View Full Version : Trump v Kim
Trump declares Fire, Fury and Frankly Power against North Korea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40869319
RIP World.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-09-2017, 00:25
Eh, we'll never see it coming.
Also, with how unstable North Korea is I don't think Trumps comments make a lot of practical difference.
Shaka_Khan
08-09-2017, 03:04
Evacuate to New Zealand, Western Europe, South America, Africa, or Mexico just in case.
Kralizec
08-09-2017, 18:53
Trump declares Fire, Fury and Frankly Power against North Korea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40869319
RIP World.
My theory on this rethoric: Kim called the Oval office and said that Hillary got a bigger share of the vote and that Obama's inauguration crowd was larger.
Shaka_Khan
08-11-2017, 03:43
Or maybe Trump paid Kim to get Kim distract the US attention away from Trump's problems...
Nations start to choose sides (http://www.dw.com/en/nations-start-to-choose-sides-in-event-of-north-korea-war/a-40049024)
"If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korea regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so," said an editorial in the state-run Global Times.
"China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral," it wrote
But others nations have been keen to choose a side. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told Melbourne radio station 3AW on Friday that Washington "has no stronger ally than Australia."
"Let's be very clear about that. If there is an attack on the United States by North Korea, then the ANZUS treaty will be invoked and Australia will come to the aid of the United States," Turnbull said.
One of my bigger worries with Trump has been that his failures as a diplomat would make us so distasteful and our allies mistrust our judgement that they won't take us at our word. If the US was clearly attacked I've no doubt that our allies would stand by us but if we chose to strike first I don't think too many of our allies would send more than tokens of solidarity aside from those in the field of fire (ROK and Japan). Given the US records with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Powell's smoking gun before the UN I understand their skepticism but the Trump factor where he berates his allies and friends but even thanks Putin for reducing our staff at the Moscow Embassy does little to build coalitions.
I understand the point some have that the ball can't be kicked down the road any further but if we were to strike first under this president it would be spun that we are no longer a force for maintaining relative political/economic stability in the world but the unhinged belligerent that can no longer be trusted with such a prominent place in the world.
As I quoted above, China would stand by DPRK in that circumstance and perhaps judge this point in history as the time to confront us, while we're being led by a man who sees no use in the international order and no understanding of its complexities.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-11-2017, 14:31
Nations start to choose sides (http://www.dw.com/en/nations-start-to-choose-sides-in-event-of-north-korea-war/a-40049024)
One of my bigger worries with Trump has been that his failures as a diplomat would make us so distasteful and our allies mistrust our judgement that they won't take us at our word. If the US was clearly attacked I've no doubt that our allies would stand by us but if we chose to strike first I don't think too many of our allies would send more than tokens of solidarity aside from those in the field of fire (ROK and Japan). Given the US records with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Powell's smoking gun before the UN I understand their skepticism but the Trump factor where he berates his allies and friends but even thanks Putin for reducing our staff at the Moscow Embassy does little to build coalitions.
I understand the point some have that the ball can't be kicked down the road any further but if we were to strike first under this president it would be spun that we are no longer a force for maintaining relative political/economic stability in the world but the unhinged belligerent that can no longer be trusted with such a prominent place in the world.
As I quoted above, China would stand by DPRK in that circumstance and perhaps judge this point in history as the time to confront us, while we're being led by a man who sees no use in the international order and no understanding of its complexities.
The "reducing staff thank you" was by way of being a joke. Trump told it with his usual (aka miserable) comic timing.
The posturing and counter-posturing between leaders is exactly the kind of designed-for-image-camera-games drama that Trump enjoys.
As to our allies finding us distasteful, Trump is only moderately more nauseating [he has a crassness to him] to many of them than would be any other US-definition-right-wing leader. What most of our allies want from the USA is a foreign policy that is a)consistent, b) non-aggressive, and c) based on international collegiality [Carter was, in many ways, their ideal US leader with Obama a reasonable alternative]. Anyone other approach makes them think "yahoo with no sense of how the world really works."
Montmorency
08-11-2017, 16:24
Nations start to choose sides (http://www.dw.com/en/nations-start-to-choose-sides-in-event-of-north-korea-war/a-40049024)
One of my bigger worries with Trump has been that his failures as a diplomat would make us so distasteful and our allies mistrust our judgement that they won't take us at our word. If the US was clearly attacked I've no doubt that our allies would stand by us but if we chose to strike first I don't think too many of our allies would send more than tokens of solidarity aside from those in the field of fire (ROK and Japan). Given the US records with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Powell's smoking gun before the UN I understand their skepticism but the Trump factor where he berates his allies and friends but even thanks Putin for reducing our staff at the Moscow Embassy does little to build coalitions.
I understand the point some have that the ball can't be kicked down the road any further but if we were to strike first under this president it would be spun that we are no longer a force for maintaining relative political/economic stability in the world but the unhinged belligerent that can no longer be trusted with such a prominent place in the world.
As I quoted above, China would stand by DPRK in that circumstance and perhaps judge this point in history as the time to confront us, while we're being led by a man who sees no use in the international order and no understanding of its complexities.
The "reducing staff thank you" was by way of being a joke. Trump told it with his usual (aka miserable) comic timing.
The posturing and counter-posturing between leaders is exactly the kind of designed-for-image-camera-games drama that Trump enjoys.
As to our allies finding us distasteful, Trump is only moderately more nauseating [he has a crassness to him] to many of them than would be any other US-definition-right-wing leader. What most of our allies want from the USA is a foreign policy that is a)consistent, b) non-aggressive, and c) based on international collegiality [Carter was, in many ways, their ideal US leader with Obama a reasonable alternative]. Anyone other approach makes them think "yahoo with no sense of how the world really works."
'Thank you to the industrious North Koreans for their assistance in my infrastructure plan to get construction booming again. It was a great deal, a tough deal, but now the economy is so big, Koreans are loving it, and they're paying US companies to do it!'
I don't believe Trump is capable of parsing paradox. His capacity for "jokes" ends at one-sentence insults.
Diplomacy isn't just public appearances, but private deliberations between those empowered to carry out policy. Coordinating contingencies between potential allies for the event of war now is probably unachievable beyond the Japan-ROK-USA military staff. For the political dimension with countries outside East Asia we will likely be relying on plans and promises established over the past generation, insensitive to the unique contemporary.
rory_20_uk
08-11-2017, 21:37
There was no longstanding issue after North Korea sunk a South Korean warship and the shelling of civilians.
The only thing Trump has ever followed through on is litigation.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
08-11-2017, 23:18
There was no longstanding issue after North Korea sunk a South Korean warship and the shelling of civilians.
