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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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".

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.

 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?

Edited for spelling and clarity.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 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?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 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?

Someone brings crazy up again and the intellectual value of posts evaporates again, just leave it alone guys.

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.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
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.

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).

Mario wrote:

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.

 jhe90 wrote:


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.

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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/north-korea-trump-republicans-outreach/index.html?sr=twCNN092917north-korea-trump-republicans-outreach0638AMVODtop

"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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

 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.

Relevant:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/north-korea-s-kim--very-rational---cia-9279976

Tic, tic, tic, tic...


https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/07/trump-says-only-one-thing-will-work-with-north-korea/23236143/

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Tic, tic, tic, tic...


https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/07/trump-says-only-one-thing-will-work-with-north-korea/23236143/

I better save the bottle caps from the beers I've had.

About the "unpredictable Trump", that may be an actual "tactic" for "negotiations" ;

http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/trump-crazy-south-korea-trade-2017-10/

"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.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Tic, tic, tic, tic...


https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10/07/trump-says-only-one-thing-will-work-with-north-korea/23236143/

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.

 sebster wrote:

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...

Who knew that stomping on the can caused a nuclear explosion?