It’s a bad day for human beings

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey]

Kim does it because he’s a childish dictator.

Trump does it because he’s a …[/quote]

Trump does it to show “strength”. The normative thinking of his base is about being badass all the time. Because when you’re badass nobody will mess with you.

Trump and his voters don’t think about consequences. As long as we are badass, the outcome will be good.

This articles explains very well the fundamental value differences between liberals and conservatives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/?utm_term=.b3eae6038036

[Coronita]

[quote=Hobie]All this talk is just posturing. By both sides. What will Kim do next if he indeed bombs US interests? Invade?

He will be opening a large can of whoop azz on himself not only by the US, but China and SKorea possibly even be invaded by Russia.[/quote]

Didn’t you see the remake of Red Dawn? Lol.

The easiest way to get China to step in and actually do something ? Suggest arming Taiwan and Japan more.

[Anonymous]

[quote=flu]The easiest way to get China to step in and actually do something?[/quote]

What would they want to do something?

There’s no outcome that benefits China. Status quo is their best alternative.

[Coronita]

[quote=harvey][quote=flu]The easiest way to get China to step in and actually do something?[/quote]

What would they want to do something?

There’s no outcome that benefits China. Status quo is their best alternative.[/quote]

Putting a bunch of missiles off the coast of China would not make China very happy. It would be the equivalent of Russia putting missiles in Cuba. We know how that turned out.

This is a big game of chess. Nothing is going to happen. Plenty of moves each player can play.

It’s just people aren’t using to playing this game…for a long time…

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=flu]

The easiest way to get China to step in and actually do something ? Suggest arming Taiwan and Japan more.[/quote]

The US is increasing military support for South Korea and Japan, which is totally against what Trump promised his base.

The Japanese are the ones worried and pushing for action…. prior to July 4, the US did nothing. The Japanese publicized the ICMB test and the pentagon confirmed. The info didn’t come directly from the Trump White House. Of course, things escalated since then.

China may be angling for a grand bargain to “solve the problem” once it’s clear the US cannot. That would be good… but if China holds the cards then countries in the regions will be asking “what is the US good for? Might as well ally directly with China.” Not good for us.

Unfortunately for Trump, statecraft is complicated, much more than just being badass.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-auslin-north-korea-china-grand-bargain-20170803-story.html
A grand bargain with China could remove North Korea’s nuclear threat — but it would destroy America’s global influence

[spdrun]

Problem is that Japan and South Korea are both de-facto nuclear states. Without a US promise, they might take matters into their own hands.

Both have uranium and plute enrichment plants and the precision casting tech needed to build a working nuke. Delivery? Toss it out of a 737, fire a torpedo from a sub, or launch a cruise missile dropped from the same aircraft.

[Hobie]

Kim knows the radiation from a nuke strike gains him nothing. He is just pounding his moobs to gain entrance into the nuke club.

Iran however, because of its religious ideology is a big concern for a nuke launch.

ICBM’s are so 1950’s. Suitcase nukes are another matter. Stick one in an airliner and we are vulnerable. Wait, Clancy wrote about this already. ..

[FlyerInHi]

I guess Japan and South Korea are getting more free protection while their corporations make money from us.

[Coronita]

Russia is probably thinking about things right now… “maybe it wasn’t such a good idea we interfered with the elections and helped Trump win… We didn’t expect him to be this crazy”….

And if it gets any worse, maybe Russian hackers actually leak information that shows there was collusion….lol….

The plot thickens. Loli don’t know. But I think our checks and balances in government is doing pretty well.our forefathers were mich smarter than people realize

[Anonymous]

[quote=flu]But I think our checks and balances in government is doing pretty well.our forefathers were mich smarter than people realize[/quote]

Agree.

But maybe we should do something about this one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/10/nuclear-strike-against-north-korea-constitutional-/

“Right now one person can launch thousands of nuclear weapons, and that’s the president. No one can stop him.”

It made sense when Eisenhower was president.

Yup, we once had Eisenhower, now we have Trump.

We really need to make America great again.

[spdrun]

I’m not sure if “no one can stop him” is accurate — there’s a chain of command and a staff that might not pass the orders if they think POTUS has gone barking mad.

[Anonymous]

Military officers are obligated to refuse unlawful orders.

The point is that it would be a lawful order.

It’s not something we would want to see tested.

He’s already given orders without consulting with the military.

This US first-strike nuke scenario was never even plausible until now.

BTW, this is all Obama’s fault:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test

[spdrun]

Would an order to commit genocide be lawful per international law? Also, is the person giving the order fully mentally healthy? A case could be made either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering

Better a court-martial a year in the future than killing a few million people.

[FlyerInHi]

It’s not clear what the US wants from North Korea. Stop threatening, stop testing, stop developing, get rid of weapons, what? And what in exchange?

trump doesnt have any clear policy.

[Anonymous]

[quote=spdrun]Better a court-martial a year in the future than killing a few million people.[/quote]

I’m confident that most officers would agree with that.

I wonder if the Founders ever considered the situation where the military was protecting us from the civilian Commander in Chief?

[Author]

Posts