The only thing Trump has ever followed through on is litigation.
~:smoking:
In 1968 North Korea captured a US Naval Intelligence craft and its 83-man crew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)). They held and tortured the crew for about a year. The crew were repatriated after the United States gave a formal apology and admission of culpability for the incident. This occurred a short period of time after DPRK special ops crossed the DMZ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid) and killed a number of South Koreans attempting to assassinate the military dictator of South Korea.
Today the spy ship they captured is a museum in Pyonggyang.
North Korea usually has the upper hand in these matters, but from day to day now - we won't know which day until after the fact - we're coming to decide on what pur final commitment, if any, looks like.
Shaka_Khan
08-12-2017, 14:34
This occurred a short period of time after DPRK special ops crossed the DMZ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid) and killed a number of South Koreans attempting to assassinate the military dictator of South Korea.
Edit: Sorry, I read that wrong. It seemed like you were saying that the South Koreans were attempting to assassinate the military dictator of South Korea, and that the North Koreans prevented this.
Sarmatian
08-14-2017, 14:46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugJZhL-cbc
Yeah, she's pretty cute, isn't she? :sweatdrop:
I couldn't tell you where Lesotho is.
Sarmatian
08-14-2017, 16:02
Yeah, she's pretty cute, isn't she? :sweatdrop:
I couldn't tell you where Lesotho is.
Which isn't altogether very strange unless you have a very strong opinion on whether Germany should invade it.
Which isn't altogether very strange unless you have a very strong opinion on whether Germany should invade it.
75% thinking NK is a threat is not a strong opinion towards invading it just because one girl in the video says so.
If the clip were representative, then 2/3rds of Americans would be women, all Americans would be under the age of 50 and walk around on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles California during a very limited timespan of a questionnaire.
Or perhaps it's just a funny clip with cleavage. :clown:
Montmorency
08-14-2017, 19:52
This format is only good for dumb comedy. The least you can do to make it worthwhile, as attempted by channels like Asian Boss or that japanese man yuta, is to interview individuals on a single topic with some depth.
Sarmatian
08-14-2017, 20:22
Of course it is comedy.
For a more serious study (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/14/upshot/if-americans-can-find-north-korea-on-a-map-theyre-more-likely-to-prefer-diplomacy.html). I remember a similar survey with similar results about Syria.
There is something frightening in the knowledge that the less people know about an issue, the more likely they are to favour forceful solutions.
This format is only good for dumb comedy.
Hey, that sounds very condescending. Laughing is an important activity that can enrich your life, okay?!?!
Montmorency
08-14-2017, 21:17
Analyst finds (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-ukraine-factory.html) that new class of Norker ICBMs possibly driven by engines or engine technology associated with Soviet missile designs and historically produced in a Dnipro(-petrovsk), Ukraine factory. Appearance of new (for North Korea) technology may be relevant to the rapidity of advances in their program and missile capabilities seen over the past year.
Let's go through a range of explanations.
A. Nork agents stole the tech during the post-revolutionary chaos of 2014 Ukraine. They had tried to do it before, unsuccessfully. The fruits were finally unveiled to the world as an ace-in-sleeve over the past year.
B. The Ukrainian government would not compromise its standing with America and the world to supply North Korea with missile tech or components (for what in return), and anyway would find it difficult to accomplish without Russian connivance or permission.
1. Personal corruption at work in the struggling Yuzhmash factory, tech or components sold to Chinese intermediaries for money or assets.
2. Treason, if Russian authorities were involved.
C. Russia has the tech, they have the components, so they materially aided Kim. From Russia, to Uncle Sam, with love. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLcCOKvdmmw)
For a more serious study (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/14/upshot/if-americans-can-find-north-korea-on-a-map-theyre-more-likely-to-prefer-diplomacy.html).
I think the results might surprise some:
"What drives these differences? Simple partisanship is one possibility. On average, Republicans – and Republican men in particular – were more likely to correctly locate North Korea than Democratic men. And Republicans were more likely to be in favor of almost all the diplomatic solutions posed by the researchers. (Women tended to find North Korea at similar rates, regardless of party.)"
Unfortunately, North Korea is a problem with no good solutions- they're all quite terrible. :no:
Seamus Fermanagh
08-15-2017, 03:34
I think the results might surprise some:
"What drives these differences? Simple partisanship is one possibility. On average, Republicans – and Republican men in particular – were more likely to correctly locate North Korea than Democratic men. And Republicans were more likely to be in favor of almost all the diplomatic solutions posed by the researchers. (Women tended to find North Korea at similar rates, regardless of party.)"
Unfortunately, North Korea is a problem with no good solutions- they're all quite terrible. :no:
Though my personal darkside advocates the use of North Korea for a 100 or so neutron weapon ground bursts. This would kick up enough particulate to reverse global warming for a few years and allow us to scale up the technologies needed for better geothermal and solar platforms. Fortunately, I don't listen to my darkside much.
a completely inoffensive name
08-15-2017, 07:16
Such a nuclear exchange would also severely impact crop yields worldwide and cause destabilizing famines in the poorest regions. If you thought the Syrian refugee crisis was big...
Greyblades
08-15-2017, 08:07
It also wont happen.
The north korean stockpile is primarily conventional plane bombs. The icbms, even assuming they have minuturized nukes at this point to put on them, are primitive compared to the US and russia's modern ones with likely worthless interception countermeasures.
Anything the NK launches will be shot down by either the US airforce or THAAD
Not that any of this matters for the immediate future; Kim blinked. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40931775)
Not that any of this matters for the immediate future; Kim blinked. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40931775)
That's a great picture in the link, looks like someone drew a straight line on a map between NK and Guam, then wrote a few lines about it and that's KJU getting briefed on Guam attack plans. :laugh4:
Greyblades
08-15-2017, 11:44
It's the hats that do it for me, I imagine each officer has an aide who follows them around witth a bicycle pump.
Gilrandir
08-17-2017, 11:42
Analyst finds (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-ukraine-factory.html) that new class of Norker ICBMs possibly driven by engines or engine technology associated with Soviet missile designs and historically produced in a Dnipro(-petrovsk), Ukraine factory. Appearance of new (for North Korea) technology may be relevant to the rapidity of advances in their program and missile capabilities seen over the past year.
Let's go through a range of explanations.
A. Nork agents stole the tech during the post-revolutionary chaos of 2014 Ukraine. They had tried to do it before, unsuccessfully. The fruits were finally unveiled to the world as an ace-in-sleeve over the past year.
