[North Korea] The Dear Loser comes into his own.

[Captain Caveman]

link

Southern Baptist minister Robert Jeffress (one of Trump's Evangelical advisers) says God gives Trump the moral authority to nuke, assassinate, or do whatever it takes to end Kim's regime.

WWJN

[Smoove_B]

Very comforting headline -- Hawaii first state to prepare for nuclear attack. This is normal.

[YellowKing]

Make America Glow Again!

[milo]

Favorite quote from The Atlantic article:

Why did Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan begin remarking frequently during the ’80s and ’90s that people were entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts? Because until then, that had not been necessary to say.

[Rip]

if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, "we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate."

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it,"

[Fitzy]

if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, "we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate."

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it,"

AND USED

Words matter.

[pr0ner]

if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, "we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate."

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it,"

AND USED

Words matter.

Reading comprehension isn't Rip's strong suit.

[Zarathud]

Trump basically announced with the "and used" that he's going to let North Korea get nukes.

[Grifman]

if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, "we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate."

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it,"

Calmly stating US policy which has been vetted by advisors is not the same as going off on Twitter with a rhetoric filled rant that has not been vetted by advisors.

But of course you knew that, right?

[YellowKing]

The Daily podcast had an interview with former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Great interview, but not very optimistic. The good news is that he says North Korea is "crazy, not suicidal." In other words, he didn't believe Kim Jong Un would do anything to invoke a nuclear retaliation from the US, and would likely only use nuclear weapons as an absolute last resort. The bad news is that he feels we are well on our way to some kind of conventional conflict. The danger there, of course, is that a NK losing a conventional war could get desperate.

[El Guapo]

Of course, any kind of conventional war even in the best case scenario would be devastating to Korea, and could easily involve the destruction of Seoul (probably via conventional artillery, rather than nukes).

Also of note is that Trump has not yet nominated an ambassador to South Korea, nor a person to coordinate East Asia diplomacy (don't remember what their title is).

[Jeff V]

The Daily podcast had an interview with former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Great interview, but not very optimistic. The good news is that he says North Korea is "crazy, not suicidal." In other words, he didn't believe Kim Jong Un would do anything to invoke a nuclear retaliation from the US, and would likely only use nuclear weapons as an absolute last resort. The bad news is that he feels we are well on our way to some kind of conventional conflict. The danger there, of course, is that a NK losing a conventional war could get desperate.

Trump really really wants to nuke something, he's been saying as much since the campaign. If he can refrain from that, our air force could probably quickly relieve Kim of his, and then let the conventional bombing into the stone age commence.

We should be trying to assassinate Kim about now, though.

[Rip]

My position spoken better than I am capable of.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/09/heres-how- ... eas-nukes/

[Rip]

The Daily podcast had an interview with former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Great interview, but not very optimistic. The good news is that he says North Korea is "crazy, not suicidal." In other words, he didn't believe Kim Jong Un would do anything to invoke a nuclear retaliation from the US, and would likely only use nuclear weapons as an absolute last resort. The bad news is that he feels we are well on our way to some kind of conventional conflict. The danger there, of course, is that a NK losing a conventional war could get desperate.

Trump really really wants to nuke something, he's been saying as much since the campaign. If he can refrain from that, our air force could probably quickly relieve Kim of his, and then let the conventional bombing into the stone age commence.

We should be trying to assassinate Kim about now, though.

No reason to nuke them. We can accomplish everything we need with conventional weapons.

I don't see the US ever doing pre-emptive or tactical nuclear strikes.

[milo]

The first step should begin immediately, well in advance and without firing a shot. All military family members, all Department of Defense civilian employees and all nonessential contractors should be evacuated from South Korea.

There are nine or ten million people in the city of Seoul, a large portion of whom are currently in range of NK artillery. Will they be evacuated as well?

Our men and women in combat need to concentrate on winning, not worrying about the safety of their loved ones.

Or the safety of the civilian population of our allies, apparently.

[Rip]

The first step should begin immediately, well in advance and without firing a shot. All military family members, all Department of Defense civilian employees and all nonessential contractors should be evacuated from South Korea.

There are nine or ten million people in the city of Seoul, a large portion of whom are currently in range of NK artillery. Will they be evacuated as well?

Our men and women in combat need to concentrate on winning, not worrying about the safety of their loved ones.

