Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It does to the US government, charged with protecting those citizens.

Are our lives worth more than others?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:

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.

We should just ignore the povocations and just carry-on as usual with containment.

Alternatively we announce we are leaving NK and Japan in 24 months.and are turning over 500 nuke systems to both them and Japan,..

 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.

Japan and South Korea have the same right to be a Nuclear State as North Korea.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Moreso, gotta keep Godzilla happy.

 d-usa wrote:
Japan and South Korea have the same right to be a Nuclear State as North Korea.

I don't dispute that one iota...

China/Russia would though, I'm sure.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Japan and South Korea have the same right to be a Nuclear State as North Korea.

I don't dispute that one iota...

China/Russia would though, I'm sure.

Points at Rocket Man "You want a nuclear Japan and South Korea because this is how you get a nuclear capable Japan and South Korea!"

 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,..

There's the issue that Japan at least cannot legally accept them.

 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.

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.

 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.

So if 22 a day commit suicide I am pretty comfortable saying that 8 of those are related to being a veteran.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Oh... ... Russia/China would say no.

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

What an utter, utter buffoon.

Donnie could not have more perfectly made Kim 3's job easier.

 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.

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.

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.

 RancidHate wrote:
This is no fantasy, all outcomes are nightmarish.

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.