B. The Ukrainian government would not compromise its standing with America and the world to supply North Korea with missile tech or components (for what in return), and anyway would find it difficult to accomplish without Russian connivance or permission.
1. Personal corruption at work in the struggling Yuzhmash factory, tech or components sold to Chinese intermediaries for money or assets.
2. Treason, if Russian authorities were involved.
C. Russia has the tech, they have the components, so they materially aided Kim. From Russia, to Uncle Sam, with love. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLcCOKvdmmw)
https://frontnews.eu/news/en/10820
Gilrandir
08-17-2017, 11:42
Why do I keep spawning double posts?
Shaka_Khan
09-03-2017, 10:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geWlX3WpuDI
Greyblades
09-03-2017, 20:32
Oh good, it turns out we've let them make enough regular nukes that they can afford to waste a few on a bluff or they've just developed a nuke powerful enough that strapping it to a submarine and detonating it in the LA harbour is now worth the effort.
I'm sure the best response is yet another round of sanctions!
The fruits of three decades of idiocy and goddamned cowardice.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-03-2017, 20:53
Oh good, it turns out we've let them make enough regular nukes that they can afford to waste a few on a bluff or they've just developed a nuke powerful enough that strapping it to a submarine and detonating it in the LA harbour is now worth the effort.
I'm sure the best response is yet another round of sanctions!
The fruits of three decades of idiocy and goddamned cowardice.
Nobody has been willing to pay the blood price to stop them 'blades. We just keep hoping they'll implode.
Nobody has been willing to pay the blood price to stop them 'blades. We just keep hoping they'll implode.
I saw someone bragging how the USA would rolferstomp them within days, unlikely, considering we are still dealing with Afghanistan, but the fact North Korea would not shed tears as they rain down lead upon civilians in South Korea and Japan in the process of being invaded.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-04-2017, 14:31
I saw someone bragging how the USA would rolferstomp them within days, unlikely, considering we are still dealing with Afghanistan, but the fact North Korea would not shed tears as they rain down lead upon civilians in South Korea and Japan in the process of being invaded.
I didn't say the blood price would mostly be paid by yanks. We are sentimental enough to actually worry about killing our allies.
Now, a proper total war attitude would be to LET the Allied army get hammered while positioning yourself for a smashing win against the weakened opponent shortly after the "heroic death" placard pops up on your allies' general.
Gilrandir
09-04-2017, 14:56
I'm sure the best response is yet another round of sanctions!
It will heal nothing unless coupled with grave concern expressions.
CrossLOPER
09-04-2017, 16:40
I'm sure the best response is yet another round of sanctions!
Tell you what: In the event of conflict, you get to go in first and show everyone how it's done.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-05-2017, 17:09
It will heal nothing unless coupled with grave concern expressions.
Okay, I will admit this made me chuckle.
Shaka_Khan
09-15-2017, 13:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFSjU0kef0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY9VLCAfAvY
Shaka_Khan
09-26-2017, 00:03
https://www.gq.com/story/kim-jong-nam-accidental-assassination
Nam explained, “Pyongyang wanted to horrify the rest of the world by releasing a chemical weapon at an airport.” By unleashing such weaponry in a place symbolically shared by the global community—an international airport—North Korea was warning everyone not to cross it. As Nam concluded, “Jong-un wants to reign a long time and negotiate as a superpower. The only way to do that is to keep the world in fear of his weapons. He has a grand design, and this is part of it.”
In the end, Pyongyang suffered no significant consequences from the assassination. The people on death row for the murder are two Southeast Asian women, whom Nam believes are not guilty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3tJLnzlnJo
Shaka_Khan
11-22-2017, 13:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fNy_tWYkd4
Glad he's regained consciousnesses. Curious as to his story, a very dangerous way to cross the border, he's very lucky to be alive.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-defection/escape-from-north-korea-video-shows-defector-under-fire-idUSKBN1DM07E
Shaka_Khan
12-03-2017, 12:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl5HBGf1GQU
https://www.yahoo.com/news/expert-north-korea-apos-hwasong-021500487.html
Expert on North Korea's New Hwasong-15 ICBM: "You Cannot Stop This Thing"
“Missile defense will never provide an impenetrable shield and steps to improve and expand defenses will prompt adversaries to take steps to counter them..."
Expert on North Korea's New Hwasong-15 ICBM: "You Cannot Stop This Thing"
The United States likely does not have an effective means to counter*North Korea’s*massive new*Hwasong-15*(HS-15) road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile according to analysts. The missile is so large that it could carry a multitude of decoys and countermeasures. It might even be able to carry multiple independently*targetable*reentry vehicles (MIRVs) in the future.
“This missile potentially has enough throw weight to carry multiple warheads plus decoys, chaff, jammers and other countermeasures to defeat any known missile defense system,” arms-control expert and president of the*Ploughshares*Fund Joseph*Cirincione*told the*National Interest.
“It could overwhelm, fool and blind the radars, sensors and kill vehicles. You cannot stop this thing.”
Kingston*Reif, director for disarmament and threat-reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, agreed with*Cirincione’s*assessment.
“Video and photographs of the*HS-15*released by the North Korean government indicate that it is more than large enough to carry decoys/countermeasures that would be designed to put further strain on the ground based midcourse defense (GMD) system,” Reif told*The National Interest.
“The missile might even be big enough to accommodate multiple RVs [reentry vehicles] down the line, if North Korea could develop compact RVs that are compact enough.”
Moreover, the United States’ Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) is not likely to be particularly effective against the North Korean missile.
“The system is garbage,” Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, bluntly told*The National Interest.
“It is intended to deal with a threat like this, but the test record stinks and the payload is roomy enough that we need to think worry about countermeasures.”
Missile expert Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told*The National Interest that policymakers cannot count on the GMD to protect major population centers from a North Korean missile.
“I wouldn’t bet New York on GMD working,” Narang*said.
Reif explained the fundamental problem with the GMD system. “According to the Defense Department’s independent testing office, GMD has ‘demonstrated capability’ to defend the U.S. homeland against a small number of simple, intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) threats that employ ‘simple countermeasures,’” Reif said.
“It's not clear how DoD defines ‘simple countermeasures.’ The May 30 test of the GMD system against an ICBM target reportedly included simple countermeasures, but an analysis of the information on the test released by DoD appear to indicate that the decoy(s) used in the test had different brightness levels than the actual target.”
Moreover, North Korea might not be using simple decoys—and the GMD has never been tested against more complex countermeasures.
“We do know that the system has never been tested against ‘complex countermeasures,’ which DoD defines as ‘Use of target dynamics and penetration aids,’” Reif said.
“Are such countermeasures beyond the capability of North Korea to develop? I highly doubt it.”
