forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#misc


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
764,383 comments by 11,146 registered users, 6 online now: Blurtman, Dan8267, me123, mell, socal2, Strategist

new post
« prev   misc   next »

Kiss South Korea's ass goodbye...

By BlueSardine following x   2017 Jul 7, 6:07am 1,440 views   34 comments   watch   quote     share  

The latest North Korean missile is menacing not just because of its 4,000-mile range, but because it is road mobile. And the transporter comes from China.

In the calculus of nuclear deterrence, mobility guarantees inviolability. (The enemy cannot find, and therefore cannot pre-empt, a mobile missile.) It's a huge step forward for Pyongyang. Supplied by Beijing.

How many times must we be taught that Beijing does not share our view of denuclearizing North Korea? It prefers a divided peninsula, i.e., sustaining its client state as a guarantee against a unified Korea (possibly nuclear) allied with the West and sitting on its border.

Nukes assure regime survival. That's why the Kims have so single-mindedly pursued them. The lessons are clear. Saddam Hussein, no nukes: hanged. Moammar Gadhafi, gave up his nuclear program: killed by his own people. The Kim dynasty, possessing an arsenal of 10-16 bombs: untouched, soon untouchable.

What are our choices? Trump has threatened that if China doesn't help we'll have to go it alone. If so, the choice is binary: acquiescence or war.

War is almost unthinkable, given the proximity of the Demilitarized Zone to the 10 million people of Seoul. A mere conventional war would be devastating. And could rapidly go nuclear.

Acquiescence is not unthinkable. After all, we did it when China went nuclear under Mao Zedong, whose regime promptly went insane under the Cultural Revolution.

The hope for a third alternative, getting China to do the dirty work, is mostly wishful thinking. There's talk of sanctioning other Chinese banks. Will that really change China's strategic thinking? Bourgeois democracies believe that economics supersedes geostrategy. Maybe for us. But for dictatorships? Rarely.

If we want to decisively alter the strategic balance, we could return U.S. tactical nukes (withdrawn in 1991) to South Korea. Or we could encourage Japan to build a nuclear deterrent of its own. Nothing would get more quick attention from the Chinese. They would face a radically new strategic dilemma: Is preserving North Korea worth a nuclear Japan?

We do have powerful alternatives. But each is dangerous and highly unpredictable. Which is why the most likely ultimate outcome, by far, is acquiescence.

http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/charles-krauthammer-north-korea-the-rubicon-is-crossed/

1 Strategist   2017 Jul 7, 7:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

BlueSardine says

The latest North Korean missile is menacing not just because of its 4,000-mile range, but because it is road mobile. And the transporter comes from China.

Fucking Chinese. It's time to make China a democracy. It's always the non democracies that stir up trouble.

2 justme   2017 Jul 7, 7:39am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        

Strategist says

It's always the non democracies that stir up trouble.

Right. And US is the main non-democracy that is stirring up trouble, all over the world.

3 JZ   2017 Jul 7, 7:44am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote        

We are accusing the russian meddling with the election, and at the same time we want to regime change all other countries.

I guess all nations around the world really have no respect for borders and everybody wants the world go the way they want. So nuke is essential.

4 justme   2017 Jul 7, 7:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        

BlueSardine says

Nukes assure regime survival. That's why the Kims have so single-mindedly pursued them. The lessons are clear. Saddam Hussein, no nukes: hanged. Moammar Gadhafi, gave up his nuclear program: killed by his own people. The Kim dynasty, possessing an arsenal of 10-16 bombs: untouched, soon untouchable.

Having nuclear weapons assure national survival, not just regime survival. This is why so many so-called "enemies" of the US are striving to get them. US preached non-proliferation ever since 1945, but then did not hold up the other end of the bargain: Not interfering with or invading the countries that agreed to non-proliferation. What did the US expect?

5 BlueSardine   2017 Jul 7, 8:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Once NK proves intercontinental missile technology coupled with miniaturized nukes, the games just about over for SK.
Kim invades SK conventionally with icbms aimed at america should they interfere.
The only hope for survival for SK is owning their own tactical nukes.

6 BlueSardine   2017 Jul 7, 8:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

and if china doesn't like SK nukes, tough shit. They had their chances to stop it all...

