Trump v Kim

[Beskar]

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]

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]

Evacuate to New Zealand, Western Europe, South America, Africa, or Mexico just in case.

[Kralizec]

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]

Or maybe Trump paid Kim to get Kim distract the US attention away from Trump's problems...

[spmetla]

Nations start to choose sides

"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]

Nations start to choose sides





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]

Nations start to choose sides





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]

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.

[Montmorency]

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.

In 1968 North Korea captured a US Naval Intelligence craft and its 83-man crew. 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 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]

This occurred a short period of time after DPRK special ops crossed the DMZ 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]

[Husar]

Yeah, she's pretty cute, isn't she?

I couldn't tell you where Lesotho is.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, she's pretty cute, isn't she?

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Montmorency]

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]

Of course it is comedy.

For a more serious study. 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.

[Husar]

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]

Analyst finds 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.

[Xiahou]

For a more serious study.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

Not that any of this matters for the immediate future; Kim blinked.

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.

[Greyblades]

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]

Analyst finds 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://frontnews.eu/news/en/10820

[Gilrandir]

Why do I keep spawning double posts?

[Shaka_Khan]

[Greyblades]

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]

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.