Moreover, the North Koreans—despite the wishful thinking of certain commentators—are not stupid. Pyongyang knows exactly how to exploit the weaknesses of the GMD.
“The fact that North Korea tested the HS-15 at night would pose additional challenges to our defenses,” Reif said.
“First, testing the ability to load and launch with little warning would stress our ability to get an early track on the missile and its trajectory. Second, the GMD system has never been successfully intercept tested at night. In fact, there has been only one intercept test that has*taken place*at night.”
Indeed, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency seems to take pains to make sure that all of its tests take place where the Sun offers some level of illumination.
“All of the 10 successful intercept tests of the system took place with the target directly illuminated by the sun,” Reif said.
“There's a reason for this. The sun's rays help to ‘brighten’ the RV and possible decoys/countermeasures for the GMD system's infrared kill vehicle.”
The Pentagon states that the GMD does not rely on the sun, but there are indications that darkness poses challenges for the interceptors’ electro-optical sensors.
“The Missile Defense Agency argues that the system does not rely on the sun's rays and thus the time of the test would not be a factor,” Reif said.
“But the dynamics of a nighttime intercept could cause problems such as by confusing the kill vehicle. The signature of a target at night presents a greater challenge than has been demonstrated through flight-testing to date. All of which means we should do more testing of the GMD system under more realistic and/or expected conditions.”
The GMD is not entirely useless however. Under perfect conditions—and if North Korea or another adversary gave some sort of advanced notice that it might launch an ICBM—the GMD offers some level of protection.
“We may be able to intercept a relatively small number of unsophisticated missiles under favorable conditions but a determined adversary—which North Korea is—is unlikely to present us with such a scenario,” Reif said.
“Missile defense will never provide an impenetrable shield and steps to improve and expand defenses will prompt adversaries to take steps to counter them, which is what North Korea is doing. Missile defense has a role to play as part of a comprehensive effort to counter the North Korean threat but it's a limited one and its capabilities are often vastly overstated.”
However, even reaching an imperfect level of defense would require realistic testing under real operational conditions. Despite the Pentagon’s assertion to the contrary, that has not happened. Right now, the GMD’s chances of success against the*HS-15*are more a matter of prayers than science.
“Overall, flight intercept testing of the system has not demonstrated that GMD is capable of reliably defense the U.S. homeland against even a limited threat,” Reif said.
“The current ‘shot doctrine’ would be to fire four interceptors at each incoming missile and then... Cross our fingers.”
HopAlongBunny
12-03-2017, 19:26
The only real defence against ICBM's still rests on the hope that they will not be used.
Everything beyond that is so much varnish.
CrossLOPER
12-03-2017, 20:41
[video=youtube;Wl5HBGf1GQU]"You cannot stop this thing.
You can atomize the launch point.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-04-2017, 05:28
Defenses against ICBM reentry vehicles have been researched for years. The Aegis system can track them. Other systems can track them. They are not robust platforms (cannot be where payload is so critical). Hitting a bullet with a bullet is not an impossible task, only difficult.
If you can see it, you can hit it. If you hit it, you can kill it.
The old mutually assured destruction deterrence doctrine was from a time when they could not really see them well enough to shoot at them. Moreover, when the potential for thousands of targets simultaneously existed. That is not the current threat environment.
Defenses against ICBM reentry vehicles have been researched for years. The Aegis system can track them. Other systems can track them. They are not robust platforms (cannot be where payload is so critical). Hitting a bullet with a bullet is not an impossible task, only difficult.
If you can see it, you can hit it. If you hit it, you can kill it.
The old mutually assured destruction deterrence doctrine was from a time when they could not really see them well enough to shoot at them. Moreover, when the potential for thousands of targets simultaneously existed. That is not the current threat environment.
I'm assuming that the problem lies in the decoys. It's really nice if you can see 2000 targets coming down (only 20 of which might be real and dangerous) and have 200 missiles in the area to shoot them down. Those numbers might even be generous for the defenders, but I'm not a missile defense expert. And then there could be things like them exploding in the atmosphere if they sense a missile coming close, creating an EMP or whatever that still does a lot of damage. I'm assuming a bit here, but while I generally agree that something could be done, perhaps reentry is a bit late to see and hit them. Then again the start phase is even harder due to time constraints. You'd need weapons in space, which is another pandora's box of sorts.
rory_20_uk
12-04-2017, 15:43
North Korea has already demonstrated it can fire missiles into orbit. Having one explode and throwing vast clouds of debris everywhere would wreck many sensitive satellites. This along with decoys would make hitting a bullet surrounded by thousands of other bullets in thick fog which has been fired at short notice against an unknown target.
~:smoking:
Thinking of this more abstractly might be helpful. This is an example of a technological race. Unless theoretical or practical physical limits are hit during the development of more advanced technology, it is entirely possible for a more resourceful country to pull far ahead of a less resourceful one in the race.
On the topic of decoys more specifically, any decoy will per definition differ from the target nuclear weapon in some way. Can you use any such distinct property to tell apart your target from the decoys? Possibly; if your target is the only thing that is radioactive, a relevant sensor might be able detect this directly or indirectly via the electromagnetic spectrum.
Also, earth-observing satellites need not orbit the Earth, they may remain in a Lagrange point (like DSCOVR (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory)), orbit the Moon or similar.
I would say it is plausible for a country like the US to stay adequately ahead in such a race with North Korea, until (presumably) its regime collapses at some point in the, potentially distant, future. It may require a lot of resources dedicated to shield systems, however.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-04-2017, 17:42
I'm assuming that the problem lies in the decoys. It's really nice if you can see 2000 targets coming down (only 20 of which might be real and dangerous) and have 200 missiles in the area to shoot them down. Those numbers might even be generous for the defenders, but I'm not a missile defense expert. And then there could be things like them exploding in the atmosphere if they sense a missile coming close, creating an EMP or whatever that still does a lot of damage. I'm assuming a bit here, but while I generally agree that something could be done, perhaps reentry is a bit late to see and hit them. Then again the start phase is even harder due to time constraints. You'd need weapons in space, which is another pandora's box of sorts.
Re-entry phase interception is viable only with a relatively limited number of targets, I concur. This limited character would be true of an NK attack, however. Unless and until the NK's build up a force capable of lobbing hundreds of warheads and even more decoys at the same time and basic target window.
This presumes that there are enough resources to pre-position ABM systems in the appropriate target spots. Re-entry phase interception would not be workable if out of position.
The better choice WOULD be a boost phase intercept, with the ABMs striking downward from satellite launch platforms prior to burnout and warhead separation (once they develop MIRV capability). This approach would, of course, mean that a spaced base system would need to be in place in advance of such an attack and such a system would be politically problematic given the loose definition of WMDs (the deployment of which to orbit is prohibited by the Space Treaty).
I'm hopeful that our Vandenberg shuttles have been deploying a robust orbital ABM system for some time....but I have heard no such rumors.
Thinking of this more abstractly might be helpful. This is an example of a technological race. Unless theoretical or practical physical limits are hit during the development of more advanced technology, it is entirely possible for a more resourceful country to pull far ahead of a less resourceful one in the race.
On the topic of decoys more specifically, any decoy will per definition differ from the target nuclear weapon in some way. Can you use any such distinct property to tell apart your target from the decoys? Possibly; if your target is the only thing that is radioactive, a relevant sensor might be able detect this directly or indirectly via the electromagnetic spectrum.
Clearly you'd be an invaluable employee for a US defense contractor as you solved all their issues in a few sentences. I suggest you apply for a job with one as they clearly haven't thought of any of your simple solutions until now.
Clearly you'd be an invaluable employee for a US defense contractor as you solved all their issues in a few sentences. I suggest you apply for a job with one as they clearly haven't thought of any of your simple solutions until now.
There's no mention of 'easy' in my post. That said, I do hope you will write me a letter of reference when I apply.
There's no mention of 'easy' in my post. That said, I do hope you will write me a letter of reference when I apply.
Not in my post either if we're going to be pedantic. ~;)
As for potential solutions to problems in the future, they tend not to be helpful if the problems become acute before the solutions arrive.
If you told someone in 1250 that the solution to Polio is a vaccine, before they even had the technical means to produce the vaccine, I would say that's nice, but if their child got Polio the next day that would hardly save it.
Montmorency
12-04-2017, 22:16
Re-entry phase interception is viable only with a relatively limited number of targets, I concur. This limited character would be true of an NK attack, however. Unless and until the NK's build up a force capable of lobbing hundreds of warheads and even more decoys at the same time and basic target window.
This presumes that there are enough resources to pre-position ABM systems in the appropriate target spots. Re-entry phase interception would not be workable if out of position.
The better choice WOULD be a boost phase intercept, with the ABMs striking downward from satellite launch platforms prior to burnout and warhead separation (once they develop MIRV capability). This approach would, of course, mean that a spaced base system would need to be in place in advance of such an attack and such a system would be politically problematic given the loose definition of WMDs (the deployment of which to orbit is prohibited by the Space Treaty).
I'm hopeful that our Vandenberg shuttles have been deploying a robust orbital ABM system for some time....but I have heard no such rumors.
Ignoring the less-advanced and lower-range missiles targeting South Korea, Japan, and others in the Pacific - with even a handful of ICBMs, one has to assume something will be detonating over the American mainland. The odds of how optimal for the North the altitudes of detonation, are probably unknowable for us. Clearly the performance of defense systems would have to be much better than we've heard of in tests so far.
Revealing space-based missiles in the event of a North Korean launch would be a disaster. Not only would we be shown to have fully violated international laws, our adversaries would have a window before we could re-arm the satellites - at which point they could emplace their counterparts, among other things. And we would deserve all the repercussions.
As nukes are weapons of terror and not of war, even the very good scenario of a few thousand casualties and a few temporary evacuations owing to fallout would shatter our psyche more than any multiples of 9/11. You can bet on martial law, at least.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-05-2017, 02:59
Ignoring the less-advanced and lower-range missiles targeting South Korea, Japan, and others in the Pacific - with even a handful of ICBMs, one has to assume something will be detonating over the American mainland. The odds of how optimal for the North the altitudes of detonation, are probably unknowable for us. Clearly the performance of defense systems would have to be much better than we've heard of in tests so far.
Revealing space-based missiles in the event of a North Korean launch would be a disaster. Not only would we be shown to have fully violated international laws, our adversaries would have a window before we could re-arm the satellites - at which point they could emplace their counterparts, among other things. And we would deserve all the repercussions.
As nukes are weapons of terror and not of war, even the very good scenario of a few thousand casualties and a few temporary evacuations owing to fallout would shatter our psyche more than any multiples of 9/11. You can bet on martial law, at least.
In the sense that perfection is hard to expect from any defense and any "leaker"would almost certainly blot out a substantial portion of some urban/suburban area, I assure you that I am not saying we should blithely ignore the risk and assume we are impervious.''
Moreover, deploying ABM satellites using conventional warheads would not constitute a breach of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Despite such a deployment being within the letter of the treaty's strictures, there are a sizeable number of folks here on the Third Rock who view anything military in space aside from recon/comm satellites as an act of evil. This would be the cause of the political problems noted above.
If we do have such a system deployed, it is unlikely that all of our defensive assets would be used absent a mass attack. I don't think anybody in our military is silly enough to deploy a single satellite with a pair of missiles and call it a defense. The US military does the tech thing pretty well.
You are correct as to the "terror" qualities of nuclear weapons. The stigma built up around them is out of proportion to the capability of a single warhead to do damage. They are powerful weapons with a lingering effect that continues to be deadly for some time after use. But those killed are no more nor less dead then someone hacked down by a Hellfire missile or who stumble accidentally onto a landmine planted 75 years ago that has somehow stayed volatile. It is the terror survivors and witnesses associate with its use that is the greatest "threat" posed. This has significant political ramifications and I agree would trend toward hyperbolic responses rather than measured ones.
rory_20_uk
12-05-2017, 10:34
Could North Korea not just fire decoys - very difficult to find the "real" ones when there aren't any. Then do you try to shoot the whole lot down?
Blasting hundreds of millions of dollars of military hardware (even one patriot missile is $1 million) every time there's a plausible threat would be very irritating at the least... and of course if the USA stops shooting at them, then perhaps next time there might be a real one or two in there. It is an insane strategy... but then Lil Kim doesn't seem to be adverse to such things.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
12-05-2017, 18:12
Moreover, deploying ABM satellites using conventional warheads would not constitute a breach of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
I didn't know that. I'd only ever heard of satellites being redirected in ramming attempts (i.e. repurposed as weapons).
There may be weapons systems in place then.
If we do have such a system deployed, it is unlikely that all of our defensive assets would be used absent a mass attack. I don't think anybody in our military is silly enough to deploy a single satellite with a pair of missiles and call it a defense. The US military does the tech thing pretty well.
But missiles are constrained by weight, size, and speed here. I doubt there are (or could be using 80s/90s tech) sufficient or sufficiently advanced weapons to counter a total exchange, given the limitations toward emplacement. So there's reason to believe a reserve would be largely depleted to defeat the NK arsenal. We might also expect anti-satellite missiles to be the primary weapon in orbit...
Seamus Fermanagh
12-05-2017, 22:27
I didn't know that. I'd only ever heard of satellites being redirected in ramming attempts (i.e. repurposed as weapons).
There may be weapons systems in place then.
But missiles are constrained by weight, size, and speed here. I doubt there are (or could be using 80s/90s tech) sufficient or sufficiently advanced weapons to counter a total exchange, given the limitations toward emplacement. So there's reason to believe a reserve would be largely depleted to defeat the NK arsenal. We might also expect anti-satellite missiles to be the primary weapon in orbit...
I do not know that to be the case, but such weapons are possible in orbit, provided that they are not WMDs. The Treaty specifically precludes the introduction of weaponry or military basing of any kind on any other celestial body, but it does not preclude conventional munitions somewhere in the orbitals.
And if we did put some kind of hush-hush system up, it probably WOULD have been of a size to negate a few missiles but not a strike by the old USSR. The old Cold War doomsday scenarios envisaged thousands of missiles with more than 10,000 warheads in a given strike. An orbital system that could counter that using the tech available in the late 80's early 90's would probably be visible from Earth as a silvery grey band blocking most of the geosynch orbitals (I exaggerate, but there would be no hiding such a system from most of the political players with any useful radar systems today).
On the other hand, it would be just the right size to stop or greatly attenuate a dozen missiles from a Pakistan rogue effort or an NK ego strike, while still being small enough a total number of satellites to be "hideable" as part of the GPS/REcon/Comm system that is up there already.
Montmorency
01-10-2018, 03:00
Article Pro-Preemptive Strike on North Korean Nuclear Facilities (http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-bomb-north-korea/) by Edward Luttwak
It’s true that North Korea could retaliate for any attack by using its conventional rocket artillery against the South Korean capital of Seoul and its surroundings, where almost 20 million inhabitants live within 35 miles of the armistice line. U.S. military officers have cited the fear of a “sea of fire” to justify inaction. But this vulnerability should not paralyze U.S. policy for one simple reason: It is very largely self-inflicted.
When then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter decided to withdraw all U.S. Army troops from South Korea 40 years ago (ultimately a division was left behind), the defense advisors brought in to help — including myself — urged the Korean government to move its ministries and bureaucrats well away from the country’s northern border and to give strong relocation incentives to private companies. South Korea was also told to mandate proper shelters, as in Zurich for example, where every new building must have its own (under bombardment, casualties increase dramatically if people leave their homes to seek shelter). In recent years, moreover, South Korea has had the option of importing, at moderate cost, Iron Dome batteries, which are produced by both Israel and the United States, that would be capable of intercepting 95 percent of North Korean rockets headed to inhabited structures.
But over these past four decades, South Korean governments have done practically nothing along these lines. The 3,257 officially listed “shelters” in the Seoul area are nothing more than underground shopping malls, subway stations, and hotel parking lots without any stocks of food or water, medical kits or gas masks. As for importing Iron Dome batteries, the South Koreans have preferred to spend their money on developing a fighter-bomber aimed at Japan.
Even now, casualties could still be drastically reduced by a crash resilience program. This should involve clearing out and hardening with jacks, props, and steel beams the basements of buildings of all sizes; promptly stocking necessities in the 3,257 official shelters and sign-posting them more visibly; and, of course, evacuating as many as possible beforehand (most of the 20 million or so at risk would be quite safe even just 20 miles further to the south). The United States, for its part, should consider adding vigorous counterbattery attacks to any airstrike on North Korea.
Nonetheless, given South Korea’s deliberate inaction over many years, any damage ultimately done to Seoul cannot be allowed to paralyze the United States in the face of immense danger to its own national interests, and to those of its other allies elsewhere in the world.
In other words, ':daisy: South Korea, they can go eat :daisy: and die. But hopefully they don't throw in with China after the liberation of the North - that would weaken Japan's security.'
And still laboring under the misapprehension that the nuclear program is just sitting out there in some barns and tin huts, easily susceptible to aerial bombardment; that all significant assets and facilities are known and would be targeted; or that North Korea couldn't quickly rebound with foreign assistance from even the most grievous setback. And if all America can accomplish is to "bloody their nose" without actually disabling nuclear capability at any point, we look weak. We look weak to the world.
It's weird. Luttwak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak) is (or has been) a pre-eminent political scientist, yet he sure does seem to have a lot of dumb ideas where I've read them. Shades of Huntington and van Creveld?
Offhand, there was that one recent book on China and geopolitics where he massively :daisy: up (http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-edward-luttwak-doesnt-know-about.html?m=1) the military and diplomatic history of ancient China.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-10-2018, 06:14
Article Pro-Preemptive Strike on North Korean Nuclear Facilities (http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-bomb-north-korea/) by Edward Luttwak
In other words, ':daisy: South Korea, they can go eat :daisy: and die. But hopefully they don't throw in with China after the liberation of the North - that would weaken Japan's security.'
And still laboring under the misapprehension that the nuclear program is just sitting out there in some barns and tin huts, easily susceptible to aerial bombardment; that all significant assets and facilities are known and would be targeted; or that North Korea couldn't quickly rebound with foreign assistance from even the most grievous setback. And if all America can accomplish is to "bloody their nose" without actually disabling nuclear capability at any point, we look weak. We look weak to the world.
It's weird. Luttwak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak) is (or has been) a pre-eminent political scientist, yet he sure does seem to have a lot of dumb ideas where I've read them. Shades of Huntington and van Creveld?
Offhand, there was that one recent book on China and geopolitics where he massively :daisy: up (http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-edward-luttwak-doesnt-know-about.html?m=1) the military and diplomatic history of ancient China.
This guy was a "hawk" before, during, and after we pulled out of Vietnam. He is about as unreconstructed a cold warrior as you can find still drawing breath. Surely HIS pronouncement of tough love isn't that shocking.
Montmorency
01-10-2018, 07:07
This guy was a "hawk" before, during, and after we pulled out of Vietnam. He is about as unreconstructed a cold warrior as you can find still drawing breath. Surely HIS pronouncement of tough love isn't that shocking.
