History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:12 am
Posts: 309
Location: Alingsås, Sweden
pdf27 wrote:
M.Becker wrote:
Off course? Wow could stop the US? Not that I think anyone would want to.

Fairly simple to issue as a NOTAM -
Quote:
GU..AIRSPACE ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT, ALL ACFT FLIGHT OPS ARE PROHIBITED WI AN AREA DEFINED AS A 100NM RADIUS OF 133925N1445104E (UNZ028013.9) FL500-FL999 DUE TO CONTINUOUS MIL ACT WI DEFINED AIRSPACE WHICH CREATES A SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD TO AVIATION. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT, ALL ACFT FLIGHT OPS ARE PROHIBITED. JOHN DOE, TELEPHONE 671-473-XXXX, IS THE POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE AIRSPACE. GUAM /ZUA/ CERAP, TELEPHONE 671-473-1210, IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.


If asked, you say it's a ballistic missile defence exercise in which test missiles are to be launched at Guam without warning to test the reaction of the ABM systems installed. If a North Korean missile comes your way, well, that was an unfortunate case of mistaken identity and they should have checked the NOTAMs before taking off.


A bit hard on the good people of Guam to deprive them of all flight connections. I was thinking of something limited to endoatmospheric ballistic objects...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5105
Location: EGUD
pandionutv wrote:
A bit hard on the good people of Guam to deprive them of all flight connections. I was thinking of something limited to endoatmospheric ballistic objects...

Only affects Concorde & military aircraft - the restriction in that NOTAM is from 50,000 ft upwards...

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7208
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
pdf27 wrote:
pandionutv wrote:
A bit hard on the good people of Guam to deprive them of all flight connections. I was thinking of something limited to endoatmospheric ballistic objects...

Only affects Concorde & military aircraft - the restriction in that NOTAM is from 50,000 ft upwards...

Yes, but due to a quirk of local law, all service to and from Guam must be by Concorde. It's part of the plan to keep the island from tipping over.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5105
Location: EGUD
ByronC wrote:
pdf27 wrote:
Only affects Concorde & military aircraft - the restriction in that NOTAM is from 50,000 ft upwards...

Yes, but due to a quirk of local law, all service to and from Guam must be by Concorde. It's part of the plan to keep the island from tipping over.

Ah, my apologies - I wasn't aware of that particular rule. Makes sense though - a long way from anywhere over empty ocean. Still, blocking air services would be more disruptive than a DPRK attack - so the NOTAM route is out.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2050
Location: Georgia
pdf27 wrote:
pandionutv wrote:
A bit hard on the good people of Guam to deprive them of all flight connections. I was thinking of something limited to endoatmospheric ballistic objects...

Only affects Concorde & military aircraft - the restriction in that NOTAM is from 50,000 ft upwards...

There are some business jets that can hit FL510. I've been in one up that high. It's an interesting view from up there...

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6265
Location: Cambs, UK
pdf27 wrote:
ByronC wrote:
pdf27 wrote:
Only affects Concorde & military aircraft - the restriction in that NOTAM is from 50,000 ft upwards...

Yes, but due to a quirk of local law, all service to and from Guam must be by Concorde. It's part of the plan to keep the island from tipping over.

Ah, my apologies - I wasn't aware of that particular rule. Makes sense though - a long way from anywhere over empty ocean. Still, blocking air services would be more disruptive than a DPRK attack - so the NOTAM route is out.


Depends or not if one put a NOTAM with those flight levels from the Korean Peninsula's 12 mile limit extending to Guam ;)

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5105
Location: EGUD
gtg947h wrote:
There are some business jets that can hit FL510. I've been in one up that high. It's an interesting view from up there...

True, but I was figuring that unlike Concorde and military ops, they're unlikely to really need to go that high - they should still be able to operate unimpeded at FL480, for instance.

