 |
| Yes, your excellency... it does look sort of like a giant penis |
In an early-morning phone call, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, promised the support and co-operation to his South Korean counterpart. Gen. Jeong Kyeong-doo, Yonhap reported.
Jeong's office said that the pair had 'agreed to discuss all military measures against the North'.
It also said that Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea and the allies' Combined Forces Command, agreed shortly after the detonation to take action 'as soon as possible'.Perhaps it's just my imagination, but it would appear that Kim Jong-Un is bound and determined to provoke some form of armed conflict with the South Koreans, the United States, and anyone else he can rile up in the meantime. I am not sure "why" Kim Jong-Un would want to do such a thing, but it certainly seems to be the case.
The only thing that makes sense is that Kim Jong-Un believes that China would have his back if he decided to escalate this situation. He may believe that the United States would not have the political will to respond to a missile attack for fear of provoking China to enter the conflict.
The odd thing is that I am not 100% sure exactly what it is that Kim Jong-Un is actually hoping to accomplish with these tests and these implied threats? The lack of a reasonable motive should scare the hell out of people, because it suggests that he may have an unreasonable one in his head.
42 comments:
He wants to convince foreign military forces, and domestic and foreign populations, that he has a credible nuclear deterrence.
He also seeks to escalate provocations so as to establish new boundaries which other nations are forced to accept. There is also a potential strategy in destabilizing the region, provoking armed conflict involving multiple parties and maneuvering for advantage within that framework, but I honestly believe that Kim Jong-Un is too dumb to think in terms of strategical contingencies. He wants to intimidate nations the way he intimidates North Koreans, and owning nuclear weapons is how he believes he can achieve it.
If we take the public rhetoric at face value, not just this President but of all of his predecessors and American policy towards North Korea, it is starting to appear that military conflict is inevitable.
The decisions facing Trump revolve around how to manage the conflict, and to choose the circumstances from which it arises.
The odd thing is that I am not 100% sure exactly what it is that Kim Jong-Un is actually hoping to accomplish with these tests and these implied threats
Join the club. I doubt anyone even his closest advisors can see into that tyrants mind.... China is the key and are the only country that can enforce NK sanctions. If not, the BS continues and he gets the bomb...Is he crazy enough to use it....that is a death warrant for him and his country and the earth.....Conventional conflict would result in massive casualties to the south. Are a million or two dead worth it? I doubt you would want to make that choice.
WP, war is never inevitable, nor is it now.
"Gets the bomb" wow , so vapid.
He has 50 plus miniaturized nukes.
"but I honestly believe that Kim Jong-Un is too dumb to think in terms of strategical contingencies."
I don't think he's dumb, not at all.
I think he sees what has happened to other "leaders" when they give up any leverage against invading forces.
Ukraine and Libya are the most recent...
Moving money out of stocks and back into Vanguard GNMA fund.
Capturing Yuge gains since Nov 9th, 2016.
From The Wall Street Journal moments ago.
SEOUL—North Korea is making preparations for the possible launch of another intercontinental ballistic missile, South Korea’s Defense Ministry said Monday, one day after Pyongyang detonated its most powerful nuclear device, threatening to further escalate tensions that are already at crisis levels.
I think he sees what has happened to other "leaders" when they give up any leverage against invading forces.
Ukraine and Libya are the most recent...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
exactly. the only change in the whole dynamic is that the feckless idiot kim observed for 8 years has left the stage and has scurried back to cabrini green.
Stump broke KD posted
Capturing Yuge gains since Nov 9th, 2016.
Call someone who gives a shit, asshole.....
If Kim Jung-Un believes that his North Korea is, or ever will be, militarily equal to the USA or any other world power then yes, he is too dumb to think in terms of strategical contingencies.
Nuclear weapons are a nuclear deterrent, and in almost every other consideration are an impediment for a country. Expensive to develop, produce and maintain, a huge drain on resources. Destabilizing in relationships with regional nations. Tactically useless. Development is painting a big bulls-eye on your economy and military. The utility is to deter other nations from a nuclear strike, and only a paranoid pariah might believe that he's in danger of nuclear attack from invading forces, given the world-wide alliances implementing MAD policy.
If there is any strategic sense at all, he believes that nuclear capability allows him the opportunity for a winnable war of aggression, without fear of those weapons being used against him. This is a pretty common idea among dumb people, but it's delusional (forgive my bluntness).
I don't think that he's thinking at all. He wants to be powerful, and he associates that with powerful weapons. He will continue provocations, increasingly dangerous ones including attacking someone, until he believes that other nations are trembling in fear. That's the extent of it.
Anyone who is NOT dumb like KJU knows that it isn't going to happen. Maybe "inevitable" is the wrong word for it, but conflict is all but certain and it remains to pick the time and place, and to decide if we (and our allies) will take a reactive stance or choose strategically for our own advantage.
So WP... what do you think we "should" do with Kim Jong-Un? Sounds like you are advocating a strategically advantageous military strike?
"I don't think that he's thinking at all. He wants to be powerful, and he associates that with powerful weapons. He will continue provocations, increasingly dangerous ones including attacking someone, until he believes that other nations are trembling in fear. That's the extent of it."
The extent of it is he wants leverage. Period.
China, Russia and Iran want him to have his leverage. Period.
He isn't dumb.
"Anyone who is NOT dumb like KJU knows that it isn't going to happen"
Yeah, he didn't just set off a hydrogen/atomic bomb.....
"the only change in the whole dynamic is that the feckless idiot kim observed for 8 years has left the stage and has scurried back to cabrini green."
Exactly.
We should offer every American company doing business in China a sweetheart deal to move to Mexico immediately, or as humanly possible. The hell with China.
Let Ukraine have their weapons back, or at the very least announce that we're going to abide by the Budapest Memorandum.
Screw China and Russia.
Nikki Haley is awesome.
Without more knowledge of our forces and capabilities I can't venture a specific military action.
We know that the current sanctions regime is not working. I kind of like the idea of sanctioning everyone who does any business with NK (ie, China) and at least we'll find out just how important NK is to them as a strategic asset. Unfortunately Trump is already known as a bullshitter, so his bluff will be called. Tangible action is necessary before China or anyone else will take his threat seriously.
To that end, were I Trump I would interdict all commerce that does not cross the China border. I know that this is risky - historically it induced Japan's hand in WWII, it contributed to Germany's belligerence in their wars, and other examples. But we're already at the point of risk.
Yeah, he didn't just set off a hydrogen/atomic bomb....
No, nuclear powers trembling in fear isn't going to happen. He's not going to have a credible second-strike deterrent, not enough to protect him from vastly superior military forces and economic resources.
WP, our generals know that any military action with NK would have catastrophic consequences...
I think you underestimate the mindset of the NK military, and the decades of brainwashing of the NK people.
"Unfortunately Trump is already known as a bullshitter, so his bluff will be called. Tangible action is necessary before China or anyone else will take his threat seriously."
You re not going to get away with blaming this on Trump as far as I'm concerned.
Go back DECADES if this is going to be a blamefest...
THREE Presidents had two terms each to resolve this problem.
On the contrary, I think that you are underestimating the mindset and extent of brainwashing. You don't just say, "Oh that's bad" and stop there. You look at all of the options, you consider the likelihood of the various reactions to those options, what you can do about that and so on, as far into the future as you can manage. Then you select among them the one path most favorable to you considering the strongest opposing response at each step. Basic mini-max decision tree, but I'm pretty sure that military planners introduce relative probabilities as well.
By underestimating their mindset and domestic propaganda, you may be overlooking the likelihood of that catastrophic event 2 or 3 plies down the tree, and in some scenarios it is more catastrophic. Our current sanctions regime treads down that path, therefore greater risk is necessary now to minimize the risk later.
Incremental escalation, potentially involving military force, is one way to preempt that path to destruction. Interdicting shipping is one such incremental step, which would be quasi-legal enforcement of sanctions and also have a significant impact on production capabilities. I'm not *blaming* Trump for this mess, far from it. But it's a sure thing that his bombastic bullshitting means that no one will take his threats seriously unless he takes tangible action.
