying that good means moral and started complaining that everyone's changed the meaning of all the words and you've caught everyone in contradictions and lies.
It's been a pretty strange kind of thing to see play itself out. I almost said it's been a strange thing to be part of, but really I feel like the rest of us have kind of been more like witnesses watching the whole thing play out.
Agreed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sadly Trump is the unpredictable one here and also the one who actually has mental disability. Coupled with NK brinkmanship and it's easy to see how something could go very wrong very fast.
I think Trump's role is pretty cynical as well. He is trying to get a political gain from picking a fight just as much as Kim is. I'm not sure there's any value in figuring out who is more crazy, for the same reason there's no value in trying to play arm chair general and try to figure out exactly what mental disorders Kim or any other world leader might have. Obviously on a moral level Kim is miles worse because of all the murders, but what difference does that make? What matters at this point is avoiding the many thousands of deaths at a minimum there would be if Trump and Kim stumbled in to a very avoidable war as a result of their silly brinkmanship game.
Related to this, today on twitter Trump sent out tweets chiding Sec State Tillerson for trying to start a deal with NK, saying it was hopeless. Does Trump actually believe that? If he did he could just instruct Tillerson to end the talks, Trump could even do it using the message function in twitter and the rest of us wouldn't have to know. Instead Trump publicly undermines talks he has sent his Sec State on. Maybe Trump doesn't know Tillerson acts under the discretionary powers of the president and Trump doesn't have to let Tillerson meet if Trump doesn't want him to? Maybe its just a publicity stunt to distract from Puerto Rico? Maybe that rumour about Trump telling his staff to claim Trump is a madman to increase bargaining power was real, and Trump is just trying to boost Tillerson's bargaining position by making Trump withdrawing talks more believable?
I don't know. Maybe any of the above. Maybe all of the above and also aliens.
I was referring to a notable amount of medical professionals which have stated that Trump has mental issues, as opposed to Kim where that is not the case. Specifically, we can expect that Kim will act in a rational manner according to his motives, meaning we can expect that he will not suddenly do a right-turn on policy with no cause or indication. We cannot say the same of Trump; he may be advocating diplomacy next week, or advocating invasion next week, we don't know. I'm not saying it's likely, but its something with a non-insignificant chance of happening. From all indications he will readily convince himself of things being true (or at least act as if they are) even when those truths are complete fabrications of his own design. Which is to say may literally make up a reason to do something then act as if it is true regardless of any evidence on the matter. Again it's not the most likely outcome, but when the thing that has a 10% of happening is nuclear war I believe it's worth noting.
sebster wrote: I think Trump's role is pretty cynical as well. He is trying to get a political gain from picking a fight just as much as Kim is.
From the moment he became part of the USA's political consciousness none of Trump's actions have looked like there was ever an idea of some real political gain behind them. Sometimes a handler got him to do something for a limited time but that doesn't stick for long and he does something unexpected (and not in a smart or tactical way). It all looks like he's always trying to show how superior he is to everybody else, be they (political) enemies or friends. He has to be the alpha dude in any situation (or more precisely: what he assumes to be "alpha"). I don't know where the quote is from it describes him and his MO rather well: "Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a dumb man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man".
Kim, at least, seems to picking a fight for some NK internal reasons (he at least thinks he needs to show strength) but Trump does it because he needs to, in this case, one-up "Rocket Man". There's no political motivation behind it or any of his other attacks, it's all personal. What political gain is there to be had when attacking, for example, the mayor of San Juan (or any of this other twitter "moments")?
We have the administration saying that NK is refusing any diplomatic solutions, then we are being told by SoState that avenues for talking are being pursued and that we are communicating, and then have Trump telling SofState to stop talking to NK and that he will handle it himself some other way.
How is any country supposed to deal with us like that?
d-usa wrote: We have the administration saying that NK is refusing any diplomatic solutions, then we are being told by SoState that avenues for talking are being pursued and that we are communicating, and then have Trump telling SofState to stop talking to NK and that he will handle it himself some other way.
How is any country supposed to deal with us like that?
They aren't. I am beginning to think that is the point of this whole administration. If you scare everybody away, you don't have to do any work. More golf time.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I was referring to a notable amount of medical professionals which have stated that Trump has mental issues, as opposed to Kim where that is not the case. Specifically, we can expect that Kim will act in a rational manner according to his motives, meaning we can expect that he will not suddenly do a right-turn on policy with no cause or indication. We cannot say the same of Trump; he may be advocating diplomacy next week, or advocating invasion next week, we don't know.
Yeah, I'm wary of any kind of mental assessment done from afar, just by seeing how a person presents themselves in public. You make a good point that Trump is more erratic, but I don't think that's necessarily due to any emotional instablity on his part (I'm also not saying it isn't, just that I don't know because I've never met the man, nor gotten a clear impression from people who have). I think Trump is erratic on this issue because it is a minor issue to him, and one that until recently he was probably only barely aware of. As such, Trump's behaviour on NK shifts on a weekly basis, depending on policy needs elsewhere. Puerto Rico going bad? Make some fuss with NK. Worried that a containment approach on NK will look ineffectual and not in any way different to Obama's strategy, then make up a nickname for Kim and use it in a UN speech.
Whereas Kim's strategy to the US and their nuke program pretty much dominates his mind and the minds of all NK senior leadership. That doesn't mean their polices are okay, they're not, but they're much less likely to be changed due to other poltiical factors.