Craiglxviii wrote:
Depends or not if one put a NOTAM with those flight levels from the Korean Peninsula's 12 mile limit extending to Guam ;)

Probably not required - unless AEGIS/THAAD has a lot more cross-range ability than has been previously admitted to. Besides, that also means you need the ability to enforce said NOTAM - which means detailed high-level radar coverage over a large part of the Pacific.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: CIVLANT
Just so there is no doubt in anyone's mind.
I am an implacable enemy of Iran.

I enjoyed every minute of Op Prime Chance and Praying Mantis.
In fact, I called in two of my most valuable "Markers" (as in I know where and when YOU buried the bodies and I have proof), to ensure I took part in the Op Prime Chance. Managed to get some real up close and personal payback but nowhere enough. Despite the fact Desert Shield/Storm was by far my very best war, quite honestly, I would much rather gone to war with Iran than Iraq.

I don't always agree with this general but this time IMOHO, he got it right.

New worries over Iran nuclear deal in wake of NKorea crisis
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5536855445001

A Closer Look at Iran and North Korea's Missile Cooperation
How Iran and North Korea cooperate in their twin quests to develop better missiles
By Samuel Ramani May 13, 2017

On May 2, 2017, the Iranian military conducted a missile test from a Ghadir-class submarine in the Strait of the Hormuz. Even though the missile test failed, the close similarities between Iran’s Ghadir-class submarine and North Korea’s Yono-class miniature submarine alarmed Western policymakers. Many U.S. defense experts have argued that Iran’s missile test was proof of continued Tehran-Pyongyang military cooperation, despite repeated attempts by the United States to isolate the DPRK regime.

Even though there was considerable optimism that the July 2015 ratification of the Iran nuclear deal would halt Tehran’s long-standing military cooperation with North Korea, Iran’s ballistic missile program continues to rely on North Korean military technology. Iran’s ongoing cooperation with North Korea can be explained by a shared distrust of U.S. diplomatic overtures and the common belief that countries have a right to develop self-defense mechanisms without external interference.

Technology Sharing between Iran and North Korea since the 2015 Nuclear Deal

While media coverage on Iran-North Korea military cooperation has focused principally on technician exchanges between the two countries and nuclear cooperation, ballistic missile development has been the most consistent area of Tehran-Pyongyang technological cooperation since the Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2015. This collaboration explains the striking similarities between Iranian EMAD and North Korean Rodong missiles.

Even though parallel missile developments are powerful indicators of collaboration between Iran and North Korea, American and Israeli analysts have intensely debated the nature of the Tehran-Pyongyang partnership. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the view that Iran-North Korea cooperation is largely transactional. In a recent interview, Bolton declared that if North Korea gets nuclear missiles, “Iran could have that capability the next day” because of Tehran’s long-standing defense contracts with the DPRK and Pyongyang’s desperate need for hard currency.

While the DPRK’s dire economic situation can explain some dimensions of the Iran-North Korea military partnership, there is compelling evidence that Tehran-Pyongyang ballistic missile technology cooperation is a more mutual exchange than many U.S. policymakers have assumed.

Israeli defense analyst Tal Inbar recently noted that Iran purchased North Korea’s technical know-how on ballistic missile production, upgraded the DPRK missiles’ forward section, and distributed these advancements back to North Korea. The similarities between North Korean missiles launched during recent tests and Iranian technology suggests that Iran is a possible contributor to North Korea’s nuclear buildup, rather than a mere transactional partner.

Even though Iran’s technology-sharing partnership with North Korea is widely stigmatized, there is a compelling strategic rationale for Tehran’s continued military exchange with Pyongyang. Should Iran successfully test a missile on a North Korean-style miniature submarine, Tehran’s ability to threaten U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz would increase greatly. The Yono-class submarine’s undetectability helped the DPRK sink South Korea’s ROKS Cheonan ship in 2010. Iran’s possession of similar naval capabilities strengthened by sophisticated ballistic missiles would greatly increase the costs of a U.S. military confrontation with Tehran.

