|
Charlz Guybon posted:When he was making his tweets about transgender people in the military, the Pentagon was terrified he was doing exactly that. It's not unfortunate in the slightest. It's the inevitable result of any state ruled by a unitary executive. It provides far more benefits than it does negatives. Hell, even the 1973 War Powers Act is a wink and a nod away from being declared unconstitutional, for it blatantly is. Who else would you want to be involved in this decision? The military? Goodbye civilian control. The legislature? Your executive branch is instantly rendered next to powerlessness. A referendum? You'll get your rear end kicked in every war.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 07:22
|
|
Cat Army 
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Oh yeah buddy? Then how do you explain Kim Jong-Un?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:North Korea cannot wage war against the US, it cannot use nuclear blackmail against the US. Both would invite destruction. The entire point of this missile program is to send a message of "don't gently caress with us". North Korea is afraid. Unfortuantly, due to the fear mongering, the US if probably about to start loving with them. So, what are they chances they include "continued sanctions" as "loving with us"? It seems to me a nuclear-tipped ICBM not only gives them deterrence, it also gives them leverage to start making demands of their own to the US and South Korea. With a non-zero expectation they actually get delivered now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:When he was making his tweets about transgender people in the military, the Pentagon was terrified he was doing exactly that. Well, that's actually terrifying. I thought there were things in place to stop/delay a mental patient from ionizing most of the Northern Hemisphere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Well, that's actually terrifying. I thought there were things in place to stop/delay a mental patient from ionizing most of the Northern Hemisphere. There are, they're called "the election process" and "the Electoral College". We're getting to see what happens when those safeguards fail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Well, that's actually terrifying. I thought there were things in place to stop/delay a mental patient from ionizing most of the Northern Hemisphere. He might not always be right, or wise, or smart, or even anything other than a retarded manbaby, but he was elected. Any other way, and the United States would be nothing more than another two-bit military dictatorship  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:So, what are they chances they include "continued sanctions" as "loving with us"? The ultimate goal for NK is to get the US off the Korean Peninsula. Nukes are their best chance at a negotiation card that can be used for this purpose (and failing that, easing/rescinding sanctions). They don't need to 'be able to wage nuclear war' with the US. They just need strike capability, any strike capability, because as far as the DPRK is concerned (and rightfully so), they're under constant existential threat - and any time America does one of their schizophrenic administration switches, that WH could be the one that finally decides to invade and destroy them. This also means they don't care if using their nuclear armament means the US might decide to fully retaliate and annihilate them, because ideologically they already equate a failure of their state as total destruction. So what do they want the nukes for if they can't effectively wage war with them? To make the US think twice about military intervention by ensuring they can give them a big bloody noise for their troubles: as has been mentioned in the threat, a few good blasts and the EMP knocks out the power and communications grid for the nation. That's one hell of an economic and political blow for loving around with a tiny backwards nation from across the globe. Bet your rear end the US wouldn't be so gung ho about interventionism in the Middle East and elsewhere if any of those nations could cause an economic recession at the push of a button. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The ultimate goal for NK is to get the US off the Korean Peninsula. This is the unfortunate lesson of the Iraq War and the Crimean Annexation: non-proliferation is a ruse the Nuclear Club is pushing to convince the small and medium nations to not pursue nuclear weapons because it mean the big boys can't gently caress around with them like they want to, therefore the only rational choice is to reject nuclear bans and get your hands on some nukes and advanced missile tech ASAP. I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but that's the take away a lot of nations now have to the events of the last couple of decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Trump can't start a war by declaring it through a tweet, I presume. Can someone more versed in American political procedure inform me at which stages his proposal can get shut down? If anyone is interested, the article linked below relates to the process for ordering a nuclear strike. (I'm not suggesting we'd be likely to do that unless it was in response to a WMD attack from NK or whoever.) But the article does note: "The encoded and encrypted [launch] message is only about 150 characters long, about the length of a tweet." https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:This is the unfortunate lesson of the Iraq War and the Crimean Annexation: non-proliferation is a ruse the Nuclear Club is pushing to convince the small and medium nations to not pursue nuclear weapons because it mean the big boys can't gently caress around with them like they want to, therefore the only rational choice is to reject nuclear bans and get your hands on some nukes and advanced missile tech ASAP. Don't forget toppling Libya's government less than 10 years after celebrating how they disarmed themselves from WMDs to be welcomed in the international community.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Don't forget toppling Libya's government less than 10 years after celebrating how they disarmed themselves from WMDs to be welcomed in the international community. Yeah, if I was a tinpot dictator (or even a democratic government looking to nationalise some companies too closely linked to the US) the first step of my plan would be "get nukes".
