|
Grouchio posted:Is the Daily Beast a reputable news source? It's a lovely tabloid, even by internet standards
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not part of Trump's "base" just because I don't panic over every single word that comes out of his mouth. Because a preemptive strike against North Korea actually doesn't make any sense, which is pretty much the whole point of that op-ed that I linked. Statements like this: quote:Asked if he would consider a pre-emptive strike against North Korea to deny it the ability to launch a nuclear attack against the United States, Trump said, "We'll see what happens." are needless escalation in response to empty provocations. North Korea isn't going to attack anyone. They're a threat in the sense that they're a potentially unstable regime with a large military and nuclear weapons, but they're also rational enough to understand that there isn't any strategic objective they can actually use those things to accomplish. Threatening preemptive action is either pointlessly hollow bluster or an indication that Trump has absolutely no connection to the reality of the situation. All he's doing is making it more difficult for Kim Jong-un to actually back down. Edit- More to the point, I have no idea why you're ignoring the level of unpredictably that Trump injects into this situation. These little North Korean mini-crises tend to be very one sided, which is why they're so easy to shrug off. North Korea will provoke, but there's no escalation from anyone else and it's clearly understood that the US won't act unilaterally or preemptively. Trump's escalation of words is not normal no matter how much you want to pretend that it is. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Because a preemptive strike against North Korea actually doesn't make any sense, which is pretty much the whole point of that op-ed that I linked. Statements like this: Dj trump doesn't back down. Ever. Maga (Joke)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:are needless escalation in response to empty provocations. North Korea isn't going to attack anyone. They're a threat in the sense that they're a potentially unstable regime with a large military and nuclear weapons, but they're also rational enough to understand that there isn't any strategic objective they can actually use those things to accomplish. Threatening preemptive action is either pointlessly hollow bluster or an indication that Trump has absolutely no connection to the reality of the situation. All he's doing is making it more difficult for Kim Jong-un to actually back down. No President would say "Military action is absolutely 100% off the table" when asked a specific question like that. THAT would undermine American credibility and deterrence because it would signal to North Korea that it isn't risking American retaliation via its actions. Even at the height of the Cold War when literal nuclear annihilation of the entire country was a possibility no American President would say "We will definitely not do a pre-emptive strike." Clinton wouldn't have said "No absolutely not" to the question "Is a pre-emptive strike a possibility" if she had won. Neither would Obama, or Sanders, or Jeb!, or Carter, or Eisenhower. They would all have given non-committal answers in the vein of "We'll see what happens" or "That depends on North Korea's actions" or something like that. You also seem to misunderstand why people shrugged off North Korea's threats before. It's because before they hadn't demonstrated the capability to follow through with their threats, and now they have. Their words never mattered as much as their ability to follow up on them. quote:Edit- More to the point, I have no idea why you're ignoring the level of unpredictably that Trump injects into this situation. These little North Korean mini-crises tend to be very one sided, which is why they're so easy to shrug off. North Korea will provoke, but there's no escalation from anyone else and it's clearly understood that the US won't act unilaterally or preemptively. Trump's escalation of words is not normal no matter how much you want to pretend that it is. He's actually very predictable if you look at actions and ignore what he says. What he says is unpredictable. Now it's true that the fact that you have to ignore what he loving says is a giant problem in itself, but geopolitically actions have always mattered more than words. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Seems like China just declared their stance on the issue. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-media-idUSKBN1AR005
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
symphoniccacophony posted:Seems like China just declared their stance on the issue. Global Times publishes insane hawkish editorials all the time. While the government has to approve of its publication, it doesn't necessarily reflect government policy or plans. One of the strongest indications being that China is extremely unlikely to tank their own economy (and threaten CCP rule as a result) for the sake of North Korea. If they have to choose between CCP rule and North Korea, they will dump KJU at the first opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