Iran’s successful utilization of North Korea’s BM-25 Musudan missile system could also profoundly impact the regional balance of power. As the head of the U.S. military in the Pacific, Admiral Harry Harris, recently noted, Washington’s adherence to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty prevents it from developing short- and medium-range missile deterrents to neutralize Iran’s missile developments.

Should Iran resolve the problems that unraveled its July 2016 test of North Korean missile technology and gain a 2,500-mile strike range, Tehran’s ability to militarily challenge Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States will strengthen considerably. This prospect explains why Iran views its partnership with North Korea as an integral component of its broader strategy to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.

Normative Solidarity Between Iran and North Korea

In addition to the strategic benefits of aligning with Pyongyang, Iran’s continued military cooperation with North Korea is founded in deep-rooted normative solidarity between the two countries. This solidarity is rooted in the shared belief that countries have the right to decide what level of defensive capacity is appropriate for them, without external interference or aggressive deterrence.

The synergy between Iran and the DPRK on national self-defense rights is rooted in both countries’ shared perception of the United States as a security threat. On February 3, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif defended Iran’s ballistic missile program, by insisting that it was a defensive reaction to aggressive threats from the United States. Iranian diplomats also frequently cite the United States’ military support for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War as proof that Iran needs defensive capabilities of unassailable strength to maintain its sovereignty.

North Korea has framed its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs in similarly defensive terms. In a January 2016 public statement from the DPRK’s official news agency, KCNA, the North Korean government defended its nuclear test as a necessary measure to prevent its leaders from succumbing to the fates of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi. The North Korean state media has also justified its weapons buildup by arguing that the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea is a compelling indicator of an imminent joint U.S.-ROK invasion of Pyongyang.

In addition to invoking their national rights to self-defense, the Iranian and DPRK governments have also highlighted double standards in the international community’s responses to states possessing nuclear weapons. In particular, Iran and North Korea have been stridently critical of Washington’s willingness to accept Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, even though many world leaders argue that Israel’s nuclear arsenal poses a threat to regional and international stability.

Here is the Money Shot for me.
Even though the 2015 Iran nuclear deal initially sparked optimism in the United States about the viability of a grand bargain to denuclearize North Korea, recent actions by the Iranian and DPRK militaries have effectively extinguished this prospect. If Iran-United States relations continue to worsen under Trump and Iran continues to upgrade its ballistic missile capabilities with DPRK technology, the Tehran-Pyongyang military nexus will remain an intractable security challenge for U.S. policymakers for years to come.

Samuel Ramani is a DPhil candidate in International Relations at St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford. He is also a journalist who contributes regularly to the Washington Post and Huffington Post. He can be followed on Twitter at samramani2 and on Facebook at Samuel Ramani.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3631
Location: CIVLANT
IMNSHO, the answer is YES.
You folks know where I stand, a Trump Man all the way.
I'm not a Republican.
I despise the democrats and not really all that thrilled about the GOP.
I vote the lesser of two evils with three exceptions
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump who I actually voted enthusiastically for
and never regretted it.

Yup on the worst day Dick Nixon ever had he was a better man than his opponent.
Besides Dick cut my last Nam River In-country vacation by 6 months. I'm dumb but even I didn't want to die in a war we would never be allowed to win. :lol: :lol: :lol:

However, as ill advised, counterproductive and dangerous as these hysterical democrats are they have the same 1st amendment rights I do. So we have to live with it and if we can, make them pay for it AGAIN at the polls.


Democrats Undermine U.S. Credibility Abroad
Standoff with Pyongyang warrants tough language, but opposition party more concerned with scoring political points
by Eddie Zipperer 14 Aug 2017

The Democratic Party has no clue how to protect our country. Their feckless approach to foreign policy is something akin to taking candy from a stranger and then begging to go for a ride in the stranger’s van. It’s peace through appeasement — walk softly and carry an idealistic delusion. Their strategies are fueled by fear and undercut our international goals across the board.