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
If anything the "middle-course" which Iran is more or less doing, is to abide by international agreements but at the same time getting their civilian technology and know-how to the point where they could put a program together if they wanted to. (Iran admittedly also has a reason to be a bit paranoid as well.) At a certain point, the only way the US can really "contain" proliferation is to absolutely crush any country with a critical mass of physicists in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Trump can't start a war by declaring it through a tweet, I presume. Can someone more versed in American political procedure inform me at which stages his proposal can get shut down? His proposal will get shut down when he asks a general "can we go to war with North Korea", the general says "no", and Trump says "okay, you're the expert". Seriously, the "but that leader is so unstable and wild and crazy, they could do anything no matter how suicidal" bit is old and tired already from being applied to North Korea for decades, and aiming it at the US instead doesn't really freshen it up any! Military action is basically the one thing we don't have to worry about  doing, because the main complaint about his military policy so far has been that he's been giving up civilian control and oversight of the military and letting generals set our military policy instead. For the most part, that's not a good thing for the US, but it does mean he's unlikely to order military action over the generals' objections. Of course, that does shift the question to whether US military leadership would strike North Korea, but most of our stupid or crazy generals mostly just want to nuke the Middle East, not the Korean peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
I don't think 100% of the risk simply lies in Trump being stopped from invading another country. There's also the possibility that we may have a Reagan-esque "outlaw Russia forever" hot mic or hot tweet incident that gets mistaken for a declaration of war or intent to attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The ultimate goal for NK is to get the US off the Korean Peninsula. I can see the North threatening to invade the south and if the US intervenes say goodbye to a large chunk of LA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I think an ultimatum of that sort would probably result in a pre-emptive strike from the US. We couldn't afford to back-down in that scenario because it would undermine the entire point of our nuclear umbrella and just encourage proliferation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I can see the North threatening to invade the south and if the US intervenes say goodbye to a large chunk of LA. The North threatens to nuke the US / declare war on SK once every few weeks anyways so they have no credibility regardless of their intentions. It's hard to blackmail someone when you issue the same threat every month and never follow up on it. NK nukes are defensive weapons only because their leadership knows the minute they let their one or two missiles fly we'd counterattack and destroy their country. Since the main purpose of the NK government is the survival of their leadership following through with a nuclear blackmail threat would be extremely counterproductive. They know this and they know we know this which is why we always ignore them. The point of NK nuclear weapons is to give their neighbors (US, potentially China) pause when considering regime change. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
What's the worst that could happen if America just entirely pulled their military presence from the Korean Peninsula, ended economic sanctions, and reached out to Kim Jong to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea? Does North Korea truly have worse human rights issues than other countries that we already have 'good' relationships with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:What's the worst that could happen if America just entirely pulled their military presence from the Korean Peninsula, ended economic sanctions, and reached out to Kim Jong to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea? Does North Korea truly have worse human rights issues than other countries that we already have 'good' relationships with? It'd vindicate their decision to obtain nuclear weapons and be an example to other countries, and sort of since I don't think saudi arabia sends political dissidents with their entire family to the equivalent of concentration camps. You literally can't find a country with a worse record wrt to human rights than them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:What's the worst that could happen if America just entirely pulled their military presence from the Korean Peninsula, ended economic sanctions, and reached out to Kim Jong to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea? Does North Korea truly have worse human rights issues than other countries that we already have 'good' relationships with? Greatly worsened relations between the US and South Korea as we unilaterally end one of our oldest mutual defense treaties and slightly worsened relations with our other allies as we give them an excellent reason to doubt our word. South Korea develops nukes to counter NK nukes and searches for other nearby countries (China) to counter the North Korean threat. North Korea demands economic assistance from the US, and then diverts that money to further enrich the ruling class at the expense of their citizens. Domestically, North Korea uses it as a huge propaganda victory but continues to pump its citizens full of anti-US propaganda to keep them in line. Seeing NK's success, other despotic countries attempt to emulate the NK model of US relations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:What's the worst that could happen if America just entirely pulled their military presence from the Korean Peninsula, ended economic sanctions, and reached out to Kim Jong to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea? Does North Korea truly have worse human rights issues than other countries that we already have 'good' relationships with? Remilitarization of Japan, encouragement of nuclear proliferation (mainly SK and Japan, but minors could follow suit seeing the DPRK example), a very concise example of the diminishing hegemonic power of America (and in a strategically and culturally important region for China no less). And the answer is "a little bit".