On Luttwak (http://discover.wooster.edu/jgates/vietnam-the-debate-goes-on/) in the 1980s:
Luttwak described what he termed “the officers’ highly visible misconduct,” viewing it as “the breakdown of elementary professional craft,” a failure of leadership in the extreme.[53]
Luttwak, however, argued that “all this was trivial compared with the tactical self-indulgence that became routine: the jet fighter bombing raids against flimsy huts that might contain a handful of guerrillas or perhaps none; the fair-sized artillery barrages that silenced lone snipers”–in sum, the self-indulgence of a “grossly disproportionate use of firepower” that “became the very theme of the war.”[54] At its peak, (1966-1971) the helicopter gunships of the army were flying almost 4,000 attack sorties a day. Such lavish use of firepower was “the most visible symptom of the inability of the American military institution to formulate a coherent strategy that would focus and control the means of war. No failure of military competence could be more complete.”
Tragically, many individuals in the American military seemed to learn very little from the disaster in Vietnam. Instead of acknowledging failure, many people have placed the blame for the nation’s failure upon civilian leaders, antiwar protesters, journalists–anyone but the leaders of the military themselves. But civilian leaders, protesters, and journalists did not tell the military services how to use the power allotted to them within the limitations set down. The mistakes made in that arena were the mistakes of the military alone, and officers such as Gropman and Summers were engaged in myth-making of the worst kind when they attempted to obscure the military responsiblity for the outcome in Vietnam. As Luttwak observed, “it was not the civilians who willed the hundreds of daily sorties of the fighter-bombers and the almost 4 million helicopter-gunship sorties of 1966-1971.”
Luttwak (http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/11/in-praise-of-aerial-bombing/) in 2010:
Ever since the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey cast doubt on the efficacy of aerial bombardment in World War II, and particularly after its failure to bring victory in the Vietnam War, air power has acquired a bad reputation. Nowadays, killing enemies from the skies is widely considered useless, while its polar opposite, counterinsurgency by nation-building, is the U.S. government’s official policy. But it’s not yet time to junk our planes. Air power still has a lot to offer, even in a world of scattered insurgencies.
[...]
The better and much cheaper alternative would be to resurrect strategic bombing in a thoroughly new way by arming the Taliban’s many enemies to the teeth and replacing U.S. troops in Afghanistan with sporadic airstrikes. Whenever the Taliban concentrate in numbers to attack, they would be bombed. This would be a most imperfect solution. But it would end the costly futility of "nation-building" in a remote and unwelcoming land. Eventually, after trying everything else, Obama will probably get there.
(Yes I'm being equivocal, but it makes me chuckle.)
Just received the following alert via phone, radio and TV. Certainly surreal:
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL
I assume Oahu is in quite a panic. Wonder if someone hacked our alert system or if Kim is demonstrating his ICBM reach.
EDIT/BREAK:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37259684/ballistic-missile-threat-alert-sent-to-hawaii-phones-was-a-mistake
Ballistic missile threat alert sent to Hawaii phones was a mistake
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
Hawaii was woken up Saturday morning by a false ballistic missile threat alert sent to Hawaii phones.
Hawaii News Now confirmed the alert was false
Hope whoever at the State Emergency Alert system did that gets fired.
And via email from y County Civil Defense:
This is a Civil Defense Message. Please disregard message of nuclear attack. There is NO THREAT of Missle Launch at this time. I repeat, there is NO THREAT at this time.
a completely inoffensive name
01-14-2018, 02:41
Whoops, wrong button.
Shaka_Khan
01-14-2018, 14:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlm9X9fYWDs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2drKAhO6kk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tLngM0i6A
rory_20_uk
01-14-2018, 15:55
One button triggers this? There are no safety checks / the requirement for a two stage sequence??!?#
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-14-2018, 16:01
One button triggers this? There are no safety checks / the requirement for a two stage sequence??!?#
~:smoking:
Holdover from the bad old days when a sub launched missile was at target in 7 minutes....not a lot of double check time.
Shaka_Khan
01-15-2018, 09:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfwALUjgcww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaY7Bqy9feU
Montmorency
01-17-2018, 01:26
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTowcFJU0AAvtVo.jpg
Xiahou
Husar
Yes, what? Why?
Is there a pun in that picture or do you expect me to be familiar with US emergency alert codes? :dizzy2:
Montmorency
01-17-2018, 02:58
Yes, what? Why?
Is there a pun in that picture or do you expect me to be familiar with US emergency alert codes? :dizzy2:
Compare "DRILL — PACOM (CDW) — State Only"
to
"PACOM (CDW) — State Only".
Now select.
Compare "DRILL — PACOM (CDW) — State Only"
to
"PACOM (CDW) — State Only".
Now select.
You mean that is the interface of their software and the guy clicked the wrong "link"?
https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/01/bad-design-action-false-hawaiian-ballistic-missile-alert/
This suggests that.
I thought this was maybe a list of some website about triggered alerts or so... :sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-17-2018, 19:26
Sadly, whereas Japan can get a false alarm up and running in seven minutes, Hawaii takes 40. Had it NOT been a false alarm, the Hawaiian alarm would have been issued 5 minutes or so after detonation.
Shaka_Khan
01-18-2018, 23:48
The reasons why South Korea wants to calm the North Korean regime down.
A year before the 1988 Seoul Olympics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXCkt3tJcuk
During the 2002 World Cup (the same day as the South Korea versus Turkey match):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0u9nrZT16A
There's an intent to ruin South Korea's image as a safe country.
Shaka_Khan
02-09-2018, 11:05
Kim Yo-jong (Kim Jong-un's sister), Mike Pence, and Shinzō Abe are all in South Korea now. They'll attend the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics today. Ivanka Trump will attend the closing ceremony. This will be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azsbaSUasgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZEdoF4CCmM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NedvxxGjDA
Wouldn't want to be a North-Korean athlete, they tend to disappear when they don't win
Kralizec
02-12-2018, 22:38
Wouldn't want to be a North-Korean athlete, they tend to disappear when they don't win
I'm not sure if that's intended seriously, but they could use the opportunity to apply for asylum in South Korea. I suspect however that North Korea only sends people abroad when they have some leverage over them, such as family back home.
I'm not sure if that's intended seriously, but they could use the opportunity to apply for asylum in South Korea. I suspect however that North Korea only sends people abroad when they have some leverage over them, such as family back home.
Their entire football team has vanished. I hope for them that they can get asylum in South-Korea, but yeah family. Basicly hostages. Sick country.
Gilrandir
02-13-2018, 17:09
Their entire football team has vanished.
According to NK media, they took the World Cup. Now they are enjoying their hard-earned fame somewhere on white sand beaches in the Maldives.
Strike For The South
02-13-2018, 17:10
North Korea should be given a gold medal in the propaganda department. The mere stately presences of Kims sister has sent the western media on some rehabilitation tour no one asked for.