That’s why Democrats were quick to attack President Donald Trump for saying that North Korean aggression would be met with “fire and fury.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it “reckless rhetoric.” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer called it “reckless,” and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it “recklessly belligerent.” Deputy DNC chairman and House Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) — not to be out-ignoranced by the non-fringe leftists — said Kim Jong-Un is “acting more responsible” than President Trump. A statement that couldn’t have been taken less seriously if he’d use the Rosie O’Donnell squeaky voice, pig ear filter.

Obviously, these attacks were born of a Democratic Party talking point designed to politicize our national security and undermine our president on the world stage, but that Democratic talking point sprung from the leftist foreign policy paradigm of lead-from-behindism. They believe, like generations of leftists before them, that weakening the American military, weakening our rhetoric, and surrendering whatever leverage our power affords us makes the world a safer place. It’s a “magic beans” philosophy of international relations wherein America pays a heavy price for something worthless. The Bowe Berghdahl trade, we got magic beans. Clinton’s North Korean nuclear deal, we got magic beans. Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, we got magic beans.

President Trump’s “fire and fury” statement was powerful, unequivocal, and chock-full of resolve. It applies political pressure, and that pressure allows the United States to negotiate from a position of strength.

Consider how President Obama drew his red line with Syria: He spoke in a calm tone and sprinkled in about a half dozen trademark-Obama “uhhh”s.

“A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Pretty weak imagery. There’s a reason haunted houses aren’t filled with equations. There’s a reason mythological beasts don’t breathe calculus. And there’s a reason rhetoric like Obama’s doesn’t apply any political pressure. After Obama drew his red line, Putin didn’t scramble to reel in his ally Bashar al-Assad. Assad himself certainly didn’t cower to Obama’s threats of erasing and then rewriting international math problems. Instead, he crossed the line and Obama backed down. Basically, Obama stood on the world stage and pinned a “kick me” sign to America’s back. He sent the message that American threats are not to be taken seriously. That’s why he spent the remainder of his presidency being stood up by foreign leaders at the airport like some diplomatic version of a match.com reject.
President Trump is sending a different message: don’t feel comfortable threating our national security. In April, President Trump enforced Obama’s red line. You remember. The bombs hit Syria while the President was eating a big, beautiful piece of chocolate cake with Chinese president Xi Jinping.

After dropping the “Mother of All Bombs” on a series of ISIS tunnels in Afghanistan, a reporter asked President Trump, “Does this send a message to North Korea?”

Trump responded, "I don't know if this sends a message. It doesn't make any difference if it does or not. North Korea is a problem. The problem will be taken care of. I will say this: I think China has really been working very hard. I have really gotten to like and respect, as you know, President Xi. He's a terrific person, we spent a lot of time together in Florida, and he's a very special man. So we'll see how it goes. I think he's going to try very hard."

It’s clear that President Trump is not interested in sending a message to North Korea. He doesn’t seek to directly control the actions of Kim Jong Un, he intends to control them through proxy, and the proxy is China.

Trump’s actions and his rhetoric are not designed to scare Kim Jong Un into waving a white flag. This isn’t a California buyback program where North Korea gets a $100 gift card for turning in their nuclear weapons. The forceful rhetoric and the earlier actions that make the rhetoric credible—the Syria bombing and the MOAB—are designed to place political pressure on China. China believes—and rightly so—that President Trump will not bend. They believe that he will not tolerate appeasement of North Korea.

China offered a “freeze for freeze deal” wherein North Korea freezes their nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. weakening our position in South Korea. Presidents like Obama and Clinton, who pay billions of dollars to rogue nations for empty promises that they’ll disarm, would have jumped on a deal like this. But this administration intends to secure a real deal for the U.S. President Trump is using economic and geopolitical consequences to such a degree that Kim Jong Un’s “friendship” becomes a liability to Beijing. Without that pressure, China has no incentive to grab Kim by the shoulders and shake some sense into him.

Trump’s political pressure on China is best chance for a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear crisis, and Democrats are playing a partisan game with our national security when they undercut that pressure for minor political gain.

