« Recommended Reading - “Special Forces Berlin: Clandestine Cold War Operations of the US Army’s Elite, 1956-1990” - TTG | Main | Trump Has His Finger On a Pulse and the NFL is in Trouble by Publius Tacitus »

25 September 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

different clue

charly,

A nuclear-armed DPRK could still be a problem for the US even if the US left ROK because a nuked-up DPRK could sell or give nuke-stuff to al quaeda or ISIS or other very bad actors. ( Though we live with the potential of a nuked-up Pakistan able to do the very same thing).

A nuked-up DPRK would also be such a threat to ROK and Japan as to induce ROK and Japan to nuke up for their own safety. This would then be a proliferation and destabilization problem for China and Russia.

Perhaps these considerations might finally lead China and Russia to seek a Grand Bargain wherein ROK abolishes its Office of National Re-unification and recognizes the Nation of DPRK for ever and forever. The DPRK would recognize the Nation of ROK for ever and forever in return. The US would then leave entirely. China and Russia would then fill DPRK up with Chinese and Russian troops, officially to guarantee the safety of their treasured Client and Ally DPRK in return for DPRK de-nuking. ( The Chinese and Russian troops and other overseers would be a source of moderation and containment against DPRK re-nuking.)

If ROK demanded the continued presence of American troops in ROK in order to agree with all of these other things happening, would it be worth it to us to disarm and dismantle this situation otherwise?

Eric Newhill

b,
Yes I get it. All the America and Trump haters are finding a new best friend in KJU.

Though your comment is so silly as to hardly merit reply, I will note that KJU's desire to invade SoKo is infinitely more likely than Canada's to invade the USA.

As a rational actor it would appear to KJU that if he had effective nuclear capability first and then attacked SoKo, he could deter an American intervention by holding US cities hostage.

What's not rational about that?

In fact, there an analysts in SoKo that think that is exactly what KJU is up to. Nice that you can sit back and enjoy the show from Germany.

Kooshy

For a second I can't believe that the American side doesn't know what is going on with NK and who holds the strings there, still Adminstration to Adminstration they are not willing to swallow the pride, the (lost) geostratgey, the empire tendencies, or whatever other terms one wants to name it today and come to terms with the changing times, IMO, there are few (many) countries are rising from different parts of globe against US hegemony any I don't think US can fight or subvert all and I don't think US' European allies are willing or ready to pay any substantial price in money or blood to keep US as the world order maker. We all will pay for this, for what reason and who, I hope one day I can understand and be reasoned to understand.

b

Here is the English text of the full speech
https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/kp_en.pdf

I interpret the paragraph you quote differently. It comes in the beginning as an explicit direct response to Trump's speech at the UN.

The emphasis (message) of the sentence is in the "entire" U.S. mainland.

So far the DPRK had demonstrated the capability of its ICBMs to reach Alaska and the north-western coast. These limits were pointed out in various reports.

"making our rockets' visit to the *entire* US mainland inevitable all the more,” is an announcement of a new ICBM test that will now prove an extended reach of DPRK ICBMs to cover all the U.S.

Trump's statement made the demonstration of the extended reach in an additional ICBM test inevitable.

You will note that the DPRK foreign minister also says that it nukes are a deterrent (the word occurs 4(!) times) for defensive purpose and that it believes that this has now been achieved.

/quote/
Although they talk about "fire and fury", "total destruction" and whatever, every time they have to add various conditions such as "hopefully this will not be necessary", "that is not our first option" and so on.

Accordingly, we are convinced that peace and security of the northeast Asia and the region as a whole have been as much consolidated.
/endquote/

Eric Newhill

b,
Furthermore, whether or not, in your estimation, the North has the resources to attack the South, is not entirely relevant.

Did Japan have the resources to defeat the USA? It didn't stop them from trying. Did your country have the resources to successfully invade Russia while fighting on a couple of other fronts? No. But it didn't stop your countrymen from trying, did it?

Shall I continue with a list of massive military resource mis-estimations that ultimately led to the aggressor's defeat?

Eric Newhill

Norbert,
I am blaming China b/c they stepped in to support the North during the war - being fellow communists and all. Something I imagine China regrets doing in retrospect. Now they can step in again and make things right.

Dr.Puck

Ahh, memories. One of the most amusing elements to the Dilbert blog while it allowed comments during the election season was the wide embrace of Adams's practical theories of persuasion by his appreciative commentariat.

Except one thing jumped out! There turned out to be two ways to come to support Trump. One, was the way the majority of the commentariat came to their conclusion and support: via rational and closely considered estimations of Trump's capabilities and his aim to overturn the status-quo.

The other way was to be one of those people vulnerable to kill shots and Trump's jedi-level mastery of persuasion, and, the so-called confirmation bias, etc..

In other words, Trump's powers of persuasion based in the appeal to emotion was something that happened to 'other people' but not to one's own (very smart) self.

Nobody who supported Adams's theories of persuasion ever confessed,

"Yup, I just succumbed to a kill shot for sure. I from now on will let my emotions lead the way. And, now I am persuaded!"

Rather, the persuasion was for 'thee' but not for 'me.'

Dr.Puck

I always wonder about the testing of strategic and tactical nuclear and counter-nuclear forces under operational conditions.

Of course I can only wonder ignorantly. Anyway, for one example, operational conditions means shooting multiple ICBM out of silos on expected short notice and having their MIRVs detonate within needed tolerances, given targets at the same distances as war planned targets. Then there are submarine-based strategic systems.

Likewise, anti-missile systems could be tested with an order to conduct a live test in five minutes. I have no idea, but would hope this is how some tests are conducted--under the temporal constraints of likely scenarios.

Hmmm, what would actually happen?