Or the safety of the civilian population of our allies, apparently.

No. When have we ever done that?

That isn't how war works and by asking that you just proved his earlier point.

I fear we’ve forgotten what war means. That fear reached a peak a decade ago when American generals blithely repeated the indefensible claim that “counterinsurgency is warfare at the graduate-school level.” No. Counterinsurgency is Kindergarten (complete with political correctness nowadays). D-Day was a doctoral dissertation and the bombing campaign over Germany the preceding master’s thesis.

For all of our spectacular technologies, I’m not convinced our leaders, civilian or military, are psychologically or morally prepared for a real war. We have taught our troops to break things, but to go to absurd lengths to spare all lives. Yet in warfare there’s no substitute for killing your enemy and all those who support him. And you keep on killing until the enemy quits unconditionally or lies there dead and rotting.

War is about vicious and quick decimation of your enemy. Anything that stands in the way of that should be cast aside.

[malchior]

Trump steps up rhetoric on NK. 'Fire and fury' wasn't strong enough. What a complete fucking moron.

[milo]

So, if we remove the Kim family from power in North Korea, and no more than two million South Korean civilians are killed in the process, is that "winning" or "losing"?

[Smoove_B]

Trump steps up rhetoric on NK. 'Fire and fury' wasn't strong enough. What a complete fucking moron.

“things will happen to them like they never thought possible”

He's going to move there, run for president and then actually get elected?

[YellowKing]

At the risk of defending Rip , I think the point of the article is that IF we were in a position where we had to respond to NK aggression (i.e. self defense), then we would not have the luxury of evacuating everyone. We'd have to strike with surprising and overwhelming force. Anything else would be tipping our hand, and putting Seoul in MORE danger, not less.

In that respect I concur, even though the article comes off as bloodthirsty. And I absolutely do not agree with the article's proposal to use nukes.

[malchior]

And I absolutely do not agree with the article's proposal to use nukes.

The Chinese agree with you there. Anything that doesn't take into account their reaction to clouds of fallout (or the fall of the North Korean regime) are probably not too realistic.

[Rip]

At the risk of defending Rip , I think the point of the article is that IF we were in a position where we had to respond to NK aggression (i.e. self defense), then we would not have the luxury of evacuating everyone. We'd have to strike with surprising and overwhelming force. Anything else would be tipping our hand, and putting Seoul in MORE danger, not less.

In that respect I concur, even though the article comes off as bloodthirsty. And I absolutely do not agree with the article's proposal to use nukes.

It doesn't propose using nukes, in fact it qualifies the only reason you would need to use them.

Oh, and if North Korea’s nuclear program has tunneled so far underground that conventional weapons can’t destroy the infrastructure, use nukes. It may be time to remind the world just how terrible such weapons can be.

The reality is we have conventional weapons that are more effective against underground facilities than anything in our nuclear arsenal.

[milo]

Did we read the same article?

The choice would come down to this: Do we kill our enemies with sufficient ruthlessness at the outset, or do we attempt to minimize North Korean casualties and expose ourselves and our allies to the prospect of a drawn-out mutual butchery?

...which is a preposterous way of looking at the situation.

At the outset of battle, North Korea has the advantage. They live there and their artillery is already in place and set to kill large numbers of allied civilians. There is no amount of ruthlessness that will prevent that outcome. So the primary goal is to avoid war in the first place.

If war becomes unavoidable, then the primary goal shifts to destroying the smallest amount of the enemy required to force a surrender, and to do so as quickly as possible without using strategic weapons. The reason that we want to minimize NK casualties it that after the war, we and our allies will have to play a big role in picking up the pieces. The reason we want to avoid using strategic weapons is because we want to avoid escalation to WWIII.

[Max Peck]

Heh, it's so precious to see Rip arguing from the historical view of what the US has done in the past. Trump is the guy who asked why the country has nuclear weapons if they can't use them. Since when is he bound by traditional statecraft? If he decides to nuke the Norks just because it strikes him as a brilliant idea, they're going to get nuked, regardless of what the grown-ups think (unless they're willing to stage a coup to put him down).

[Kraken]

So, if we remove the Kim family from power in North Korea, and no more than two million South Korean civilians are killed in the process, is that "winning" or "losing"?