You all are missing the point. The nukes are there to prevent conventional attacks. If North Korea gets attacked, whether by air or land, it has the ability to inflict horrendous damage on it's attacker. Until recently, South Korea and Japan have been surrogate retaliation targets for the United States. The missile program has the potential to make U.S. cities direct targets very soon.
Indy, I don't believe that owning a nuclear weapon prevents conventional attacks. Deterrence still operates, and he'd be hopelessly outmatched. Regardless of the conventional situation, he cannot attempt a first-use.
South Korea Wonders Why Trump Is Attacking Them
September 4, 2017 at 7:56 am EDT
“South Korea’s president tried late Sunday to dismiss talk of a dispute between Seoul and Washington over how to deal with North Korea following its sixth nuclear test, after President Trump criticized the South Korean approach as ‘appeasement,'” the Washington Post reports.
“Moon Jae-in’s office said that his government would continue to work towards peaceful denuclearization after tweets and actions from Trump that have left South Koreans scratching their heads at why the American president is attacking an ally at such a sensitive time.”
Observed former State Department official David Straub: “Opinion polls show South Koreans have one of the lowest rates of regard for Trump in the world and they don’t consider him to be a reasonable person. In fact, they worry he’s kind of nuts, but they still want the alliance.”
Sept. 3
"...many are questioning whether America is still committed to remaining engaged in the world, to upholding our traditional alliances, and standing up for the values we share. I also realize — and there is no point in avoiding a little straight talk here — that this doubt has much to do with some of the actions and statements of our President.”
— Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), quoted by Time magazine, at an international economic and policy conference in Lake Como, Italy.
I see that Boswell doesn't have any pedophilia to swoon over today.
"You all are missing the point. The nukes are there to prevent conventional attacks."
Leverage, just like I said.
He isn't going to let up on his nuclear ambition.
What's the last acknowledged nuclear power that's had its home territory attacked by a foreign power, WP? It hasn't happened. NATO policy was for first use in case of a Soviet invasion, and they made sure the Soviets knew that. Pakistan got its bomb to deter India. India got its bomb to deter China. China got its bomb to deter the Soviet Union.
Nukes are, first and foremost, a deterrent against conventional attack. Each nuclear power has the option to use nuclear weapons if it's attacked. Most have a fairly obvious line where that would be considered, but the reality is that nobody really knows when a nuclear power will decide it's time to use those nukes (not even the nuclear power).
Loretta will now explain to our South Korean allies why Trump is attacking them.
On second thought, do not hold your breath.
and there is no point in avoiding a little straight talk here
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
oh really, captain "complete the dang fence"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc
you've been reduced to an irrelevant assclown.
criticize trump all you want, but he was able to accomplish what you could not - become president.
India and China just had a standoff in Doklam, and there are continual skirmishes with Pakistan.
Nukes have had little deterrent value for conventional attacks against our forces in the recent wars that the US have been involved in, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
If you're thinking that it prevents other nuclear powers from attacking us directly, isn't that a stronger strategical argument against nuclear weapons? If you think that having them prevents you from conventional operations against a nuclear state, but not non-nuclear states?
"If you're thinking that it prevents other nuclear powers from attacking us directly, isn't that a stronger strategical argument against nuclear weapons? If you think that having them prevents you from conventional operations against a nuclear state, but not non-nuclear states?"
It doesn't matter what we think. The fat little shit in North Korea thinks it will be a deterrent, if we or anyone else decides on regime change.
Fuck off pedo.
"The fat little shit in North Korea thinks it will be a deterrent, if we or anyone else decides on regime change."
Correct, and because of this misjudgment he will be likely to act on his belief that he is untouchable, making a serious strategical mistake with the catastrophic consequences that our Generals are warning about. Like I said, he is too dumb to understand strategical contingencies and simply wants powerful weapons because he thinks they will provide him power, personally.