It’s been a generation since a U.S. president adopted a sound peace-through-strength foreign policy, and Democrats better learn fast that tough talk is part of the scenery on the road to peace.

Eddie Zipperer is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College and a regular LifeZette contributor.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 494
PLB wrote:
Quote:
If you are worried about a crazy frightened NK nuking the US then wouldn't it be more prudent to make a formal peace with them, recognise their state, and stop trying to destabilise their government and murder its officials?


OK, in the spirit of open debate, just what does your formal piece look like? I assume you mean something that will settle the entire 60 year conflict.

What do we, the US and the west in general, give up? What do we demand in return?
Paul

What's the positive argument for the current policy? Whole thing just looks like inertia to me.

Here is my first-principles assessment:

The situation is that NK sees the US as an existential threat to their survival as an independent state. NK's officials see the US as a vital threat to their persons. That's a perfectly rational assessment.

NK sees possession of nuclear weapons as the only effective deterrent to the threat posed by the US. That's a perfectly rational assessment.

NK does not think the US is going to take actions required to physically prevent them obtaining nuclear weapons. That's also a perfectly rational assessment. Realistically, if you were going to do it you would have done it already. You didn't do it in 1955 and you didn't do it in 1995. It ain't any easier today. You aren't going to do it.

Conclusion: the US can neither dissuade nor stop NK from obtaining nuclear weapons. So don't try. Why waste political capital, money, and God forbid mens' lives making yourselves look foolish? Iraq all over again.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin. Why is a nuclear NK bad? Is it really in NK's interest to act in a way that will force the US to retaliate with total destruction, like nuking San Francisco in a bolt from the blue? No, obviously not. Now maybe you think NK is irrational but I just explained that all their actions so far are completely rational so why think that? NK just wants to survive as a state and its officials just want themselves and their families to survive. Since you can't (or won't) stop that anyway, why not just give them such a guarantee? And mean it. Then they might back down from nuclear weapons. Take Saudi as a model. They don't have nuclear weapons, though they could have them. They're a dictatorship. They're a pretty evil one at that. They have an existential ideological disagreement with the US. They even fund the deaths of Americans. There's no conflict because you are officially friends with them. No conflict, no fear, no nukes. NK is way less bad than Saudi (in my opinion). Turning NK into Saudi is better than "fighting" them and losing anyway.

The other option is to Koreanise the whole problem. Why does NK even care about the US? Because the US backs SK. Why does the US back SK? No reason, really. Originally it was because SK might go commie, and at that be just the first of many dominoes to fall. Not happening now. No one believes in communism, not even the communists. Then it was because SK might be conquered. But look, an independent SK can just get its own nukes. Preserving the US alliance is the only reason it doesn't. And the PRC isn't going to risk Beijing and Shanghai for a chance of grabbing Seoul, especially not when they are adding SK's population to theirs every decade just in natural growth. So that's a completely circular problem with the US playing both ends.

Some might reply that SK is a US ally. SK is not a US ally. It's a parasitic protectorate. Its value to the US is negative. Which is what I thought I heard Trump saying in the campaign, but he seems to have forgotten somewhere on the way.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:35 pm 
Offline
SAC-trained killer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 3892
Location: CL-56, CGN-37
HMS Warspite wrote:
Some might reply that SK is a US ally. SK is not a US ally. It's a parasitic protectorate. Its value to the US is negative. Which is what I thought I heard Trump saying in the campaign, but he seems to have forgotten somewhere on the way.


Warspite,

I've been there. The South Koreans definitely don't see it that way, believe me. They are a tough, independent people who - regardless of the loudmouths you see in the media - like us and want us there. True, they wish it didn't have to be that way, but anyone who shows up there thinking they're 'parasitic' gets schooled right quickly. They are a friend and ally in the best sense of both words.

Mike

_________________
Bójcie się Boga, ale strach nikt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 494
They want you there because you are useful to them. How are they useful to you?

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 355
Location: Dallas
Quote:
The situation is that NK sees the US as an existential threat to their survival as an independent state. NK's officials see the US as a vital threat to their persons. That's a perfectly rational assessment.


Quote:
NK does not think the US is going to take actions required to physically prevent them obtaining nuclear weapons. That's also a perfectly rational assessment. Realistically, if you were going to do it you would have done it already. You didn't do it in 1955 and you didn't do it in 1995. It ain't any easier today. You aren't going to do it.


The two statements are also contradictory. If they don’t think that we will act to prevent them from getting Nukes then why should they see us as a threat to their existence and a vital threat to their persons? It’s not like we are going to invade them because it’s Monday and that’s what we do on Mondays. We haven’t done so for 6 decades. No reason to do so now.

Except for the Nukes.

So any other perceived threat is irrational.

Quote:
Conclusion: the US can neither dissuade nor stop NK from obtaining nuclear weapons.


Agreed. Nor can we stop any sovereign country from getting them if they have the money, or engineering expertise to do so. We can make it difficult, but that is all.
If they get them we can let them know that they now have a target on their back and a missile with their name on it, should it be necessary.

Quote:
 Why is a nuclear NK bad? Is it really in NK's interest to act in a way that will force the US to retaliate with total destruction, like nuking San Francisco in a bolt from the blue? No, obviously not


And yet they continue to threaten US territory. When someone threatens to kill you it pays to heed the warning.

Quote:
Now maybe you think NK is irrational but I just explained that all their actions so far are completely rational so why think that?


See above. I just don't see their actions as rational.

Quote:
Some might reply that SK is a US ally. SK is not a US ally. It's a parasitic protectorate. Its value to the US is negative.


That doesn’t make it less of an ally. I do not believe that N. Korea and China have benign intentions towards the South. The only thing that has stopped them from acting is the U.S. dogged support for S. Korea. Nothing the South has done justifies abandoning them now and throwing in with the North.

I also wouldn’t sit here and trade barbs back and forth across the fence like a couple of crotchety old neighbors. I would be taking to N. Korea’s neighbors to make sure we are all on the same page. As much as I dislike the UN, seeing China agree to more sanctions was amazing.

Other than that, I would sit back and shoot down anything they launched that felt threatening.

But I wouldn’t treat with them at this time. A treaty implies mutual benefit and I don't see the US getting anything from them that's worth elevating the little tin pot dictator to parity with the 1st world countries that would be involved with the negotiations.

Paul


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 494
PLB wrote:
Quote:
The situation is that NK sees the US as an existential threat to their survival as an independent state. NK's officials see the US as a vital threat to their persons. That's a perfectly rational assessment.


Quote:
NK does not think the US is going to take actions required to physically prevent them obtaining nuclear weapons. That's also a perfectly rational assessment. Realistically, if you were going to do it you would have done it already. You didn't do it in 1955 and you didn't do it in 1995. It ain't any easier today. You aren't going to do it.


The two statements are also contradictory. If they don’t think that we will act to prevent them from getting Nukes then why should they see us as a threat to their existence and a vital threat to their persons? It’s not like we are going to invade them because it’s Monday and that’s what we do on Mondays. We haven’t done so for 6 decades. No reason to do so now.

Except for the Nukes.

So any other perceived threat is irrational.

I thought of this while I was writing, but didn't want to redraft the post. There are two reasons.

First, alluded to in my first post on this thread: it's really about the PRC. The reason the US won't invade NK is fear of the PRC. Problem: NK doesn't want to be conquered by the PRC any more than it wants to be conquered by the US. So the NK kicks and screams about the US while building a lot of missiles that can hit Los Angeles with a miniatured bomb they don't have and Beijing with a non-miniaturised bomb they do have.

Second, the US is not a fully rational actor. In fact it's very far from a rational actor. This is because of its electoral system and the unique dysfunctionality of its political culture. The US is safe most of the time, irrationally dangerous some of the time. So build the bombs when it's safe, while you have the initiative. NK can't work out if Trump is "irrational danger" or something else. Which is why they are trying to act like they in fact already have nuclear weapons, and the time for US action has passed. Which is probably true, even though they could not launch a very effective attack on the US mainland.

Quote:
Quote:
Conclusion: the US can neither dissuade nor stop NK from obtaining nuclear weapons.


Agreed. Nor can we stop any sovereign country from getting them if they have the money, or engineering expertise to do so. We can make it difficult, but that is all.
If they get them we can let them know that they now have a target on their back and a missile with their name on it, should it be necessary.

And why? There's no specific notification necessary from one nuclear power to another what the response will be if cities start being picked off. The UK and France are not sending angry letters to NK. The US has specific reasons for a confrontation - reasons I suggest that have nothing much to do with material US interests.

Quote:
Quote:
 Why is a nuclear NK bad? Is it really in NK's interest to act in a way that will force the US to retaliate with total destruction, like nuking San Francisco in a bolt from the blue? No, obviously not


And yet they continue to threaten US territory. When someone threatens to kill you it pays to heed the warning.

Quote:
Now maybe you think NK is irrational but I just explained that all their actions so far are completely rational so why think that?


See above. I just don't see their actions as rational.

They're threatening to kill you if you interfere, not just anyway.

Quote:
Quote:
Some might reply that SK is a US ally. SK is not a US ally. It's a parasitic protectorate. Its value to the US is negative.


That doesn’t make it less of an ally. I do not believe that N. Korea and China have benign intentions towards the South. The only thing that has stopped them from acting is the U.S. dogged support for S. Korea. Nothing the South has done justifies abandoning them now and throwing in with the North.

An ally is a country that comes to your aid your hour of need. What does SK send you, or would it ever? It's a strict liability, a massive border to be defended from powers much more important than it itself is or can ever be. There's no way it could send anything even if it wanted (which it likely does not) because it needs more than it has just to defend itself.

If you abandoned SK it would get its own nuclear weapons and protect itself just fine, at its own expense.

The material reason to defend SK was to prevent it being conquered by the Soviets and starting the communist domino cascade at a time when SK was a third world country. But the Soviets are gone. Communism is gone. And SK is just as technologically capable as the UK and France, nuclear powers.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7438
Location: BM-9, BB-30
HMS Warspite wrote:
If you abandoned SK it would get its own nuclear weapons and protect itself just fine, at its own expense.

Do you want a nuclear arms race in Asia? Because that's how you get a nuclear arms race in Asia.

Quote:
But the Soviets are gone.

Vlad would like a word.

Quote:
Communism is gone.

:facepalm:

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:47 pm
Posts: 3395
Location: Germany
The Norks have back down. Little Kim says he won't shoot towards Guam ... yet.

_________________
trekchu wrote:
It was worse than he had expected. It was so incomprehensibly bad that he'd rather watch Pearl Harbor on a constant, never-ending loop than...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 2325
Location: UK
HMS Warspite wrote:
But look, an independent SK can just get its own nukes. Preserving the US alliance is the only reason it doesn't.


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/As_te ... s_999.html

As nuclear-armed North Korea's missile stand-off with the US escalates, calls are mounting in the South for Seoul to build nuclear weapons of its own to defend itself -- which would complicate the situation even further.

The South, which hosts 28,500 US troops to defend it from the North, is banned from building its own nuclear weapons under a 1974 atomic energy deal it signed with the US, which instead offers a "nuclear umbrella" against potential attacks.

But with Pyongyang regularly threatening to turn Seoul into a "sea of flames" -- and nagging questions over Washington's willingness to defend it if doing so put its own cities in danger of retaliatory attacks -- the South's media are leading calls for a change of tack.

South Korea, which fought a war with the North that ended in a stalemate in 1953, is highly technologically advanced and analysts estimate it could develop an atomic device within months of deciding to do so.

"Now is time to start reviewing nuclear armament," the Korea Herald said in an editorial Friday.

