Yeah but see Israel is the one with the nukes so I'm not quite sure your analogy is apt.

I don't like Trump either but I do think the guy is easy to underestimate. I think the guy really has something that's hard to describe but very real. I don't know if you call it instinct, animal cunning, whatever, but he has it. Combine that with balls, very capable generals, and the best military in the world and it's a strong combination. He may not be particularly smart in the classical sense or understand the nuances of something like the healthcare system, but I think something like the NK situation is a lot more suited to his talents.

I recall a number of political cartoons where, like, Saddam was in his therapist's office on the couch and is asked what he'd do differently if he could and he responds, "Get some nukes," or he's writing in his diary in some bunker, or putting a post-it note on the fridge, "Note to self: next time get nukes."

The whole thing was/is such a tragicomic farce.

Works for me, although somehow I can't imagine KJU saying that.

If your larger point is that he doesn't really need to be concerned about saving face, then I suppose that's true as far as international politics go, but keep in mind that he has to worry about staying in power domestically too.

Oddly enough that wasn't rara, rather rafiki; rara has been on his best behavior, kinda sorta.

It's not lost on me but that's not what my post was in reference to.

Sorry but I stood on that wall and was the first line of defense for 4 years defending the world against MAD so I know the real danger present. I was even aboard when we got to test fire 2 ICBM (polaris type) off the coast of Africa and launch to the shores of the US.

Where you okay when both Clinton's and Obama said very similar things about NK (obliterating NK) or are you just now coming to realize what it's like now that NK has the capabilities? We did nothing for 24 years or more. Now it's a problem, it should have never been allowed to get this far. We should have denied NK access many years before. People are still making the point in this thread that if we just paid him off it would be okay. Are we to be held hostage for the rest of our remaining days as he continues to improve the technology?

Yea it's real but this is what happens when leaders continue to kick the can down the road for the next president to deal with.

How should this have been achieved?

Obviously comparing Trump's statements to Clinton or Obama is false equivalency - Trump is totally unhinged in a way that neither of those men were. Regarding Clinton, AFAIK, he was negotiating with NK rather than threatening their destruction, and the Agreed Framework fell apart under Bush and Cheney.

LOL @ "kick the can down the road" haha.

Rara made a NKorean false dichotomy. You're right Raradevils, it's obviously between 2 extremely tough choices.

1) Do nothing.
OR
2) Do something + relentlessly needle the maniac until war is achieved + use up China's help on personal profit + lose a bunch of allies around the world who might otherwise help us.

Am I reading you right, or are there other options in your kick the can strategy? Because, oh IDK, #2 (Trump's way) just happens to look a little stupider than it needs to be.

Rara stood on that wall! You wanted him, you needed him!

Focusing on what NK should do is a loser mentality. The US has control of what the US does. That is the decision to identify.

The best move for the US is to let NK 'win'. If the US takes some action that backs down then NK can reasonably declare victory. When you win the crisis ends.

NK almost never acts outside of NK so there isn't a huge downside to appeasement. The upside is it results in far less death than all other paths.

In fact appeasement is a great long term strategy. Stop doing military exercises in the area. Gradually bring home the 35000 soldiers stationed in South Korea. Have politicians stop talking about North Korea. It should be mentioned as often as Uzbekistan - a country with more people and a terrible government we know nothing about. Each of these steps will be great wins for NK. They'll celebrate loudly. What they won't do is launch nukes because nukes are launched when a country losing, cornered, and out of options; nukes don't get launched when a country is winning.

What can NK do if the US leaves the area? They can't beat SK in a war. The artillery points both ways. SK has a huge army and economic superiority. NK attacking China is impossible. NK is a threat to its own citizens, not to its neighbors. NK is only a threat to the rest of the world if attacked. We escalate attacks for over 60 years. Brilliant. The Korean war will be eligible for Social Security soon (it never officially ended). As for those NK citizens, there's not a lot the rest of the world can do. Sovereignty is a barrier.

Appeasement is a winning strategy. It's also one the US will not consider. The best model for predicting US foreign policy is 'face based'. NK (and China) embarrassed the US at Chosin Reservoir and we will hold that grudge forever. See also: Cuba (bay of pigs), Iran (hostages). Embarrass the US and you go on the list. Don't and your country can do anything without interference.