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Remilitarization of Japan, encouragement of nuclear proliferation (mainly SK and Japan, but minors could follow suit seeing the DPRK example), a very concise example of the diminishing hegemonic power of America (and in a strategically and culturally important region for China no less). Given the current state of the US government, I fully believe we'd sell out South Korea to save any of our own cities if push came to shove. Of course, I also believe the Seoul elite would sell out their countrymen to try and keep their cushy lifestyles in the face of a legitimate NK invasion/hostile government takeover threat, so grain of salt and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
I know Fox News is a load of poo poo, but could someone with the knowledge of the North's nuclear program point out some of the lies this article presents? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/30/when-will-north-korea-be-able-to-threaten-america-with-icbm-time-is-now.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:I know Fox News is a load of poo poo, but could someone with the knowledge of the North's nuclear program point out some of the lies this article presents? The biggest lie is that anti-BM defense would accomplish anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure South Korea could defend itself without us right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I'm pretty sure South Korea could defend itself without us right? To the point where NK wouldn't want to actually invade them, yes. DPRK's thought process for the past 40 years has been that in the absence of the meddlesome US, they can use a combination of both threats and overtures for tighter integration to eventually subsume the milquetoast SK leadership.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I'm pretty sure South Korea could defend itself without us right? Haha no. Certainly not without sparking an intraregional arms race. See that's the thing. We, essentially, are providing military security for every single one of our allies, in NATO and beyond. As a result, every single one of our allies has largely neglected their militaries and national security, the consequences of which include a notable lack of arms races and brinksmanship against other Western allies and the money for fancy social welfare programs... and an anemic military. This is true to greater or lesser degrees for varying states, but at a certain basic level, it's fundamental fact. The minute we abandon one of our allies, that guarantee of protection becomes worthless. Every single other state, realizing they can no longer rely upon the American military and the American nuclear shield will immediately seek to secure the security of their own nation, sparking massive arms races, intra-regional conflict between erstwhile allies, and potential widespread nuclear proliferation among dictatorships and liberal democracies alike. It's not an option, nor should it be even remotely on the table. Appeasement of the North Korean regime necessarily constitutes a betrayal of our commitments and an abandonment of our global responsibilities. That alone will completely gently caress international shipping, international organs such as the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, the ICJ and ICC, and so on and so forth. Absent Chinese cooperation, the breadth of options is narrowing further and faster towards a seemingly inevitable military confrontation. ABM systems are of limited effectiveness, and are fundamentally offensive systems that will enrage our rivals. Just as nuclear weapons are fundamentally defensive, ABM is fundamentally offensive, and cannot be deployed without severe diplomatic repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:ABM is fundamentally offensive, and cannot be deployed without severe diplomatic repercussions. That seems wrong to me. Nuclear weapons aren't fundamentally defensive. They can be used defensively as a deterrent but that hardly make them fundamentally defensive weapons. In fact, the only time they've been dropped during a war was in an offensive manner. Using that to argue that ABM must be fundamentally offensive is nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
No, he was on point. ABM deploying is the most aggressive overture you can make to a nuclear-armed nation short of actually invading, because effective missile defense means their armament is rendered ineffective - giving you free reign to use yours or really do whatever the gently caress you want, as the chief deterrent (MAD) is gone. And on that vein, nuclear weapons are fundamentally defensive because using them against a similarly-armed opponent invites destruction, which means you are forced to make an effort to avoid situations where their use suddenly becomes the most reasonable course of action (say, conventionally invading a nuclear-armed nation to the point they're losing and get desperate, or intervening in their civil war).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
ABM systems are fundamentally offensive from the point of view of avowed no-first-strike nations who aren't real fond of the country that owns the ABMs, the logic being that if you're deploying ABMs near a no-first-strike nation that means that YOU intend to make the first strike and the ABMs are to nullify the counter-strike. E:f;b