It's MAGA. Honestly, how many electoral votes does South Korea get?

[Rip]

Did we read the same article?

The choice would come down to this: Do we kill our enemies with sufficient ruthlessness at the outset, or do we attempt to minimize North Korean casualties and expose ourselves and our allies to the prospect of a drawn-out mutual butchery?

...which is a preposterous way of looking at the situation.

At the outset of battle, North Korea has the advantage. They live there and their artillery is already in place and set to kill large numbers of allied civilians. There is no amount of ruthlessness that will prevent that outcome. So the primary goal is to avoid war in the first place.

If war becomes unavoidable, then the primary goal shifts to destroying the smallest amount of the enemy required to force a surrender, and to do so as quickly as possible without using strategic weapons. The reason that we want to minimize NK casualties it that after the war, we and our allies will have to play a big role in picking up the pieces. The reason we want to avoid using strategic weapons is because we want to avoid escalation to WWIII.

Yea, that approach is what brought us the failures of Korea and Vietnam. If you want to actually win the WW2 approach is the proper way.

[Enough]

Did we read the same article?

The choice would come down to this: Do we kill our enemies with sufficient ruthlessness at the outset, or do we attempt to minimize North Korean casualties and expose ourselves and our allies to the prospect of a drawn-out mutual butchery?

...which is a preposterous way of looking at the situation.

At the outset of battle, North Korea has the advantage. They live there and their artillery is already in place and set to kill large numbers of allied civilians. There is no amount of ruthlessness that will prevent that outcome. So the primary goal is to avoid war in the first place.

If war becomes unavoidable, then the primary goal shifts to destroying the smallest amount of the enemy required to force a surrender, and to do so as quickly as possible without using strategic weapons. The reason that we want to minimize NK casualties it that after the war, we and our allies will have to play a big role in picking up the pieces. The reason we want to avoid using strategic weapons is because we want to avoid escalation to WWIII.

Yea, that approach is what brought us the failures of Korea and Vietnam. If you want to actually win the WW2 approach is the proper way.

So basically you hold that we need another world war to sort this stuff out, gotcha. Can hardly wait.

[Rip]

Didn't say that. I said it needs to be fought with the same aggressive pursuit of victory.

Tit-for-Tat ask them if they want to quit wars just prolong and intensify the suffering while never reaching a permanent solution.

[malchior]

Oh goody - this imbecile started his day by tweeting out military threats. This is like living in a black mirror episode. <Computer End Program> <COMPUTER END PROGRAM!!!>

[Paingod]

Didn't say that. I said it needs to be fought with the same aggressive pursuit of victory.

Tit-for-Tat ask them if they want to quit wars just prolong and intensify the suffering while never reaching a permanent solution.

I honestly can't believe I'm saying this, but I kind of agree with Rip.

Aggressive spanking won't stop anything. If we do go down the road of attacking NK, it's got to be fierce, painful, and so brutal for them that their only option is to say "Holy s##t, we give up! WE GIVE UP!" ... picking that fight is a delay if we simply bloody their nose and knock them down. They're going to need to spend two weeks in a coma and need physical therapy for it to make them not want to try again. Their leadership needs to be entirely removed.

This is a country of fanaticism that doesn't follow rules we understand. I don't think the regime could tolerate a simple bloodied nose - it would be a grave insult to them and their power over the citizens. They would be required to lash out with hellfire and vengeance after decades of claiming superiority over the rest of the world.

We have to take away the hellfire and leave them with nothing more dangerous than big rocks and sharp sticks... or we do nothing at all and wait to see if they nuke us or someone else somewhere down the road, and then obliterate them.

I still vote for diplomacy - but if we start a fight, we need to start it like we mean it. No half-measures.

[Chaz]

If that's the only option, then we have to be willing to accept that we and our allies are probably going to suffer a LOT of casualties and destruction, and the bill for rebuilding, both in physical terms and diplomatic ones, are going to be massive. We also may be looking at committing to another long-term boots on the ground military action, and potentially an even longer-term counterinsurgency operation, since the current regime has spent a lot of time indoctrinating its population against the US.

If we as a nation have weighed the options, have determined that this is the only remaining path available to us, have formulated a strategy to get us through it, and are ready to make that commitment, then sure, let's go. I have less than no faith that any of that's actually happened.