Shaka_Khan
02-14-2018, 16:31
This is a Kim Jong-un impersonator on front of the North Korean cheerleaders.
http://cafefiles.naver.net/MjAxODAyMTRfMjYx/MDAxNTE4NjA0NTEzNDI3.lFWBAXvf0qZMujCgBMfNkbTsA4s96vUJj8HLLqaQ09Ug.GdbK5xRX4CrJpy6Pzknc-l5UqjT1oQ-aoRJcN_s5yvUg.JPEG.tldhsenddl/externalFile.jpg
Seamus Fermanagh
02-14-2018, 18:32
This is a Kim Jong-un impersonator on front of the North Korean cheerleaders.
http://cafefiles.naver.net/MjAxODAyMTRfMjYx/MDAxNTE4NjA0NTEzNDI3.lFWBAXvf0qZMujCgBMfNkbTsA4s96vUJj8HLLqaQ09Ug.GdbK5xRX4CrJpy6Pzknc-l5UqjT1oQ-aoRJcN_s5yvUg.JPEG.tldhsenddl/externalFile.jpg
Look of disgust on cheerleader at right side of picture just guaranteed her family food for 90 days.
Shaka_Khan
02-23-2018, 10:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiSW9my4rrQ
Ivanka Trump arrived in South Korea to attend the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics.
Shaka_Khan
06-03-2018, 13:52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZg4YrA9ob8
Montmorency
10-08-2018, 00:51
I've come around to a different view of the Trump-Kim summit. I see it positively now.
For one reason: Inertia, or overcoming it.
Trump taking the brunt of pushback for opening to Kim, in itself, can facilitate future admins doing same but with actual substantive aims and efforts. In the future now diplomats and ministers will meet on initiative with no or few political preconditions.
(In fact, many of the process changes the Trump admin is doing in general could arguably be repurposed by an aggressive left-wing admin just as well as a more overtly-authoritarian one.)
Now, the actual summit was insubstantial and damaged American "political capital" in the short-term more than would have Trump simply not antagonizing Kim anymore. We have nothing concrete to this point to show for it. All that is true, but we also have another hard truth to acknowledge in this: America has lost on North Korea. Resoundingly and historically. We have failed in most of our objectives, and what remains is the conservative shepherding of the South Korean and Japanese states that we built.
America lost. As we often do, though we desperately want to believe otherwise. And often flail in the face of.
But it's also not about us, in the end. We're not the protagonists here. Trump's approach, though it has a different and objectionable logic, will be helpful to any government that seeks to 'de-imperialize' American foreign policy. Now we're pushed more to act on behalf of the international good, rather than narrowly-construed national interests. That means letting the North have most of what it wants, and to claim its nuclear victory over the big-nose imperialist pig-dogs, but so be it. That horse is out. All we can do now is work as helpful accessories on behalf of primary actors Japan and South Korea, and that's just what we should do. The summit may raise the cost of, and increase the institutional and public resistance toward, a petulant Boltonian effort to hold our grip on the manger. We can learn acceptance of setbacks.
Shaka_Khan
10-11-2020, 02:01
North Korea had its largest military parade ever. I think it's clear where Kim gets his funds and technology from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LizCoFRWQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfvZzXyqsY4
Hooahguy
10-11-2020, 05:15
But I thought Trump and Kim fell in love and Kim promised not to do this sort of thing anymore.
:rolleyes:
Shaka_Khan
10-12-2020, 11:59
https://www.jpost.com/international/north-koreas-massive-new-missile-could-help-iran-threaten-israel-645359
Years after the Trump administration believed personal diplomacy would make North Korea into a compliant actor, the regime has new weapons. Because Iran is working with North Korea, this could mean Tehran could threaten Israel with similar missiles or shared technology, as it has in the past.
Questions remain about North Korea’s new missile. It is likely the largest road-mobile ICBM in the world and is thought to be liquid-fueled. The consensus is that this missile, if it works, is a threat. The giant TEL is also a threat, apparently, because it shows the capabilities of North Korea in building these transport vehicles.
Shaka_Khan
10-16-2020, 09:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4c6H8uZXYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBgm5ul4dcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4cGa7arCuQ
Shaka_Khan
07-21-2021, 22:47
The North Korean defectors and some of the South Korean civilian analysts are saying that North Korea seems to be on the verge of collapse.
The situation is so bad there that Russian diplomats evacuated from North Korea on hand-powered trolley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4hnA16N5oM
North Korea is being on the verge of collapse almost as often as Kim has been on the brink of death. Comparing the North Korean defectors, or any defectors for that matter, with the boy that cried wolf would be highly unfair for the naughty shepherd.
They can't be on the verge of collapse, Kim hasn't launched missiles or done some other saber-rattling shenanigans in an attempt to extort food/supplies.
The situation is so bad there that Russian diplomats evacuated from North Korea on hand-powered trolley:
Umm, your own source says that the video is from last February and the diplomats used such an unconventional transportation vehicle, because flights were forbidden and the borders closed, due to the pandemic crisis.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-22-2021, 15:06
Umm, your own source says that the video is from last February and the diplomats used such an unconventional transportation vehicle, because flights were forbidden and the borders closed, due to the pandemic crisis.
Fine, ruin a perfectly interesting story by intruding facts into the discussion. You will NEVER make it working as a shill for one of the major political parties. I hope you can live with that.
Shaka_Khan
07-22-2021, 15:19
Umm, your own source says that the video is from last February and the diplomats used such an unconventional transportation vehicle, because flights were forbidden and the borders closed, due to the pandemic crisis.
The pandemic is making things worse in North Korea. North Korea never faced a disaster on this level before. The pandemic is part of the worsening conditions that made those diplomats evacuate.
It'll be something interesting to watch. NK has weathered famine and isolation before so I don't imagine any sort of collapse, I'm sure the PRC would interfere if things came to a head stability wise.
Shaka_Khan
07-23-2021, 08:17
NK has weathered famine and isolation before...
But NK was really not in total isolation at that time. China continued to supply NK with food and oil. And there was a black market with imports from China. NK received food aid from several countries later on also. It seems that the government used much of the food aid for itself and its military though.
This time it's different. Kim closed the border with China completely. Supplies from China are facing delays because of this. NK isn't receiving food aid from the other countries either. Because of NK's missile tests, economic sanctions more stringent than ever before is being imposed. China doesn't want to get caught breaking this rule placed by Trump and the UN. Biden is continuing this policy. It has become more difficult to supply NK. I can't see how the regime can last long like this.
I think another reason that Kim closed the border completely is because he's afraid of outside influence and ideas that would make the people want change. The people are already discontent, and so Kim is being desperate.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.