7 Strategist   2017 Jul 7, 8:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

justme says

Strategist says

It's always the non democracies that stir up trouble.

Right. And US is the main non-democracy that is stirring up trouble, all over the world.

The US is the undeclared policeman of the world. The world needs a policeman. The rotten world of dictators, communism, religions, and royalty are always stirring up trouble. They have no sense of human rights and peace.
Do you ever see true democracies attack each other? No.
Do you see non democracies attack each other? All the time.

8 BayAreaObserver   2017 Jul 7, 8:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

The only hope for survival for SK is owning their own tactical nukes

Who is to say they do not already have the capability, same for Japan ?

If they do not already, not a large problem to let them "rent" some of ours and what we won't let them have access to, someone out there surely will.

Be it the middle east, India/Pakistan, Asia - this will end badly and more likely the result of a chain of events brought on by nature, IT, or a gross miscalculation on the part of one or more parties that they could "limit" the scope of a tactical response.

If I was a betting type, I'd go with a sequence of events with the root cause as being something "nature" created - (drought, disease, famine, lack of clean water, or similar that causes untold suffering etc. for one or more populations)

9 JZ   2017 Jul 7, 8:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        

I think the nuke is like the sting of the bee. You only use it when you are facing the death threat situation. The bees will not use the stings to invade other species. They only use it to avoid death threats.
For NK to invade SK and threaten to nuke LA is like suicide. I doubt Kim would do that. Even he wants, his generals may understand death after the sting and might not go with him.

How ever this does NOT exclude Kim from trading nukes to oil with middle east. The mid east agenda and oil price control is US's true interest.

10 Tenpoundbass   2017 Jul 7, 9:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

NK is in no shape to start an all out Nuclear weapon shit post. Their success launch rate is 10% and of those that made it to the Ocean we have no idea what their intended target was. NK would be whipped off the face of the planet before their first missile blows up on launch.
I expect NK to be right where it is with the same leader doing the same stupid shit 8 years from now when Trump leaves office. Kim is only the Mouse that roared, no Nation really takes him serious. They may feign an effort that they are. But if any movement or decision comes out of it, it will only be a false flag as they bomb the fuck out of ISIS somewhere else.

11 PCGyver   2017 Jul 7, 9:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

BayAreaObserver says

something "nature" created

Trump

12 PCGyver   2017 Jul 7, 9:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Tenpoundbass says

NK would be whipped off the face of the planet before their first missile blows up on launch.

And we'd all see what a nuclear winter is like.

13 Tenpoundbass   2017 Jul 7, 9:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

China would do them in before they would let USA or Allied forces take the country.
China would just have Kim hit and they would put in a new puppet Government.
Probably being discussed right now in Hamburg.

14 SpecialSnowflake   2017 Jul 7, 9:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

PCGyver says

Tenpoundbass says

NK would be whipped off the face of the planet before their first missile blows up on launch.

And we'd all see what a nuclear winter is like.

We'll call it "geoengineering".

15 Rew   2017 Jul 7, 10:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says

Fucking Chinese. It's time to make China a democracy. It's always the non democracies that stir up trouble.

You need to take a real hard look in the mirror if you think you are a champion of democratic values.

The US does too.

We are falling further down the slope, losing influence, and losing our previous American Exceptionalism badge. W. put us on the slope, Obama arrested and pointed those nose back up for higher elevations, but Trump is sitting his big fat ass on the nose cone now. We are headed for the dirt.

It will take many years to repair the damage being done right now.

16 Rew   2017 Jul 7, 10:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Tenpoundbass says

China would do them in before they would let USA or Allied forces take the country.

China would just have Kim hit and they would put in a new puppet Government.

Probably being discussed right now in Hamburg.

China has as much trouble, if not more, in dealing with N. Korea, as we do. The fact that you cannot see that is telling.

What political pressure can you put on a nation that is indifferent to being isolated and comfortable to let millions in its population starve to death? Think for half a second. You are smarter than Trump.

17 Tenpoundbass   2017 Jul 7, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Rew says

China has as much trouble, if not more, in dealing with N. Korea

There's no trouble in dealing with Kim, he's isolated from the modern world of 2017, there's not much you can do to with a political economic sanction, there's no international accord they are part of. Like Cuba these guys have nothing to lose by acting like shits until they get their way for something. So typical diplomacy protocols are ineffective when dealing with these people. The only thing that hasn't been used on Kim or NK for that matter is a good hand upside the head.
They haven't fought since the 50's when they had Red China and the Soviet Union backing them. NK would have 1/100th of the expendable resources he had available to him during the Korean war. North Korea had all of Asia's resources at their disposal that is how they were able to end in armistice rather than stomped into a mudhole in the 50's.