symphoniccacophony posted:Seems like China just declared their stance on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Maybe you're right. But Global time is still the mouthpiece of the party. Reflective of policy or not , it is the message that they are conveying to Trump. Let's see how King Bullshitter reacts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I'm confused. What is China saying they will do if NK fires missiles in the direction of Guam without hitting it and then America retaliates? Or were they deliberately avoiding answering that? They're saying if DPRK fires that missile at Guam they're not going to step in to stop the USA from stomping the Kim regime into the dirt. If the USA strikes first, though, china will retaliate in support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You also seem to misunderstand why people shrugged off North Korea's threats before. It's because before they hadn't demonstrated the capability to follow through with their threats, and now they have. Their words never mattered as much as their ability to follow up on them. I haven't misunderstood anything. Their statements now are no more credible now than they were the last time Kim Jong-un spent months threatening South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Unless you can present a compelling case for why Kim Jong-un would suddenly decide that maintaining his regime is less important than dying in a fireball, there's no reason to consider any threat a credible statement of intent. Unlike the US, North Korea has no room to maneuver and no ability to leverage their military or nuclear arsenal for any strategic purpose. quote:He's actually very predictable if you look at actions and ignore what he says. What he says is unpredictable. What he says is the only thing that matters. We have no formal diplomatic ties to North Korea and a State Department that seems to be adrift from the White House. There's no one who can convey Trump's actual intentions (assuming he has any) to Kim Jong-un. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
symphoniccacophony posted:Maybe you're right. But Global time is still the mouthpiece of the party. This would make China even crazier than Trump or KJU. In the absolute best case scenario in this situation they've preserved KJU's rule in North Korea at the cost of melting their own economy and making the USA an enemy for a generation. China cannot absorb a blow like that, especially not now. This is literally not the first time that the Global Times has threatened to go to war with the USA. They've done it over the SCS and threatened to fire on the US Navy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They're saying if DPRK fires that missile at Guam they're not going to step in to stop the USA from stomping the Kim regime into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I haven't misunderstood anything. Their statements now are no more credible than they were the last time Kim Jong-un spent months threatening South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Unless you can present a compelling case for why Kim Jong-un would suddenly decide that maintaining his regime is less important than dying in a fireball, there's no reason to consider any threat a credible statement of intent. Unlike the US, North Korea has no room to maneuver and no ability to leverage their military or nuclear arsenal for any strategic purpose. It is more credible because until now they hadn't demonstrated the range to hit the USA and while they still haven't demonstrated the ability to mount a warhead that can survive reentry, everyone agrees they will probably have one before the end of the year. The fact that they can't win a war with the USA and its allies doesn't change the fact that when KJU says "We'll nuke you" he now has to be taken seriously. Not because he said "We'll nuke you" but because everyone now believes he actually can. quote:What he says is the only thing that matters. We have no formal diplomatic ties to North Korea and a State Department that seems to be adrift from the White House. There's no one who can convey Trump's actual intentions (assuming he has any) to Kim Jong-un. Ignoring that there have been ongoing rumors of backdoor negotiations, this has been true for decades. Long before Trump came onto the scene. But at this point you seem to think that if Trump had said "We will absolutely not do a pre-emptive strike" North Korea would unilaterally disarm and the whole situation would be over. That is not only laughably naive but runs contrary to North Korea's conduct for the past ten years. It's bizarre that you even think that he would believe him. KJU is getting nukes and ICBM's, and no amount of diplomacy or carrots is going to change that. This doesn't mean that diplomacy shouldn't be attempted, but if you consider that KJU's first and most primary interest is the survival of his regime, the fact that the US could end it at virtually a moment's notice and that nukes would not save him is something that he should be made well aware of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This would make China even crazier than Trump or KJU. In the absolute best case scenario in this situation they've preserved KJU's rule in North Korea at the cost of melting their own economy and making the USA an enemy for a generation. China cannot absorb a blow like that, especially not now. Have patience young grasshopper, the ball is in Trump's court now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They're saying if DPRK fires that missile at Guam they're not going to step in to stop the USA from stomping the Kim regime into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The fact that they can't win a war with the USA and its allies doesn't change the fact that when KJU says "We'll nuke you" he now has to be taken seriously. Not because he said "We'll nuke you" but because everyone now believes he actually can. There's a world of difference between taking his threats seriously as a matter of policy and matching them threat-for-threat. quote:But at this point you seem to think that if Trump had said "We will absolutely not do a pre-emptive strike" North Korea would unilaterally disarm and the whole situation would be over. That is not only laughably naive but runs contrary to North Korea's conduct for the past ten years. It's bizarre that you even think that he would believe him. KJU is getting nukes and ICBM's, and no amount of diplomacy or carrots is going to change that. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this from. I don't think North Korea will disarm under any circumstances. I think that our only option at this point is to accept that North Korea is a nuclear power. I posted that Susan Rice op-ed upthread because I pretty much agree with everything in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:NK has explicitly said that they plan to fire missiles NEAR Guam though. I mean there's probably a whole world of war legalities to whether something is an "attack" if it deliberately misses but I have no idea what it is. Sounds more like covering their asses if they try to target Guam and miss. 'yeah we just meant to hit near the whole time'
