|
Chomskyan posted:Your posting is 90% credulously reposting think tank wonks. Glass houses, stones, etc This thread is largely for slapfights about Casablanca, western think tanks, and PRC-approved propaganda.*Doing my part, I guess. *I’m being facetious when o fail to mention any Korean narrative/opinion here, please no one PM me. In weather news, I knew the heat wave was bad but didn’t realize how historically awful it was. That sounds fuckin miserable. Big US story: we got war dead remains back from Korea. Almost nonexistent US story: dozens dead and thousands hospitalized just in ROK alone due to heat.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
coathat posted:The planned marital law response to the candlight protests that’s come out recently is some wild poo poo. Because it could work either way, marital law or martial law?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Martial law, here's a twitter thread that goes into it some: https://twitter.com/AskAKorean/status/1024740108623392768 Pretty crazy. I wonder how close it was to actually happening; clearly Park Geun-hye thought it was. e: essentially, part of the military, almost certainly in collusion with the then-incumbent government, had pretty thorough plans to roll out tanks to crush the Candlelight Protests that were calling for Park's impeachment. The guy on twitter seems to think it could have gone full Gwangju Uprising mk2 which I think sounds a bit melodramatic but then I don't know, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if that's what Park and co would have wanted to have happen even if it was totally unrealistic in 2016 Korea (but then the whole plan sounds like it should be, and yet it exists) Koramei fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Martial law, here's a twitter thread that goes into it some: Yeah, talk about scratching a bit under the surface. How well does the South Korean military get along with intelligence services? Even though this wouldn't necessarily be a return to the 1980s, it does demonstrate how fragile the contours of liberal democracy actually are even in a highly developed western-aligned country. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
I honestly don't know, but it seems like the intelligence service (which was, formerly, basically in the pocket of the conservative administration) had its claws in basically everywhere. The thing is, now that this has all been coming to light over course of the year or so since the impeachment, everything's been shaken up like crazy. Park Geun-hye's party, which was insanely powerful and looked scarily close to restarting the dictatorship, has now basically completely imploded. There's probably still some crazy stuff that hasn't come to light yet, but the former state of affairs doesn't really apply so much anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
coathat posted:The planned marital law response to the candlight protests that’s come out recently is some wild poo poo. If what TT has said is true they don't know who the generals were that drafted the plan, so they're still hanging out and possibly waiting for another shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
They’re all pissing themselves waiting for he hammer to drop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
I misspoke on that somewhat. We know who (probably) ordered the plan and also who wrote it. What's unclear is how military officials reacted to it and who was going to be running the show when all the dust settled. I'll just post the relevant article in full-Korea Joongang Daily posted:Former Defense Minister Han Min-koo instructed the military’s intelligence unit to draft a contingency plan for martial law to clamp down on rallies if the Constitutional Court kept Park Geun-hye in power last year, officials from the Defense Security Command (DSC) testified Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
I was reading NK econ watch and this report struck me: http://www.nkeconwatch.com/ quote:NK News on the growing Naegohyang conglomerate A private (?) company making it big and with the government news effectively advertising it? Could be Naegohyang is the first North Korean Chaebol. EDIT: Read the referenced article - https://www.nknews.org/2018/07/naegohyang-a-north-korean-company-branches-out/ - it's an army owned corporation, which may explain things a bit. mediadave fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
If you depose our hilariously corrupt witch doctor figurehead we will institute a military dictatorship. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
Antares posted:If you depose our hilariously corrupt witch doctor figurehead we will institute a military dictatorship. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Pretty much, and you'll have your pentagon approved spin doctors immediately on the air telling people how this time the protestors (rioters) deserved it
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
So Bolton is saying that North Korea isn't showing signs of denuclearizing or living up to what they "commited" to in Signapore https://twitter.com/choonsikyoo/status/1027006138175418368 Meanwhile, Trump is saying that they are https://www.apnews.com/fb7202cb31ea4e318b453e6538b4ff69/The-Latest:-Trump-says-NK-making-progress-on-denuking Why the flying gently caress are people freaking out now over Bolton getting his way, seeing as how Trump HATES it when people undermine him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Bolton's lasted longer than he would have if he didn't understand that going against Trump too much or having too much publicity is a good way to get fired; that he's saying this now could be a sign that Trump is fed up with Pompeo and feels the pendulum is swinging back towards a more confrontational attitude. By the way, the 2020 Commission book is really, really good. Hard to put down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Bolton's lasted longer than he would have if he didn't understand that going against Trump too much or having too much publicity is a good way to get fired; that he's saying this now could be a sign that Trump is fed up with Pompeo and feels the pendulum is swinging back towards a more confrontational attitude. You know that Trump despised his last NSA for going against his views on Russia and started ignoring, and yet he lasted more than a year, How do we know that this won't end up happening with Bolton, especially since Trump literally contradicted him yesterday?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