I never asked nor did I do it for some BS Thanks you. I did it because it was my civic duty. There are no such thing has "American values" there are only individual ones.

I'd like to see the evidence that he's a maniac. I mean that as an honest request, not sarcasm.

Think determining how rational he is would be an extremely useful consideration when weighing response options. If he's rational and reasonable then what NK is saying / doing could be considered sound from a game theory perspective; need to appear fully capable and willing to use the weapons you're developing for deterrence to work, right?

The man has watched what happened to Hussein and Qadaffi WRT US led military interventions when WMDs were suspected, one might argue Kim's insistence on being willing & trigger happy with his nukes is sound strategy.

joining the military is not a civic duty bro. pretty good benefits and career options for a few years of peacetime "service", btw

lol @ rara always coming in to defend orange daddy while constantly spewing out the other side of his mouth that he totes didn't vote for him

This is not directed at rara because I don't know his posting, just a general observation - I find it humorous how many military people get all "rah rah duty to defend freedom and democracy!" while simultaneously supporting and defending a president who is doing the exact opposite of defending freedom and democracy.

rara doesn't have the thousand yard stare






but he will

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...clear-weapons/

This article talks about how the US invasion of Grenada sparked the NK nuclear program.

Which makes perfect sense. If the standard is no country can attack another country then countries don't need nukes. The UN could enforce this standard and Gulf War I was framed in these terms.

On the other hand, if the US can invade whoever it wants for any reason or no reason, then nukes are necessary for any country that values its sovereignty and might ever be at odds with the US.

The voracious US appetite for war drives nuclear proliferation. The lessons of the axis of evil speech: being an enemy of the US gets your govt overthrown but having nuclear weapons will save you.

I was too young to remember the Vietnam War, so Grenada was the first war I experienced. That was an unusual and long period of peace but it was all I had known so my expectation was set, just like your expectation of normal gas prices is set by what they were when you started driving. Grenada was shocking, there was no build up. I found out by reading an afternoon newspaper. I was with a friend and I said "This is clearly a war, congress didn't declare war, only congress has that power (school had recently covered the constitution), so I guess they'll have to impeach now! amazing." my friend: "what? who cares. you're weird." His grasp of politics was much better than mine.

The article shows how Grenada impressed NK too. It was the first domino.

if anyone was unsure about whether or not you "got it," they aren't any longer. That's for sure.

^yea that's another thing. orange daddy has been more disrespectful, dismissive, and downright exploitative of military veterans and their service than any other president in history. from his comments about mccain to his comments about how we're getting our asses kicked in the middle east to comments about how the higher ups dont have a clue what they're doing to the comments about how we telegraph our military strategy and it makes us losers, all the while being a draft dodging trust fund baby who chickened out of going to vietnam and is doing everything he can to destroy the democratic process at home. i find it utterly laughable that so many service men/women support him.

pretty sure most of these people are just simpletons who want any excuse/opportunity to go shoot guns and blow stuff up so they can flex their big murican muscles on the rest of the world and feel strong

There isn't really a place that's out of range.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/wa...gic-stability/


NK is not a MAD situation so the strategies are different. Assuming NK won't rationally use weapons is an error. It's not MAD because NK can't assure US destruction after a US first strike. There is no mutual.

Well the one thing nobody has entertained yet seems to be the idea of engaging with the North Koreans and making some sort of deal like the previous administration did in Iran.

Of course, Obama was able to do that because he had such a good team at the Department of Energy to guide him in the negotiations. Trump has pretty much decimated that team, so now he's flying blind. He's also done the same thing with the State Department, so they've been effectively marginalized as well.

When all his tools are gone and all he's left with is a hammer, it's not going to be a surprise that all problems look like nails.

It doesn't matter because it would still be enough destruction to effectively be a MAD scenario. Like what, do you think any US administration would consider the destruction of 'only' eight nor nine cities and their outlying areas a victory? You'd be talking about long-term losses approaching a third of the US population and potentially even more once the full effects of fallout are considered. Even a single nuke striking a US city would be unacceptable.

But why? Why is this the strategy that outperforms all others? Seems specious. The sentences seem to contradict each other. I understand the point and I am not a game theory expert but this sounds wrong to call this the dominant strategy.

I agree fwiw MAD doesn't apply.