There is no more room for "we won't tolerate a nuclear North Korea" and talk in the UN. The only way forward, for us, involves tangible action.
The tricky part is that thousands of South Korean lives may be lost if any tangible action is taken.
That is what the Generals are referring to as the catastrophe.
It's also Kim's hole card.
Nikki Haley is awesome, so is alpha male Rex Tillers on And Maddog Mattis.
Compare with Obimbo team of, nancy kerry, Ashley carter and Samuel powers
No, not at all and that's the point. "Any tangible action" now does NOT mean the loss of life of thousands of South Koreans. "No" tangible action likely does mean that loss of live, a year from now or maybe ten years, but after KJU has the capability he wants it will eventually happen.
An invasion with an all out attack, probably does touch off a catastrophe, but we'll get nowhere with that one step ahead all or nothing binary thinking. Pyonyang is in reach as well as Seoul, but we're not going to start off bombing there. Regardless of how stupid or insane he may be (or may not be), he doesn't want to lose everything and he's not going to risk losing it unless there is more to gain. Incremental escalations, which do NOT prompt an artillery attack on large cities, are a threat to his hold on power while still leaving a way out.
If you're going for a quick kill - and I have the feeling that this is the only thing that most people are imagining here, with this talk of shelling Seoul and setting off nukes - you'd have to pound every artillery position near the DMZ and try to eliminate missile emplacements, absorb the coounter punch that remains, and followup with a ground operation to decapitate the regime. That's one of the options Trump is reviewing (of course it is) but it's the most unlikely of any. NK can trigger this option as well. But in retaliation to an embargo, for instance? Not likely.
Our responsibility as American citizens is not to design a military campaign. No one who IS involved is going to listen to what I'm writing here; I'm just explaining how I see that it's going to go, like it or not.
At best I can cast some bread on the water. But we DO have the responsibility to refrain from hysterical knee-jerk reactions when our leaders do take some action. That action is coming, one way or the other.
The threat of going nuclear was a huge part of what kept the Red Army from rolling westward during the Cold War. And keeping India from invading, or even going to war with, Pakistan was a huge motivation for Pakistan getting their nukes.
The skirmishes you've mentioned are exactly that - skirmishes over territories that have been in dispute between India and China, or India and Pakistan, for decades. Both disputes have cease fire lines, not treaty lines. None of the actions have been large scale, or attempts by one nation to outright seize the disputed lands.
Loretta said...
Fuck off pedo.
Did Sadam refrain from engaging our forces in full scale combat, because of our nukes? Twice it was, right? Did the Taliban surrender any cities or fortified holdings in Afghanistan because we could just nuke them? Nukes have almost no value in military engagements, neither tactical nor strategic. In our own history we elected to lose a war rather than utilize nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
NK's nuclear weapons and the delivery capability will be factored into battlefield calculations, but it's naive to believe that they immunize a country from conventional attacks.
Ummmmmm, WP, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had nukes to deter the United States from attacking them. And neither country attacked the U.S.
In both cases, the possession of nuclear weapons by one side did not deter full scale war. And AQ did attack the USA, and their Taliban allies did attack US forces in Afghanistan. Saddam did attack US forces in Iraq, regardless of US nukes. These were real wars, Indy.
If the vastly superior US nukes do not prohibit armed conflict with US forces, and do not prevent attacks in the United States, then the vastly inferior armory of North Korea will not prohibit combat against them.
Mutually Assured Destruction is undeniably what has prevented the use of nuclear weapons, and it is still operative no matter who owns the nuke. If North Korea lobs a 10KT nuke at a US installation, he will see a nuclear counter-strike, period. The USA has no choice, to do otherwise is to prove that unanswered nuclear attacks are possible against the US. Kim Jong-un cannot use them without the risk of certain destruction. Therefore they are not a prohibitive deterrent to conventional attack.
And to the extent that they discourage an attack, it is less so now than it will ever be in the foreseeable future.
I've said nothing about nukes deterring their possessor from attacking other countries. The nukes deter other countries from attacking them.
Post a Comment