I'm not saying it won't, but Bolton is clearly aware of that possibility as he had toned everything down until recently. So something changed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I'm not saying it won't, but Bolton is clearly aware of that possibility as he had toned everything down until recently. So something changed. Even if talks breakdown, I seriously doubt there will be a war anytime soon. NK already has nuclear weapons, and wouldn't Bolton wanna go after Iran first anyways? And yes, I know the possibility of the former happening are high
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:You know that Trump despised his last NSA for going against his views on Russia and started ignoring, and yet he lasted more than a year, Trump contradicts himself within a single sentence, so that’s not really saying much to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Even if talks breakdown, I seriously doubt there will be a war anytime soon. NK already has nuclear weapons, and wouldn't Bolton wanna go after Iran first anyways? Probability of war doesn't have to be high to be worth worrying about. The thing is from my perspective that the united front of sanctions against NK is over and done; certainly China isn't going to play along any more, what with how we're escalating a trade war with them. So if Trump decides he can't pretend he solved the problem any more, there aren't going to be as many joint diplomatic options, which will further divide the US from our regional allies. In the meantime, this is what winning looks like to North Korea - they keep their nukes and become a 'normal' country, with regular diplomatic relations with their neighbors. Also part of the point of the 2020 Commission book is that you don't have to intend to have a war to get one; the scenario in the book involves accidents, coincidences and misunderstandings, all of which are, I feel, more likely with Trump in charge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Probability of war doesn't have to be high to be worth worrying about. The thing is from my perspective that the united front of sanctions against NK is over and done; certainly China isn't going to play along any more, what with how we're escalating a trade war with them. So if Trump decides he can't pretend he solved the problem any more, there aren't going to be as many joint diplomatic options, which will further divide the US from our regional allies. In the meantime, this is what winning looks like to North Korea - they keep their nukes and become a 'normal' country, with regular diplomatic relations with their neighbors. Yeah, North Korea has been really smart to drive a wedge between us and our regional allies Bolton is just playing into Kim's hand at this point
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AlexWardVox/status/1027223850835238913 Yeah, they're never going to agree to this And while we're on the topic of the 2020 Commision, I get wanting to send a message to others about the dangers of diplomacy But making comparisons to the book and real life, as well as setting up a parody Trump account as viral marketing, isn't helping things. It's especially not helpful to people who are already worried enough about this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
quote:The details of the US-proposed timeline, which have not previously been reported, are as follows: North Korea hands over 60 to 70 percent of its nuclear warheads within six to eight months; the US or a third party — likely another country — takes possession of them and removes them from North Korea. It’s unclear what concessions, if any, the US would offer in exchange beyond sanctions relief or removing North Korea from the state sponsors of terrorism list. Gee, I wonder what the problem could be here
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://twitter.com/AlexWardVox/status/1027223850835238913 So how big is NK's arsenal that it can be decrease by 60-70%? I thought they had like a handful of nukes at best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:So how big is NK's arsenal that it can be decrease by 60-70%? I thought they had like a handful of nukes at best. Some think it's around 65 nukes
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:https://twitter.com/AlexWardVox/status/1027223850835238913 The book is absolutely not about the dangers of diplomacy and I’d say the point is to make people worried about what could happen, because inasmuch as were a democracy and are on some level responsible for what happens, now or in the future, we should be worried.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The book is absolutely not about the dangers of diplomacy and I’d say the point is to make people worried about what could happen, because inasmuch as were a democracy and are on some level responsible for what happens, now or in the future, we should be worried. Sorry, I meant delusional diplomacy, like expecting North Korea will give up most of their nukes unilaterally. Besides, what can we even do about it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:So how big is NK's arsenal that it can be decrease by 60-70%? I thought they had like a handful of nukes at best. You can reduce 3 bombs by 60-70%. No one really knows how many they actually got and keeping that unknown factor is kind of the point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Sorry, I meant delusional diplomacy, like expecting North Korea will give up most of their nukes unilaterally. Ideally, elect a stable genius as president next time, I guess. I'm not expecting Trump voters to read it and think 'wow, that was really irresponsible of me to vote for this guy,' but it's true, given that we're the most powerful country on earth and entrust so much of that power to the president. I mean... it's really complicated. If I was president, for example, I'm pretty sure I could do a better job than Trump, but solving the NK crisis? I feel the most you could hope for is to do something like the Iran deal and freeze what they have, while still trying to encourage political reform. Which isn't really going to make a lot of people happy anyways. I'm still less than halfway through the book anyways so I can't speak to its overarching message, but my feeling (having actually studied from some analysts on intn'l relations in grad school) is that Lewis has a vivid understanding of what nuclear war would actually look like and feels that the risks of it happening somehow are much higher than people want to accept, and the goal of the book is to make those risks and consequences more real to people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