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:No, he was on point. While I get what you're aiming at, lol at the idea that ABMs are effective, or render the other side's armament ineffective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Picture two men with guns pointed at each other. They really dislike each other, maybe even hate each other, one is pro-skub and the other isn't. But as much as they hate and trash talk each other (and mind you, they're probably being conscious about their words in this situation), they're not actually going to start shooting at each other. Because at this range, even if one has the bigger gun, or more guns, or is a better shot, or whatever else, the situation is only going to end badly if bullets started flying. No assurances the better equipped of the two won't get a bullet to the gut even if they manage to headshot the other dude, you see. So this is the situation. Of course, it's a super dangerous situation. They literally have guns pointed at each other. But you know what? After a while of doing this they've even gotten used to it. They're reasonably confident that since shooting at each other won't end well, the other side won't do it. Naturally, neither of the men will drop their gun as that could invite the other guy to pull a stunt, but the stand-off is 'safe' in a way. Now imagine one of the two men starts moving towards a sandbag barricade. fishmech posted:While I get what you're aiming at, lol at the idea that ABMs are effective, or render the other side's armament ineffective. Oh they absolutely aren't, and that's part of why the house of cards called nuclear deterrence is still standing. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
At this point, might it not be the most practical idea to sign a formal peace treaty with all parties, ending the 70 year 'cease fire', have NK sign on to all the relevant proliferation treaties, and let them have a small nuclear arsenal, limited to X warheads and delivery systems (supervised by UN and Chinese inspection teams), and then start pulling back on certain sanctions on the condition that NK starts opening up a bit to the outside world. Basically bring them into the international system and erode the 'hermit kingdom' isolationism with 'blue jeans and K-Pop' or whatever over the course of a few decades. They'd still be a lovely dictatorship like China or Russia or whatever, but the current strategy doesn't seem to be working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
If things go on like they are, is there any point that NK would decide good is good enough with nuclear missile technology, like when everyone knows they can hit any city on earth with a missile? If they reach that point, will things just normalize like that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Except the North Korean regime emphatically does not want a rapprochement with 'the international community' in general or the US in particular. The regime derives its legitimacy from playing up the existential conflict between the inherently evil outside world and the inherently virtuous Korean people in need of the Great Leader's protection. A unilateral end to 'hostilities' from the US would, I think more likely than not, prompt the North Korean regime to become MORE bellicose, not less.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Picture two men with guns pointed at each other. They really dislike each other, maybe even hate each other, one is pro-skub and the other isn't. But as much as they hate and trash talk each other (and mind you, they're probably being conscious about their words in this situation), they're not actually going to start shooting at each other. Because at this range, even if one has the bigger gun, or more guns, or is a better shot, or whatever else, the situation is only going to end badly if bullets started flying. No assurances the better equipped of the two won't get a bullet to the gut even if they manage to headshot the other dude, you see. So you're saying guns are fundamentally defensive? I get how MAD works, and I understand that developing or deploying ABM systems can be an offensive action, my objection was to the statement that nuclear weapons are fundimentally defensive. That's only really true in some situations and struck me as a silly thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Well, the thread's context is strategic nuclear weapons where both sides would have them. Arguing otherwise is just being pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
I feel like this is easily resolvable by just subbing 'functionally' for 'fundamentally'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:If things go on like they are, is there any point that NK would decide good is good enough with nuclear missile technology, like when everyone knows they can hit any city on earth with a missile? If they reach that point, will things just normalize like that? They'd build more so that the threat goes from "we can hit any city" to "we can several cities" to "we can hit all of your cities." A small stockpile of nuclear weapons isn't really a credible deterrent against an opponent that can level your entire country, so there's no particular reason for them to stop escalating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Well, the thread's context is strategic nuclear weapons where both sides would have them. Arguing otherwise is just being pedantic. Part of the threat of a nuclear armed North Korea is the proliferation of that technology to other groups, where that assumption may not hold. It's a little bit pedantic, and I was going to drop it until you made the gun analogy, but it's important to make the distinction. Peel posted:I feel like this is easily resolvable by just subbing 'functionally' for 'fundamentally'. Sure
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 00:51
|
|