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:NK has explicitly said that they plan to fire missiles NEAR Guam though. I mean there's probably a whole world of war legalities to whether something is an "attack" if it deliberately misses but I have no idea what it is. You probably need to check the original Global time article then. The reuter article I posted is just paraphrasing what's on that article. You can't deep analyze what is just a summary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this from. I don't think North Korea will disarm under any circumstances. I think that our only option at this point is to accept that North Korea is a nuclear power. I posted that Susan Rice op-ed upthread because I pretty much agree with everything in it. The other option is a pre-emptive military strike. You can say that it's the bad option, and it may very well be, but Trump refusing to take it off the table was absolutely the correct response. The question now is "which is worse; living with a nuclear North Korea, or going through a month of horror and years of rebuilding to ensure this is never a problem again?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like you are trying to pull the exact thing I'm talking about. You posted a link without comment because you know the name means people will interpret the idea one way instead of reading what it really is. And you know what it really is is bad too, so no one would be crazy enough to actually defend it so you can let the implication carry it into being a much more salacious and exciting story than it really is. rumors tend to be the truth, twisted to an extreme (esp in countries w/o a free press) sorry that i implied that a country that moves from sentencing to execution so quickly they just take you out to a van for execution might engender some crazy rumors oh wait, i'm not because it's a pretty reasonable expectation if you engage in evil acts, people will believe you do comically evil acts
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The other option is a pre-emptive military strike. You can say that it's the bad option, and it may very well be, but Trump refusing to take it off the table was absolutely the correct response. The question now is "which is worse; living with a nuclear North Korea, or going through a month of horror and years of rebuilding to ensure this is never a problem again?" If North Korea were fully capable of reliably hitting any city in the USA, there would still be no scenario in which it would ever be in their interests to do so. I think the damage from 'living with a nuclear North Korea' would mainly be the message it sends to other nations or future leaders that want to go nuclear. The message is basically that America won't stop you from getting nukes. This could lead to nuclear proliferation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They're saying if DPRK fires that missile at Guam they're not going to step in to stop the USA from stomping the Kim regime into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:China is basically telling Trump to shut the gently caress up and calm the gently caress down, if he wants there to be no war. China is ruffling its feathers and trying to claim that it's the peacemaker regarding a problem that it created and to whom the "solution" is for the US to withdraw from Asia and let China run everything. Trump is poo poo but trying to present the Chinese as the rational elder statesmen in the room is a load of bullshit. And it's a Global Times editorial. They have published things that have been dumb and stupid for a long time. And even if it wasn't, it's a bluff, unless China wants to nuke its own economy for the sake of KJU.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Sounds more like covering their asses if they try to target Guam and miss. 'yeah we just meant to hit near the whole time' They're specifically saying they'll land in the ocean 30-40km away from Guam. It's definitely a test (or demonstration) that they've announced, not an attack. quote:The general outlined a plan to carry out a demonstration launch of four intermediate-range missiles that would fly over Japan and then land in the sea around Guam, “enveloping” the island. EDIT: Another thought - The Hwasong 12 missiles have the same engine as the Hwasong 14 ICBM. That North Korea is apparently willing to burn 4 of these on a demonstration, so soon after their ICBM tests...suggests that they have quite a few of these engines. North Korea may well be producing these (relatively) quickly and in (relatively) large numbers. mediadave fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Yeah presiding over birth of a new nuclear power is probably gonna be a black mark on Trump's record, even if it was going to happen with or without him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:rumors tend to be the truth, twisted to an extreme (esp in countries w/o a free press) Having to wait for a van to show up at the prison is slower than having a dedicated room to murder people in built into the prison like the US has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346155-trump-tweets-north-korea-military-solutions-fully-in-place Is Trump changing his rhetoric to something more defensive?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346155-trump-tweets-north-korea-military-solutions-fully-in-place His rhetoric was never explicitly aggressive either, but a possibly deliberate reference to "another path" might be an attempt to offer Kim an out. I still find the bizarrely specific details regarding time and date and distance for North Korea's supposed up and coming launch towards Guam to be very curious. It's like they're roleplaying a launch so that they can later claim "this is what WOULD have happened"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not part of Trump's "base" just because I don't panic over every single word that comes out of his mouth. Ask Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria about "US credibility and deterrence". Frankly, our record on the 21st century isn't too great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I still find the bizarrely specific details regarding time and date and distance for North Korea's supposed up and coming launch towards Guam to be very curious. It's like they're roleplaying a launch so that they can later claim "this is what WOULD have happened" That doesn't seem odd at all. Launching in American waters is an escalation of hostilities but they still don't actually want all out war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