[Smoove_B]

I have less than no faith that any of that's actually happened.

I'm not sure. I'm pretty confident there are cadets at West Point currently taking courses in how to use Twitter to manage 21st Century Global Warfare.

[Kraken]

Trump's bluster is good for China

BEIJING — With the United States’ Asian allies unnerved by President Trump’s threat to bring “fire and fury” to North Korea, China sees a chance to capitalize on the fear and confusion and emerge as the sober-minded power in the region, according to analysts who study the Chinese leadership.

In dealing with new US presidents — there have been eight since Richard Nixon opened relations with the country — China’s leaders have looked for a few important qualities, mainly reliability and credibility.

Even if they had doubts about a president’s affinity for China, if he was deemed “kaopu,” or reliable, Chinese officials could expect some stability during even the prickliest disagreements.

Trump has increasingly been seen in China as unreliable, or “bu kaopu.” His statement this week that North Korea “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it continues to threaten the United States with nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles has only deepened that perception, analysts say.

But rather than make that judgment public, in the state-run news media or in official remarks, China’s leaders are sitting back, content to watch Trump’s credibility falter among US allies and adversaries alike, the analysts said.

...

Too often, he said, the United States has declared it would use force to stop something from happening — such as China’s expansion in the South China Sea, and during President Barack Obama’s administration, Syria’s use of chemical weapons — and has failed to do so. “Trump’s antics amplify that message tenfold,” White said.

If you can't put up, you'd better shut up.

[Holman]

If we as a nation have weighed the options, have determined that this is the only remaining path available to us, have formulated a strategy to get us through it, and are ready to make that commitment, then sure, let's go. I have less than no faith that any of that's actually happened.

Trump has fully weighed the fact that his only positive mainstream press in eight months came from his Syria strike and that a new Korean War will get TrumpRussia off the front page.

Isn't that enough?

[Unagi]

Wow. So China will defend NK if we strike first... and yet if NK strikes first: they will remain Neutral

Lordy. Trump will handle this all perfectly - I'm sure.

[Octavious]

If we as a nation have weighed the options, have determined that this is the only remaining path available to us, have formulated a strategy to get us through it, and are ready to make that commitment, then sure, let's go. I have less than no faith that any of that's actually happened.

Trump has fully weighed the fact that his only positive mainstream press in eight months came from his Syria strike and that a new Korean War will get TrumpRussia off the front page.

Isn't that enough?

There will be a war with them. They are both batshit crazy and Trump thinks this will improve his approval ratings. Sadly I'm sure it probably will. We love blowing other people up.

[Jeff V]

If we as a nation have weighed the options, have determined that this is the only remaining path available to us, have formulated a strategy to get us through it, and are ready to make that commitment, then sure, let's go. I have less than no faith that any of that's actually happened.

Trump has fully weighed the fact that his only positive mainstream press in eight months came from his Syria strike and that a new Korean War will get TrumpRussia off the front page.

Isn't that enough?

There will be a war with them. They are both batshit crazy and Trump thinks this will improve his approval ratings. Sadly I'm sure it probably will. We love blowing other people up.

Well, we are more fond of S. Korea than any place in the middle east. It's the potential high casualties there that will make it unpopular -- doubly so if Kim does manage to put a hurt on Guam or other US possessions in the area.

[Scraper]

Has anyone else noticed that Faux News is beating the war drum on North Korea pretty hard? It has dominated their website since Drumpf took office. Every tiny provocation by the chubby little dictator is front page news and is usually accompanied by some opinion piece about how real of a threat the North is.

I posted that on May 30th. It's only taken 2 1/2 more months to get to this point where we think we could go to war with North Korea at a moments notice.

[Sepiche]

Has anyone else noticed that Faux News is beating the war drum on North Korea pretty hard? It has dominated their website since Drumpf took office. Every tiny provocation by the chubby little dictator is front page news and is usually accompanied by some opinion piece about how real of a threat the North is.

I posted that on May 30th. It's only taken 2 1/2 more months to get to this point where we think we could go to war with North Korea at a moments notice.

I doubt it's any real concerted effort on Fox's part to go to war with North Korea. It just happens to be a story they can sink a lot of time into that doesn't involve corruption or Russian collusion.

[Isgrimnur]

I really don't like this pitch for a M*A*S*H reboot.