18 SpecialSnowflake   2017 Jul 7, 10:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Rew says

China has as much trouble, if not more, in dealing with N. Korea, as we do. The fact that you cannot see that is telling.

LOL. You're falling for the classic proxy play.

What's next: Russia "having trouble in dealing with" their puppets in Donbass?

19 BlueSardine   2017 Jul 7, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

The evidence supports strawman's position.

Take Russia and China. If there's to be external pressure on North Korea, it would come from them. Will it? On Tuesday, they issued a joint statement proposing a deal: North Korea freezes nuclear and missile testing in return for America abandoning large-scale joint exercises with South Korea.

This is a total nonstarter. The exercises have been the backbone of the U.S.-South Korea alliance for half a century. Abandonment would signal the end of an enduring relationship that stabilizes the region and guarantees South Korean independence. In exchange for what?

A testing freeze? The offer doesn't even pretend to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program, which has to be our minimal objective. Moreover, we've negotiated multiple freezes over the years with Pyongyang. It has violated every one.

The fact that Russia and China would, amid a burning crisis, propose such a dead-on-arrival proposal demonstrates that their real interest is not denuclearization. Their real interest is cutting America down to size by breaking our South Korean alliance and weakening our influence in the Pacific Rim.

Straw Man says

Rew says

China has as much trouble, if not more, in dealing with N. Korea, as we do. The fact that you cannot see that is telling.

LOL. You're falling for the classic proxy play.

20 Goran_K   2017 Jul 7, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Rew says

Obama arrested and pointed those nose back up for higher elevations

Really?

21 PeopleUnited   2017 Jul 7, 5:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

All this talk of war, combined with the sexy picture of the european immigrant has me wondering why the military has not weaponized sex? We train an elite team of attractive but deadly women to infiltrate whatever target government's leaders you seek to overthrow and when the despots get a little frisky they assassinate your targets leaving a vacuum of leadership. Bam, making the world free for democracy one horny dictator at a time.

22 Philistine   2017 Jul 7, 6:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

PeopleUnited says

democracy one horny dictator at a time

This won't work because decadence is the symptom of a falling empire, not the cause.

23 BayAreaObserver   2017 Jul 10, 4:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

In North Korea, ‘Surgical Strike’ Could Spin Into ‘Worst Kind of Fighting’

SEOUL, South Korea — The standoff over North Korea’s nuclear program has long been shaped by the view that the United States has no viable military option to destroy it. Any attempt to do so, many say, would provoke a brutal counterattack against South Korea too bloody and damaging to risk.

That remains a major constraint on the Trump administration’s response even as North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, approaches his goal of a nuclear arsenal capable of striking the United States. On Tuesday, the North appeared to cross a new threshold, testing a weapon that it described as an intercontinental ballistic missile and that analysts said could potentially hit Alaska.

Over the years, as it does for potential crises around the world, the Pentagon has drafted and refined multiple war plans, including an enormous retaliatory invasion and limited pre-emptive attacks, and it holds annual military exercises with South Korean forces based on them.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration made a point of threatening a military response. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, commander of the American forces that conducted a missile exercise with South Korea, said the United States had chosen “self-restraint” with the North. Nikki R. Haley, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said her country’s “considerable military forces” were an option. “We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction,” she told the Security Council.

But the military options are more grim than ever.

Even the most limited strike risks staggering casualties, because North Korea could retaliate with the thousands of artillery pieces it has positioned along its border with the South. Though the arsenal is of limited range and could be destroyed in days, the United States defense secretary, Jim Mattis, recently warned that if North Korea used it, it “would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes.”

Beyond that, there is no historical precedent for a military attack aimed at destroying a country’s nuclear arsenal.

The last time the United States is known to have seriously considered attacking the North was in 1994, more than a decade before its first nuclear test. The defense secretary at the time, William J. Perry, asked the Pentagon to prepare plans for a “surgical strike” on a nuclear reactor, but he backed off after concluding it would set off warfare that could leave hundreds of thousands dead.

