ear

Yes and no (speaking for myself). Sure, nuclear weapons are an inherent deterrent.

But there several aspects of NK related to nuclear weapons that inject some instability.

The first is that NK has a historic tactic of dangling threat of nuclear capability as a lever for extracting aid from the West. The West has been very reliable in providing aid (which NK depends on) in exchange for concessions in nuclear development. Over decades. That "dangling" is now becoming an issue. In the B. Clinton era it was enrichment, etc. Back then we gave them energy aid and other things to stop enriching. Which basically did little more than maybe pause things. Possibly it did nothing. So we've consistently rewarded NK for their behavior. But now we're talking about being on the verge of completing an ICBM. That's a different thing to dangle. At some it's not a cute little political game anymore.

The second instability is in the government/military. There's been instability among senior military in NK. Top generals executed or purged. Was that a nascent military coup that was put down? Does the military control the the nukes? Or does the political party not trust the military and maintain its own command structure independently? That instability is a little scary for a bureaucracy that has a nuclear capability. Here in the U.S. we have strong protections against the "Dr. Strangelove" scenario. The odds are probably effectively nil. In NK I'd speculate that those odds are quite a bit higher.

Or course what I say changes sometimes. I am fine with being wrong. I am totally OK in rewriting things because I am barely literate. Sometimes it takes me a while to make things clear.

I get that people are freaked out about North Korea. I see on the news and hear the barely formed words of our president that things are not cool. Fine. North Korea has shot a few new missiles and they might have some nukes. I agree that is bad. I agree we need to keep an eye on them and let them know we are on to them and will not accept attacks outside of their borders. My problem is the the level of panic. This is not the new Cuban Missile Crisis. When people are talking about pe emptive strikes and the president is using Game Of Thrones language I get worried.

I don't like the vibe because this reminds me of the lead to Iraq. It reminds me of how I felt and talked. I had people try their best tell me that Iraq was not a direct threat to the US and I wouldn't listen. I disregarded them and said they weren't paying attention and that they where being stupid. Look at what happened in Iraq. I listened to and believed what my president and the press told me. I was wrong then. So now I am keeping a cool head and looking around at what is happening.

As a nation we do need a threat. All groups do. To be the victim is a natural part of being human. It helps us team up. It gives our ideals meaning. If I was wrong I would expect to be responded to with rationality and cold facts. I wasn't. I was even treated to the sarcastic theory that I think that Trump and Kim are working together. I am not getting a good vibe from the nation about this. It is OK that I feel this way because I have zero power over any of this. The simple fact that so much energy has been put into my wrongness gives me the feeling this whole North Korean thing is about emotion not facts.

I like pizza parties.

Look, how would you feel if Maxine Waters was the president?

Well, that's how a lot of us conservatives feel right now. ;-P

Hope that helps you understand why you will never see me in a red ballcap. We are in a tough spot here. We have to stand behind this guy because, well, he's The Guy. And, keep telling ourselves over and over again, '...at least it's not Hillary...at least it's not Hillary...'

Have some compassion, for cryin' out loud. It's tough being Republican right now.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

This has never been a cute little political game. The president choosing what breed of dog to get it a cute little political game. We have gotten ourselves in a little pickle with North Korea over the decades because they are a problem. They are a big problem but there is just no evidence they are a nation that exceeds it's borders. It's incredibly unAmerican to sit and wait but the only smart thing is to sit and wait.

I agree with all of that. I don't think anyone is exactly thrilled with the idea of NK having nuclear weapons. But I don't think slowguy's explanation of why a nuclear North Korea is a threat really works. Seems like a purely defensive stance on their part, not something that threatens us.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I hate the idea of Maxine Waters as president. I don't like any Democrats that I know of.

I have no compassion. You guys picked him. This was your choice. Also you don't have to stand behind him. That is the beauty of a democracy you can say fuck that guy. Your party can work to get him out.

Except that one time, when they, you know, invaded South Korea.
And the time they kidnapped those civilians in South Korea and Japan.
And then there was the time they sank that South Korean warship.

Trail's post covered some of the pertinent points. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing specifically that a "nuclear DPRK" is a threat, or that a "nuclear DPRK" does or doesn't stabilize the region. I was countering Tibbs' first post, which said that DPRK is not a threat at all. DPRK is a threat, regardless of nuclear capability. The addition of nukes gives them a bigger set of tools to work with.

In my opinion, having nukes is not purely defensive in the mind of KJU or DPRK leadership. It provides a deterrence from attack, for sure, and that's the point I wrote about in a previous post. It also provides them with potential leverage for bargaining/extortion (depending on how you view it). It also may provide them, in their minds, the status and power to pursue other aims or military plans. For example, they might feel like they can harass S.Korea more brazenly, or assert claims over disputed islands, etc with less chance of the international community interfering, because they can hold the threat of nuclear strike over the heads of the world's powers.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes 67 years ago the North Invaded the south.