I'm not saying it's likely, but its something with a non-insignificant chance of happening. From all indications he will readily convince himself of things being true (or at least act as if they are) even when those truths are complete fabrications of his own design. Which is to say may literally make up a reason to do something then act as if it is true regardless of any evidence on the matter. Again it's not the most likely outcome, but when the thing that has a 10% of happening is nuclear war I believe it's worth noting.
Yeah, I've known a couple of people who were like Trump, who would tell you a lie and con themselves as they said it. It's an incredible and sometimes even scary thing to watch. And I'm not saying that Trump is probably also rational and so things will be okay. Brinkmanship is an incredibly dangerous game no matter how rational the players are, things can reach a point where the rational action is to escalate and just hope the other person backs down, but if that other person is also rationally escalating and hoping you back down, and then you add in confusion and incomplete information then anything can go wrong at any time. 10% chance of nukes being fired. Holy gak.
sebster wrote: I think Trump's role is pretty cynical as well. He is trying to get a political gain from picking a fight just as much as Kim is.
From the moment he became part of the USA's political consciousness none of Trump's actions have looked like there was ever an idea of some real political gain behind them. Sometimes a handler got him to do something for a limited time but that doesn't stick for long and he does something unexpected (and not in a smart or tactical way). It all looks like he's always trying to show how superior he is to everybody else, be they (political) enemies or friends. He has to be the alpha dude in any situation (or more precisely: what he assumes to be "alpha"). I don't know where the quote is from it describes him and his MO rather well: "Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a dumb man's idea of a smart man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man".
Kim, at least, seems to picking a fight for some NK internal reasons (he at least thinks he needs to show strength) but Trump does it because he needs to, in this case, one-up "Rocket Man". There's no political motivation behind it or any of his other attacks, it's all personal. What political gain is there to be had when attacking, for example, the mayor of San Juan (or any of this other twitter "moments")?
That sums up everything rather well. A great post.
"You've got 30 days, and if you don't get concessions then I'm pulling out," Trump told Lighthizer.
"Ok, well I'll tell the Koreans they've got 30 days," Lighthizer replied.
"No, no, no," Trump interjected. "That's not how you negotiate. You don't tell them they've got 30 days. You tell them, 'This guy's so crazy he could pull out any minute.'"
Making the others think you're crazy enough to do it is actually scaring the people enough so that they agree with what you want without thinking too much about if you would really do it in the end. It's a bully tactic. Most bullies never intend to use real strength to get to their ends. Trump is a bully, so it's no wonder he tries to look as dangerous as he can so that people go his way out of fear he might do something really dangerous.
Of course, the danger of that tactic is when you lose all credibility and people don't listen to you anymore.
The idea that Trump may be acting crazy on purpose has been floated since the onset of his candidacy, but he has yet to actually reap any benefit from the 'tactic'. I believe that idea comes from people desperate for any reason to justify their support rather than any logical analysis.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The idea that Trump may be acting crazy on purpose has been floated since the onset of his candidacy, but he has yet to actually reap any benefit from the 'tactic'. I believe that idea comes from people desperate for any reason to justify their support rather than any logical analysis.
Yeah, but there are some reports from inside the Whitehouse that Trump is actually trying to present a crazyman facade. I think the act of faith isn't so much that Trump might just be pretending, but in believing that it might actually work.
Well people here were saying to me all "US has enough safeties that Trump can't do it alone". We'll see how good those safeties are.
And as I said Trump is the warhawk. He was always more of a warhawk of the two candinates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: The idea that Trump may be acting crazy on purpose has been floated since the onset of his candidacy, but he has yet to actually reap any benefit from the 'tactic'. I believe that idea comes from people desperate for any reason to justify their support rather than any logical analysis.
Yeah that guy is not doing anything on purpose. He's emotion driven nuthole. Pure and simple. There's no grand scheme he has or some cunning plan. What you see is what you have.
tneva82 wrote: Well people here were saying to me all "US has enough safeties that Trump can't do it alone". We'll see how good those safeties are.
Senator Corker, a Republican who's not seeking another term and decided to stop pretending about Trump; "I know for a fact that every single day at the White House it's a situation of trying to contain him."
And the issue is not that Trump might decide spur of the moment to launch an attack and no-one can stop him. The problem is that Trump has no-one containing him in his diplomacy, and those informing him were picked by him, and in many cases are are as loopy as he is. As such, there's a decent chance that all Trump is going to do is put Kim in a position where Kim feels he needs to escalate in return, to make sure he keeps some leverage, to which Trump is likely to escalate, and so on until we reach the tipping point on brinkmanship, only this time it isn't Kennedy and Kruschev, its Trump and Kim.
tneva82 wrote: Well people here were saying to me all "US has enough safeties that Trump can't do it alone". We'll see how good those safeties are.
Senator Corker, a Republican who's not seeking another term and decided to stop pretending about Trump;
"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House it's a situation of trying to contain him."
To be fair... Corker is having a temper tantrum... especially in light that the administration is looking to walk away from the Iran deal, that Corker was instrumental in it's passage.
And the issue is not that Trump might decide spur of the moment to launch an attack and no-one can stop him. The problem is that Trump has no-one containing him in his diplomacy, and those informing him were picked by him, and in many cases are are as loopy as he is. As such, there's a decent chance that all Trump is going to do is put Kim in a position where Kim feels he needs to escalate in return, to make sure he keeps some leverage, to which Trump is likely to escalate, and so on until we reach the tipping point on brinkmanship, only this time it isn't Kennedy and Kruschev, its Trump and Kim.
Yeah... that's a disturbing trend. Especially since Trump isn't he only one who doesn't want to kick the can down the road again...
... Russia/China would say 