CulturalHusbandry

Are we really to believe that Trump aims to bring us to the brink of nuclear war on the assumption that local parties (JP & SK) will demand our exit? That he simply wants us to stop having to babysit the neighbors awful (deadly) child and let someone who lives a little closer keep an eye on him?

I think it boils down to something far less contrived and can be better attributed to a lack of concrete foreign policy.

optimax

Trump's childish epithets can't compare to W's more creative nicknames. Turd Blossom being a good example.

kao_hsien_chih

different clue,

Now we are talking. To clarify, as long as NoKos cannot attack us directly, a nuclear NoKo is not a problem to us as much as it is for its neighbors. If they can strike a grand bargain of the sort that you have described, all the better, as long as it gets us untangled from the sordid mess in East Asia. I remain steadfast in my view that, in absence of a direct threat aimed specifically at us, it is none of our business to "fix" the North Korean nuclear problem.

JJackson

"Something I imagine China regrets doing in retrospect." I doubt that. Had they not acted they would probably now have US forces on their boarder a much greater threat than KJU.

Mark Logan

b:

re:"Trump is trying to goad the DPRK into an openly hostile reaction. That would then justify a U.S. war of "self defense"."

Entirely plausible. However Trump acting in this way could be an effort to goad maximum effort out of those whom the DPRK must listen to. China, Russia, mainly. If the effort fails no one will blame Trump, if they remember it at all, but if it succeeds he can claim full credit.

A third possibility: Trump has absorbed the lesson that, at least for him, there is no penalty for saying crazy things so he spouts them at will.

different clue

Dr. Puck,

I only ever read a few of his posts. I also watched a few of his You Tubes. They were very entertaining and very persuasive. I eventually realized he was excercising his own persuasional arts on me the viewer/reader. And since he said openly that he was and he would, how could I object? But once I realized that, I saw the occasional opportunity and need to slow my thinking down and take a second looksniff at certain things he was saying. And then a third. And maybe a fourth.

The inner essence of Adams's argument was . . . Trump is a Master Persuader! And I can promise you that he is on the basis of being a Master Persuader myself! How can you not be persuaded? Let the Mastery of the Persuasion wash over you and remove all thought-based obstacles to belief! You will be persuaded to vote
for Trump as a tribute to the persuasive mastery of his masterful persuasiveness!

I remember reading in one of Adams's posts where Adams wrote that " no normal person knows anything about trade policy. I don't and neither do you." And I realized that he had created an artificial dilemma which he had then impaled himself upon the horns of. And it went like this. If he doesn't know anything about trade policy, then he doesn't know anything about the reality-based truth-content of anything I might say about trade policy. Because if he has no knowledge about the facts or theory of trade policy, then he has no knowledge base against which to measure the knowledge-content of anything I might say about trade policy. In other words, his proudly-claimed lack of knowledge about trade policy would include a lack of knowledge about the state of my knowledge or any else's knowledge about trade policy, and his inability to assess my or anyone else's knowledge based upon his own proudly-claimed inability to assess the truth-content of anything I or anyone else might say about trade policy. I wonder if he ever considered that?

The other thing I noticed is that he has such a huge fan base and so many hundreds or thousands of comments per post that I wonder how many of them he can even read. I certainly wouldn't even try to get heard or read over there.

Kutte

Are we really to believe that Trump aims to bring us to the brink of nuclear war on the assumption that local parties (JP & SK) will demand our exit? That he simply wants us to stop having to babysit the neighbors awful (deadly) child and let someone who lives a little closer keep an eye on him?

YES
Beat your enemy with his own weapons.

Keith Harbaugh

b wrote:

I interpret the paragraph you quote differently. It comes in the beginning as an explicit direct response to Trump's speech at the UN.

The emphasis (message) of the sentence is in the "entire" U.S. mainland.

...

"making our rockets' visit to the *entire* US mainland inevitable all the more,” is an announcement of a new ICBM test that will now prove an extended reach of DPRK ICBMs to cover all the U.S.

Trump's statement made the demonstration of the extended reach in an additional ICBM test inevitable.

No, b, I was not "interpreting" the paragraph.
The paragraph has a clear and unambiguous meaning in the English language,
which most certainly is not what you claim it is.
Your "a new ICBM test that will now prove an extended reach of DPRK ICBMs to cover all the U.S."
is most definitely not the same as Ri's
"our rockets' visit to the entire US mainland".

And as to your claim that
"The emphasis (message) of the sentence is in the "entire" U.S. mainland.",
there is no evident evidence for that.

Finally,
the key point is that Ri's statement links
"our rockets' visit to the entire US mainland"
not to a possible retaliation for some hypothetical U.S. attack against the DPRK
(i.e. the deterrence argument),
but to a past act of Trump, and one which I cannot see possibly justifying such an act.
How hypersensitive their regime is, per Ri's statement.

Eric Newhill

PA,
I'm sure the thought of America having its ass handed to it by Japan produces a near orgasmic experience for you. Your assertion that if only the attack on Pearl Harbor had destroyed the fuel depot there, they could have won the war is as unique as it is fallacious. Keep enjoying the thought though.

However, you have unwittingly made my point. aggressors often calculate, "If we can accomplish this or that then we can win against a superior force". They take a gamble.

Just as KJU - rational actor or not - calculates that if he possesses a nuclear deterrent first, then attacks the South, the US will be threatened into non-intervention on behalf of the South.

It's one of those things, like "If we capture Asia's resources and hit the fuel depot while crippling the US fleet, we can win".

Nah. That can't be it. Truth is that poor little innocent oppressed fun loving KJU is being bullied by big bad running dog imperialist Amerika and he just wants to protect himself and his people like the noble and just leader that he is. It's not the North has ever invaded the South before. Never could happen. Who'd a thunk such a perspective would come from a leftist.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad