StrangeSox

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 09:03 AM) Germany and Japan worked out pretty well. We've been less successful since. Doesn't mean we can't be successful here. So total war that kills off tens of millions of people and leaves an entire continent in ruins can lead to better rebuilds, but everything else we've tried before and after has failed spectacularly. Hmm.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 09:01 AM) In the last Korean war we killed 20% of the North Korean population. Today that would be over 5 million people. Apropos of nothing in particular, the US is going to start bombing another country soon!

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:52 AM) Well, first, you don't have the religious/cultural problems you have in Iraq with three different groups hating each other. So I think this rebuild would be vastly different. I'm not under any illusion that it would be easy. It would obviously be difficult and a huge challenge but the positives outweigh the negatives. How many other US foreign interventions have gone well? how'd the last one in Korea go? (it's still going on, technically!)

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:51 AM) So your answer is to be held hostage by a madman forever? And put the mainland US at risk? Is that really what you're saying? I don't think you're taking this threat seriously. The day Kim feels his days are numbered, whether driven by us, or China, or another vested party, who is to say he doesn't launch some nukes at the US assuming he has the capability? This guy is not a rationale human being living in a rationale world. He kills on the regular to retain his grip on power and he just may want to go out in a blaze of glory assuming he knows that power will soon be lost. Under no circumstance should we allow him to further develop his nuclear capabilities. We survived the Cold War. Killing people on the regular to consolidate power is a time-honored tradition around the world and not necessarily irrational. Kim does appear to be particularly stupid and probably buys into DPRK's propaganda in ways his father and grandfather didn't, though. What is the size and scale of the invasion force you're willing to go with to stop their nuclear development?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:35 AM) Its also impossible to do any of what he says in the time he has been in office. Yeah, nuclear weapons revamps do not happen in a matter of months.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:41 AM) Apples to oranges. The world has seen the progression of NK's tech. We've been tracking it and they've been boasting about it. Let's assume that Saddam actually was pursuing nuclear weapons, then. How well has the invasion and going-on-two-decades occupation gone? How well do you think things will go in Korea? eta: but you did support the previous rounds of US military interventionism in any case, right?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:39 AM) Explain to me how/why diplomatic relations will work this time, when the same moves have failed over the last 2 decades. You're tying to use rational means on an irrational regime. They don't want war, but they don't to stop their military progression either. Explain to me how/why foreign invasion and occupation will work this time, when the same moves have failed across the globe over the last 25+ decades. NK wants military progression so that they have an ability to tell the rest of the world to f*** off. And I still haven't seen any arguments as to why Kim is any less rational than Trump.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:35 AM) 1) It's too late. They have the tech to attack regionally. You have to hope they don't get ICBM tech down, but they've rapidly accelerated that tech, more than we thought, during the 8 years of the type of foreign policy you've been advocating. 2) What did we do in the late 90's and from 2003-2007? Did those diplomatic moves work? Did it stop anything? Great, it slowed them down by a year here or a year there. That's just kicking the can down the road. Again, the same policy you're advocating. I'm not suggesting that we preemptively strike NK by ourselves. I'm just fighting back from this notion that military option isn't a legitimate option, despite the high cost. It's not the first choice, but we shouldn't just sit back and keep saying "well maybe if we try the diplomatic solution first" for the next 2 decades like we have the last 2 decades. We may as well hand the keys to Rodman and see what he can do to resolve the problem. In the late 90's, Clinton set up a framework for talks and negotiations with NK. Bush kicked the legs out from under that with his "Axis of Evil" speech, and both sides seriously disengaged from constructive conversations as a result. Obama kinda sorta tried to restart some efforts but they weren't a priority and it wasn't enough. Nobody but a bunch of scared people in the US wants to strike NK, so talking about military options right now does mean you're talking about unilateral strikes. Strikes that will get a lot of our allies in SK killed, strikes that will kill many more NK's, and strikes that will greatly piss off China and will end the 64 year armistice and restart the war that has never technically ended. We have two unhinged egomaniacs threatening each other with nuclear weapons. Every effort right now should be on massive de-escalation, not "well actually maybe this military strike won't end in a total boondoggle" talk.

How many people currently advocating for mass death on the Korean peninsula also enthusiastically supported invading Iraq because Saddam was a Bad Man who was looking for yellow cake and aluminum tubes to definitely build nuclear bombs to attack the US or sell to fundamentalist Islamic groups?

FWIW during his first 100 days, Trump did not take any executive action on the nuclear arsenal. e: it was also Obama who kicked off the modernization process. yet another thing Trump had nothing to do with but is taking credit for.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) If that's your position then there's no point debating anything with you. Your solution is do nothing, they can do whatever they want. What exactly is the size and scope of the invasion force you're willing to put up with? Because you're not taking out their nuclear capabilities with targeted air strikes.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 08:10 AM) I stated at the very beginning that Trump is not the person to fix this problem. But why is the "answer" a competent, anti-war US policy when that policy has also failed? And arguably, failed WORSE given that the development of their weapons program accelerated during the time period when we were playing "nice." Balta and SS' point is basically - military intervention isn't an option because many people will die and rhetoric threatening military action doesn't work either. And my counter is nothing else has worked! Balta annoyingly chastised people for not coming up with better solutions, and yet his solution is appeasement and giving a mad man exactly what he wants, under the false belief that it will do something. They've been given aid in the past and failed to uphold their end of the deal. Why would it work this time? SS2k5 is right; the cat's out of the bag here because of failed US policy over many decades. We should have ousted that regime in the 90's (or even the 80's). I don't care about a failed rebuild in other places, it's still a possibility here. Unification of the Korean peninsula is what basically everyone wants EXCEPT the tyrannical, brain-washing regime currently in place in NK. So yes, despite the horrific cost, military options should be on the table. SK, China, Japan and Russia, along with the UN, should be on board. Diplomatic solutions to problems actually have some record of success in the world. Maybe it works this time, maybe it doesn't. Diplomatic solutions won't get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities, but *maybe* they could stop their ability to project those weapons regionally or globally. It's certainly not a guarantee. The track record for foreign military interventions or targeted assassinations or backing coups is far, far worse than diplomatic approaches. SK, China, Japan, and Russia, the countries that are actually most likely to have to deal with NK's bulls*** whether it's unlikely first-strike actions or post-US strike humanitarian crises, are not on board. Perhaps that should be an indication, especially SK's and Japan's stances, that rushing into yet another foreign military adventure is not the smartest move. Does SK actually want unification and the massive problem of now having to take care of NK's population? I'm fairly certain China wants a buffer. The broader point about the State Department being non-functional at this point is that there are lot of negotiations and discussions that normally would happen between administrators, diplomats and foreign service workers in the background. Instead we're getting two highly unstable and incompetent morons shouting at each other in increasingly unhinged public statements. A competent, professionally staffed State Department *might* be able to work to diffuse Trump's idiocy, but unfortunately the oilman in charge is also an incompetent idiot so that's one less major avenue of addressing this problem.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 9, 2017 -> 07:05 AM) Who said I wasn't? I'm pretty sure all my arguments on North Korea have been we're approaching the point of last resort. I'm just arguing against Caulfield's "most erroneous post in Sox history" comment, which indirectly implied (by his estimates) 70 to 80% of the country would love to go to war. I'm just saying that this: should be true for literally everyone and if military action isn't an absolute last resort for someone, that person has a f***ed up ideology. I'm not saying you're making that argument, just to be clear.

It's pretty f***ed up if you're not against military action as anything but an absolute last resort imo

There are no good options in north Korea, but blundering into war would be the worst https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/895...src=twsrc%5Etfw

More lies from a coward who can't answer any questions. Bombing people doesn't save them. There is a very long history including many places around the world today demonstrating that. What other countries do you want to bomb and occupy? How many extra deaths from that will be enough to convince you it doesn't work. This isn't about partisan domestic politics but that's the only well you know how to go to. Go back and you'll find balta and others against this sort of interventionism during Obama's presidency as well. You've been here more than long enough and have participated in enough conversations to know this. Stop lying.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:38 PM) You means the ones that ignore the genocide and self-induced famine deaths of millions? The ones that ignore that a crazy percentage of their population is currently being housed in concentration style re-education camps now? I would love to see the conversation turn that direction... But instead we are left to pretending that this regime hasn't killed anyone, and isn't going to kill anyone as long as we let them have nuclear weapons peacefully. If someone has direct family members in NK right now, the odds are already pretty solid that they are dead, dying of starvation, or in a government run concentration camp. No one seems to have a problem with that though. Nobody is pretending that. Stop lying. You can't make a point in this thread without lying and without obfuscating and without evading everyone else. It's cowardly and sad.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:38 PM) You means the ones that ignore the genocide and self-induced famine deaths of millions? The ones that ignore that a crazy percentage of their population is currently being housed in concentration style re-education camps now? I would love to see the conversation turn that direction... But instead we are left to pretending that this regime hasn't killed anyone, and isn't going to kill anyone as long as we let them have nuclear weapons peacefully. If someone has direct family members in NK right now, the odds are already pretty solid that they are dead, dying of starvation, or in a government run concentration camp. No one seems to have a problem with that though. Your preferred option of bombing these problems away had a long track record of making things worse. How's your support for the Iraq war going these days?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:32 PM) Really this is the answer, but it doesn't fit into partisan talking points so you will have to give an answer that does. It's not exactly a partisan issue, that's just your reflexive defense for evading everything.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:33 PM) How do you know this? All of their rhetoric, their positions, their desire to not be dead.

Diplomacy has a much better track record, yeah. And I do at least recognize the risks which you can't seem to do.

They won't be any less dead if we start bombing North Korea. What exactly do you see in the track record of foreign interventionism that leads you to believe things will turn out well?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:15 PM) The same people who are OK with millions of deaths so far are worried about hundreds of thousands... A troll is a good way to put it. Funny how that works. Bombing North Korea will not end well for North Koreans. You can't seem to acknowledge any of the negative effects of the thing you're advocating.

North Korea has zero interest in a nuclear first strike against the United States. They want that capability so that both China and the ya play nice with them, and they're dead set on getting it. They're very different from Iran in that regard. If that goal is truly non negotiable for them, and that appears to be the case, the only possible solution is large scale military action likely resulting in mass death, a huge humanitarian and refugee crisis, and long term occupation. If the US unilaterally struck first with nuclear weapons, we're also probably looking at international sanctions and the world economy collapsing rapidly as a result. Conceivably military strikes probably not that drastic, but if it's unilateral it will be orders of magnitude worse than Iraq has been.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 8, 2017 -> 07:06 PM) The only hope is Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, Dunford, etc., pull him back from the precipice. If JFK went with NSC advice instead of his brother during the Cuban Missile Crisis, World War Three would likely have broken out...as well as having to guess correctly which Khrushchev cable was actually from him, was there a coup underway in Russia, etc. Trump is the opposite of cool headed, as his rhetoric today once again demonstrates. He's itching to provoke a first response from North Korea to give him the moral high ground to do something with all those high tech toys the US military has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on over time. All of the generals he's surrounded himself with in what should be civilian positions are pushing for ramped up war elsewhere. They will not be a check on Trump, and Trump still retains the sole power to order a nuclear strike. The only way to stop such an order would be for an immediate coup to occur.