Yes the kidnapped people. Not good but not and invasion.

Israel attacked one of our warships. Am I too believe Israel will attack the US?

The fact is North Korea has shown no signs of crossing it's borders.

I was countering Tibbs' first post, which said that DPRK is not a threat at all.

I think Tibbs is more right than wrong, unless you're South Korea.

DPRK is a threat, regardless of nuclear capability. The addition of nukes gives them a bigger set of tools to work with.

Gives them bigger tools, maybe. But they still can't threaten us, unless they're flat suicidal. They're no threat to us whatsoever with conventional military forces, and we'd wipe them off the earth if they used a nuke. So really, no actual threat.

Even as bargaining leverage, it's probably not that bad a situation. Our appeasement in the past has been aimed precisely at trying to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. Predictably, that didn't work. But now that they have them, what other negotiating move do they really have? Give us food and money and technology, or we'll nuke you? Not really a viable course.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Despite the incident with the USS Liberty (for which the Israeli government paid a monetary settlement), the occasional bout of spying between friends, and intermittent political disputes, relations between the US and Israel are generally positive. Relations between North Korea and South Korea, not so much.

I get that this looks a lot like the run up to the Iraq War to you, but I don't think this rises to the same level of deliberate marketing. Unlike Iraq, which apparently seemed like a good idea to some people, it's not in anyone's interest to get into an actual war with North Korea right now. There is always the risk of miscalculation, of course, but I really think this is just posturing by the leadership on both sides.

I don't understand this attitude that just because we would beat them handily, they're somehow no threat. If we go to war with DPRK on the peninsula, many S.Koreans and Americans will die. Probably Japanese too. If they launch a nuke at Guam, Hawaii, wherever, the fact that we would then wipe them off the face of the planet doesn't negate the damage that their strike would have caused. I'm pretty certain that, in that scenario, the people of Guam, Hawaii, or wherever, are going to feel threatened, for whatever time they can feel that way before the missile hits.

I'm not arguing that DPRK is a threat to the existence of the United States.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It is posturing. I am just worried about the temperament of the natios and it's leaders in regards to the posturing.

If we go to war with DPRK on the peninsula, many S.Koreans and Americans will die.

If.

But why should we go to war with North Korea? They can't threaten us. Unless we go to war with them on the peninsula.

If they launch a nuke at Guam, Hawaii, wherever, the fact that we would then wipe them off the face of the planet doesn't negate the damage that their strike would have caused.

That's true. I think what I'm saying is that there does not appear to be any likelihood of that happening. Your earlier posts didn't indicate that you consider it a real possibility either- you portrayed the regime as rational and interested in self preservation.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You can say all these things can happen, and they can, but all kinds of things can happen. Where is the proof that it is going to happen?

A new Korean war would be a lot worse than you think. It will cause chaos through out the region.

-
sooooo what is their point in (if they follow through), dropping ordinance "near" Guam? Tibbs is making the point that "that's all they are saying they will do"; why is this a hunkey-dory scenario?

So you support an preemptive attack on North Korea, correct?

"That in a nutshell is what this is about. If a military option is on the table, then it needs to be decided before they have a reliable nuke. That window is closing quickly. Americans will accept casualties, even American servicemen, when it's not-in-my-backyard. Risking a city in the continental U.S. is another story. "
I asked if I was correct. Am I? This statement can go either way. I can be wrong. I have been wrong before.

"Tibbs is making the point that "that's all they are saying they will do"; why is this a hunkey-dory scenario? "

They have not threatened to hit Guam. That is a fact. So what do we do?



Note: I took a question out for clarity.

They are a big problem but there is just no evidence they are a nation that exceeds it's borders.

Except that one time, when they, you know, invaded South Korea.
And the time they kidnapped those civilians in South Korea and Japan.
And then there was the time they sank that South Korean warship.

How many times has the U.S, Russia or China exceeded their borders?

A long time ago, when there were only 2 superpowers, the idea of mutually assured destruction kept people feeling safe. Then the UK and France developed weapons and China felt vulnerable so they got it. Stability returned. Later, India developed nuclear capability so Pakistan felt threatened and followed suit.

Up until recently, the world was relatively at peace again despite the fact that Pakistan, a troubled country, had a weapon. Israel is in the Middle East and they are a nuclear power but Iran is close so another case of MAD.

Now North Korea wants to gain recognition and gain a weapon and the world is supposed to freak out because there is a madman in charge (just like in Pakistan). I think the world will survive, others will develop weapons and despite the crazies in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, the fear of the end game will keep things peaceful.

Do you think they're going to attack Guam?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."