After Pyongyang conducted two successful tests of an intercontinental ballistic missile last month, putting much of the mainland United States within reach, the paper warned: "Trust in the nuclear umbrella the US provides to the South can be shaken."

It urged Washington to deploy some of its atomic weapons to South Korea if it did not want to see a nuclear-armed Seoul.

The US stationed some of its atomic weapons in the South following the 1950-53 Korean War, but withdrew them in 1991 when two Koreas jointly declared they would make the peninsula nuclear-free.

But Pyongyang carried out its first nuclear test in 2006, and formally abandoned the deal in 2009.

Tensions have soared in recent months with US President Donald Trump this week warning of "fire and fury" against Pyongyang, which threatened missile strikes near the US territory of Guam.

The North's military chief Ri Myong Su responded saying that if the US continued in its "reckless" behaviour, Pyongyang would "inflict the most miserable and merciless punishment upon all the provokers".

The latest war of words between Trump and the North -- ruled by young leader Kim Jong-Un -- unnerved many in the South, even though it has become largely used to hostile rhetoric from its neighbour.

A conflict between the North and the US could have devastating consequences for Asia's fourth-largest economy, with Seoul within range of Pyongyang's vast conventional artillery forces.

"A catastrophe is looming," the South's top-selling Chosun daily said in an editorial this week.

"All options, even those considered unthinkable so far, must be on the table."

- 'Balance of terror' -

In all the North has staged five atomic tests -- including three under Kim -- as it seeks to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the continental US.

A survey last year -- even before tensions reached a crescendo -- showed about 57 percent of South Koreans supported the idea of nuclear armament, with 31 percent opposing it.

"We need to have our own military options to overwhelm the North," the Korea Economic Daily said in an editorial this week, calling for a nuclear weapon to ensure a "balance of terror" and prevent Pyongyang from attacking the South.

But a South Korean bomb would infuriate Pyongyang, which says it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against the threat of invasion, and make bringing it to the negotiating table even harder.

"The so-called 'balance of terror' would only turn the Korean peninsula into the hotbed of a nuclear arms race, not a peaceful peninsula," said Yang Moo-Jin, professor at the University of North Korea Studies in Seoul.

It could also trigger a "nuclear domino" in Asia, pushing others such as Tokyo and Taipei to seek their own arsenals, he added.

"Japan in particular would welcome it with open arms, because it provides a perfect excuse to revise its pacifist constitution and build its own nuclear weapons for 'self-defence'," he said.

Seoul's defence chief Song Young-Moo said recently the South was "fully capable" of building its own nuclear weapon but was not considering the option for now.

Atomic arms are not the only way Seoul can step up its defences.

Song is pushing for the development of nuclear-powered submarines, although doing so also requires consent from the US.

South Korean President Moon Jae-In has also urged limits on Seoul's missiles to be loosened in a conversation with Trump.

At present, Seoul is allowed to possess ballistic missiles with a range of 800 kilometres and payload of 500 kilogrammes. It wants the weight limit raised to 1,000 kilogrammes, and the Pentagon said Monday it was "actively" considering the revision

_________________
"I'm going to stay out of trouble...badly."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:24 pm
Posts: 2740
Here is a stupid question:
Why should the Republic of Korea, a sovereign nation, need our consent to develop weapon systems that would ensure their security?

_________________
Pointy-Haired Boss: Is experience exactly the same as pessimism?
Dilbert: Experience is much worse

Dilbert
October 20, 2016


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 2795
clancyphile wrote:
Here is a stupid question:
Why should the Republic of Korea, a sovereign nation, need our consent to develop weapon systems that would ensure their security?


The ROK signed a treaty saying they wouldn't.

_________________
Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:50 pm
Posts: 887
drunknsubmrnr wrote:
clancyphile wrote:
Here is a stupid question:
Why should the Republic of Korea, a sovereign nation, need our consent to develop weapon systems that would ensure their security?


The ROK signed a treaty saying they wouldn't.

But wasn't that Treaty including North Korea as well, who have since violated said Treaty?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group