We also have to note that NK command specifically stated that they would wait for KJU's command before launching missiles towards Guam, if they needed to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:What he says is the only thing that matters. We have no formal diplomatic ties to North Korea and a State Department that seems to be adrift from the White House. There's no one who can convey Trump's actual intentions (assuming he has any) to Kim Jong-un. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you ask us to judge DPRK by what a rational, outside actor with good information would do. On the other, you ask us to judge Trump solely by his words, and not his actions. I don't understand how that framework could be used for anything at all. China's response was good news in my opinion. It's unambiguous--important when nukes are involved--and basically penalizes whoever shoots first. If DPRK drops a bunch of non-nuclear missiles near Guam, I think the best response is to try to intercept, and then drop 4 of our conventional missiles 20 miles off the coast of Pyonyang. Ensure China and Russia know about the launches beforehand. Ynglaur fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Where can I get a good primer on how China felt/feels about a nuclear North Korea specifically? Did they feel it was a necessary evil? Did they support it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:His rhetoric was never explicitly aggressive either, but a possibly deliberate reference to "another path" might be an attempt to offer Kim an out. My first thought was that if they actually do shoot the missiles it'll prove they can accurately aim their ICBMs. Why else be so specific in the details?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you ask us to judge DPRK by what a rational, outside actor with good information would do. On the other, you ask us to judge Trump solely by his words, and not his actions. I don't understand how that framework could be used for anything at all. I explained why this is further up in that post: quote:Unlike the US, North Korea has no room to maneuver and no ability to leverage their military or nuclear arsenal for any strategic purpose. North Korea's actions are rational in the context of a nuclear power that's testing its limits against the United States. They are specifically not saying that they will launch an unprovoked attack on the US, SK, or Japan. The problem is that the US government isn't sending any clear "this far is too far" signals, and both Mattis and Tillerson are effectively contradicting Trump's own statements. The risk here isn't that nuclear war suddenly happens out of nowhere, it's that KJU interprets the ambiguous statements from different parts of the US government to mean that some kind of strike against the NK nuclear program is imminent. Trump actually has the ability to carry out that kind of attack without ending the United States, which is a luxury that Kim Jong-un doesn't have. It's a mistake to assume that this is any sort of symmetrical crisis or that Trump and Kim Jong-un's statements should be judged on the same terms. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Having to wait for a van to show up at the prison is slower than having a dedicated room to murder people in built into the prison like the US has. you forgot about the years of appeals that are done in between. they don't just sentence them then walk them down the hall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I explained why this is further up in that post: And there is no world where, even if Trump manages to completely take out every nuclear weapon in North Korea without them launching, that they don't respond in some other way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Any scenario where the Kim regime is toppled without Seoul being flattened, and at least tens of thousands of SK/Japanese civilians dying, is nothing but masturbatory fantasy. Which makes the jingoistic hope that the DPRK will start poo poo so the US can be justified in taking action all the more disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
give me 20 SEALs and i could take care of NK in a single night tbqh
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I don't think there's really a way for us to tell if an ICBM is a nuke or not until the wreckage is examined and confirmed to be devoid of any material, rather than an attempted nuking that had a dud warhead. If an ICBM gets launched toward a populated area and especially if it makes landfall on a US territory, Pyongyang gets turned into a crater. "Launch on warning" is really more of a thing when you're seeing dozens or more missiles coming at you, and waiting to confirm you're being nuked before retaliating could mean losing the ability to retaliate. One or a handful of missiles coming from North Korea probably isn't going to trigger that kind of response (from the US, anyway) because even if they're all nuclear warheads, the US will still have thousands of warheads at their disposal with which to retaliate, and retaliating before the nukes hit won't make any difference as to how many Americans get killed. That said, launching missiles like that with conventional warheads and hitting targets with them would still be the end for North Korea's leadership, because even absent a strong military response from the US, I really can't imagine China and Russia tolerating that level of recklessness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:47
|
|