Much More: http://www.koreatimesus.com/in-north-korea-surgical-strike-could-spin-into-worst-kind-of-fighting/

24 Strategist   2017 Jul 10, 4:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Rew says

What political pressure can you put on a nation that is indifferent to being isolated and comfortable to let millions in its population starve to death? Think for half a second. You are smarter than Trump.

Their only motivation is to remain in power. If we can find a way to bump off that overfed leader, it would be great.

25 BayAreaObserver   2017 Jul 10, 4:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

The great unknown however is what comes next and if the replacements for Kim are worse than Kim which is a very real probability and what country or countries they align with seems equally as unpredictable but I would expect the status quo to remain the same so all we have done then is to take out a body but not the mindset.

26 FortWayne   2017 Jul 10, 5:44pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        

Actually we did declare that. "Burden of maintaining peace falls on us because we are the only once who can do it"

Strategist says

justme says

Strategist says

It's always the non democracies that stir up trouble.

Right. And US is the main non-democracy that is stirring up trouble, all over the world.

The US is the undeclared policeman of the world. The world needs a policeman. The rotten world of dictators, communism, religions, and royalty are always stirring up trouble. They have no sense of human rights and peace.

Do you ever see true democracies attack each other? No.

Do you see non democracies attack each other? All the time.

27 Strategist   2017 Jul 10, 6:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        

FortWayne says

Actually we did declare that. "Burden of maintaining peace falls on us because we are the only once who can do it"

And instead of getting a "Thanks Uncle Sam" we get blamed for the wars. Too many ungrateful people on the planet.

28 BlueSardine   2017 Jul 10, 6:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Ita time to unleash phasar technology. Stun 50 million nk border groupies in a millisecond and then invade while the gittins good...

29 FortWayne   2017 Jul 10, 6:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says

FortWayne says

Actually we did declare that. "Burden of maintaining peace falls on us because we are the only once who can do it"

And instead of getting a "Thanks Uncle Sam" we get blamed for the wars. Too many ungrateful people on the planet.

It sure does feel like a thankless job. You help them not fall under dictatorship and instead they blame you for all the problems and wars in the world. Classical entitlement.

30 Rew   2017 Jul 10, 6:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

It's a shame our chief diplomat was unable to build a global coalition and statements against N Korea at the G20.

Oooopsy dooopsy!

31 Strategist   2017 Jul 10, 9:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Rew says

It's a shame our chief diplomat was unable to build a global coalition and statements against N Korea at the G20.

Oooopsy dooopsy!

So you support NK having nukes. Shame on you.

32 Rew   2017 Jul 10, 9:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says

So you support NK having nukes. Shame on you.

Where did I say that?
I'll try it in plainer English for you: Trump missed an easy political layup at the G20. It was simple. Rally international sentiment against N. Korea, photo ops, table talks, joint statement of the G20 proclaiming N. Korea and aggressive outlier of nations which must cease aggressions and join the rest of the international nations. Guess who would get really uncomfortable on this ... China ... and Russia. ;)

33 Strategist   2017 Jul 10, 9:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

Rew says

Strategist says

So you support NK having nukes. Shame on you.

Where did I say that?

I'll try it in plainer English for you: Trump missed an easy political layup at the G20. It was simple. Rally international sentiment against N. Korea, photo ops, table talks, joint statement of the G20 proclaiming N. Korea and aggressive outlier of nations which must cease aggressions and join the rest of the international nations. Guess who would get really uncomfortable on this ... China ... and Russia. ;)

The world is already against NK nukes, and willing to solve that issue. The fucking Chinese and Russians obviously have their own agenda. It's always the USA that looks out for the world, isn't it?

34 BlueSardine   2017 Jul 11, 5:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        

The only problem with making them uncomfortable is that, given the current sanctions against russia, and the chinese actually providing mobile missile launchers to NK, it wouldn't.

Rew says

I'll try it in plainer English for you: Trump missed an easy political layup at the G20. It was simple. Rally international sentiment against N. Korea, photo ops, table talks, joint statement of the G20 proclaiming N. Korea and aggressive outlier of nations which must cease aggressions and join the rest of the international nations. Guess who would get really uncomfortable on this ... China ... and Russia. ;)

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home