It isn't going to happen because despite a lot of American liberals wanting the world to end because the loud tv man makes them sad the government of the DPRK shows no signs of being suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It isn't going to happen because despite a lot of American liberals wanting the world to end because the loud tv man makes them sad the government of the DPRK shows no signs of being suicidal. There is also exactly zero movement toward war from the US government. Even before the talks, which resulted in the usual zero commitment conciliatory dialogue at the tail end of every period of provocations, there was zero movement toward war from either side. Edit: in fact the only way I see shooting happening over there is another attack ala the Cheonan sinking or Yeonpyeong shelling, which would force the current South Korean government to react to avoid getting murdered in the polls by conservatives. In previous cases the US exerted a lot of pressure on the South not to respond, but this is the Trump administration and there was a lot of political blowback due to the perceived lack of response to those attacks, so who knows. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:There is also exactly zero movement toward war from the US government. Even before the talks, which resulted in the usual zero commitment conciliatory dialogue at the tail end of every period of provocations, there was zero movement toward war from either side. That is a strange argument to make given that the US has been on permanent war footing there since they got involved in the Korean War. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/48753...ll-in-a-decade/ Sending 3 supercarriers to “drill” off your coast certainty isn’t a sign of bellicosity
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:That is a strange argument to make given that the US has been on permanent war footing there since they got involved in the Korean War. No, not particularly it isn't. It's a symbolic display of power, similar to lobbing an ICBM over Japan is. Neither actually indicated a move toward war. You are an incomprehensible idiot if you think US forces in South Korea are on a "war footing".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:No, not particularly it isn't. It's a symbolic display of power, similar to lobbing an ICBM over Japan is. Neither actually indicated a move toward war. You are an incomprehensible idiot if you think US forces in South Korea are on a "war footing". So why are they there then? US troops on a putin style “vacation” in the Korean Peninsula?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:So why are they there then? US troops on a putin style “vacation” in the Korean Peninsula? The US has substantially more troops in Germany than South Korea, you know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Gee, I wonder what the problem could be here It's the ongoing existence of the Northern monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Going to war properly requires a lot of build up that we've never started with NK. Both Iraq wars required a significant build up of supplies/people and North Korea would likely be a larger conflict. You can't just send your dudes with guns wandering across the border. This is why the Pentagon always say it hasn't started moving in the slightest towards war when people start freaking out over a Trump tweet. He could order bombs dropped on a whim but probably not sustained as that's another thing we'd need to stockpile. US forces in SK are far from an invading army ready to move and more like a trip wire garrison. Hell from the people I know who served in Korea it'd take a while just to sober all the US soldiers up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Going to war properly requires a lot of build up that we've never started with NK. Both Iraq wars required a significant build up of supplies/people and North Korea would likely be a larger conflict. You can't just send your dudes with guns wandering across the border. Not to mention that we would have to invade North Korea from the ground in order to secure their weapons
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
As I've said before, I don't think the big build-up to a full war is really the risk, the risk is doing something dumb that isn't supposed to start a war but does anyway, like the idiot "bloody nose strike" idea. If Trump thinks he can shoot cruise missiles into Pyongyang to "send a message" then poo poo will get bad real fast and the lack of build-up won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Going to war properly requires a lot of build up that we've never started with NK. Both Iraq wars required a significant build up of supplies/people and North Korea would likely be a larger conflict. You have to move a lot more military assets to get to iraq, north korea is already right next to Guam, Japan and south korea. There isn't really much you could move, the troops and equipment already are there. You had to actually move all the planes and ships and people to attack iraq, north korea is already surrounded by all the places we keep significant numbers of troops and equipment in the pacific. I'm pretty sure there was more troops in those three places than in iraq during the iraq war. It's the majority of the offshores pacific force just always.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You have to move a lot more military assets to get to iraq, north korea is already right next to Guam, Japan and south korea. There isn't really much you could move, the troops and equipment already are there. You had to actually move all the planes and ships and people to attack iraq, north korea is already surrounded by all the places we keep significant numbers of troops and equipment in the pacific. 28,000 US troops in South Korea, about 50,000 in Japan, and 7,000 in Guam. The second Iraq war kicked off with 190,000 US troops in the initial invasion. The first Iraq war with 700,000 US troops, because the Iraqi military hadn't been disassembled yet. The equipment is not there either. Tanks, artillery, planes, fuel, munitions, trucks, water, food, etc. are not in place to support an invasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Also, a lot of those forces aren't combat capable and/or still need to be tied to those locations. It would take months to set up an invasion force, and of course, South Korea has to go along with it. Moreover, Chinese-US relations are pretty poo poo at the moment, so that is an additional factor to consider. (Also, you know...all of those nukes.) (I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's advisors told him before the talks began that North Korea was ready to surrender and the summit was them holding up a white flag.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 13:23
|
|