Trump and North Korean Self Defense

[Philos]

This situation has the feel of a perfect storm, the worst possible elements appear to be in place, Trump, Kim Jong-un, that'll cause the very thing no sane person wants, war.

DBT,

I think that Trump is the perfect storm on his own. I would like to see him left alone in a padded cell with a bunch of crayons.

https://moviesfilmsandflix.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/in-the-mouth-of-madness-1994.jpg

A.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The UN can't do anything to China; China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and has a veto.

Still, the rest of this is a GREAT idea. Like Germany's guarantee to defend Austria-Hungary against Russian aggression, everyone will see that a US threat to attack China in the event of NK aggression against SK opens up the likelihood of a huge conflict that would massively harm all involved, and so, just as it did in 1914, such a stance will render war unthinkable and impossible - all the more so now that we have terrible weapons the like of which have never previously been used in a large scale war, where such things could be employed by both sides.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

That was different entirely. We're not talking about writing out a blank check to a foreign power who's actions we have no control over. We're talking about what amounts to a massive global PR campaign to advance the resolution of a specific flashpoint (You know, something that might actually play to what passes for 'strengths' in the D) Its about getting everyone on the same page: China will be held responsible for any acts of aggression by NK.

Except that Trump is threatening North Korea rather sternly. Enough that North Korea might start having a potential of a claim of self defense.

This provides them an additional incentive to make sure the NK question is resolved as peaceably as possible.

Or else what? This isn't the early 20th century. China controls means of production that the entire globe relies on. Threats don't mean the same any more. When you rely on a nation, you can't threaten them too harshly.

By comparison, playing a game of nuclear chicken is a losing proposition when your opponent has nothing to lose. China however, has EVERYTHING to lose, and we possess the means to destroy it should it come to that.

I mean come on, its at least a better idea than threatening NK directly. Where's that going to get you?

We need to stop acting like this bomb means a threat to anyone. It is only a threat if we try to unseat the Kim's. The actual, real world, threat is North Korea selling off their technology. We have to try to stop that. And this means stop burying our heads in the sand about North Korea having the bomb.

 

[funinspace]

The UN can't do anything to China; China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and has a veto.

Still, the rest of this is a GREAT idea. Like Germany's guarantee to defend Austria-Hungary against Russian aggression, everyone will see that a US threat to attack China in the event of NK aggression against SK opens up the likelihood of a huge conflict that would massively harm all involved, and so, just as it did in 1914, such a stance will render war unthinkable and impossible - all the more so now that we have terrible weapons the like of which have never previously been used in a large scale war, where such things could be employed by both sides.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

That was different entirely. We're not talking about writing out a blank check to a foreign power who's actions we have no control over. We're talking about what amounts to a massive global PR campaign to advance the resolution of a specific flashpoint (You know, something that might actually play to what passes for 'strengths' in the D) Its about getting everyone on the same page: China will be held responsible for any acts of aggression by NK. This provides them an additional incentive to make sure the NK question is resolved as peaceably as possible.

The rest of the world? It would also pretty much necessitate bypassing the UN. If you haven't noticed El Cheato hasn't exactly been inspiring global cooperation on jack shit. It doesn't appear that The Dotard is capable of staying on message for more than about 48 hours, how in the world could his administration even coordinate a massive global US PR campaign against China? The only leverage we would possibly have is to threaten to start a trade war with China and hope we don't have to play our bluff and cut off our own leg. Russia and Iran won't play. Africa and South America wouldn't even take a look at the glossy brochure. We might be able to cajole the EU into mushy support. And the UK and Australia might play along...

By comparison, playing a game of nuclear chicken is a losing proposition when your opponent has nothing to lose. China however, has EVERYTHING to lose, and we possess the means to destroy it should it come to that.

So does the US have EVERYTHING to lose, and China knows that as well. MAD is kind of a mutual thing.

 

[Malintent]

My prediction? China will do whatever is necessary to keep US troops from occupying the border with China.

I don't see what their issue would be... they know we have no interest in any military action against them.. they are our best customers... Neither of us want to go war with the other. no one can win that one. China and the US are like professional friends that are having some issues with their children getting along..

 

[Malintent]

That was different entirely. We're not talking about writing out a blank check to a foreign power who's actions we have no control over. We're talking about what amounts to a massive global PR campaign to advance the resolution of a specific flashpoint (You know, something that might actually play to what passes for 'strengths' in the D) Its about getting everyone on the same page: China will be held responsible for any acts of aggression by NK.

Except that Trump is threatening North Korea rather sternly. Enough that North Korea might start having a potential of a claim of self defense.

This provides them an additional incentive to make sure the NK question is resolved as peaceably as possible.

Or else what? This isn't the early 20th century. China controls means of production that the entire globe relies on. Threats don't mean the same any more. When you rely on a nation, you can't threaten them too harshly.

By comparison, playing a game of nuclear chicken is a losing proposition when your opponent has nothing to lose. China however, has EVERYTHING to lose, and we possess the means to destroy it should it come to that.

I mean come on, its at least a better idea than threatening NK directly. Where's that going to get you?

We need to stop acting like this bomb means a threat to anyone. It is only a threat if we try to unseat the Kim's. The actual, real world, threat is North Korea selling off their technology. We have to try to stop that. And this means stop burying our heads in the sand about North Korea having the bomb.

NK has no claim of self defense against the US that is even half as strong as our existing case of actually BEING in a position of self defense... who is the one hurling WMDs around?

A bully says that if you don't give him your milk money, he will punch you in the belly.
You say that if he punches you in the belly, then you will kill his entire family and burn down his house.
So, the bully punches you, "in self defense".

 

[sharon45]

My prediction? China will do whatever is necessary to keep US troops from occupying the border with China.

I don't see what their issue would be... they know we have no interest in any military action against them.. they are our best customers... Neither of us want to go war with the other. no one can win that one. China and the US are like professional friends that are having some issues with their children getting along..

Uh, we are obviously major trading partners, but hardly friends.

 

[sharon45]

Except that Trump is threatening North Korea rather sternly. Enough that North Korea might start having a potential of a claim of self defense.

This provides them an additional incentive to make sure the NK question is resolved as peaceably as possible.

Or else what? This isn't the early 20th century. China controls means of production that the entire globe relies on. Threats don't mean the same any more. When you rely on a nation, you can't threaten them too harshly.

By comparison, playing a game of nuclear chicken is a losing proposition when your opponent has nothing to lose. China however, has EVERYTHING to lose, and we possess the means to destroy it should it come to that.

I mean come on, its at least a better idea than threatening NK directly. Where's that going to get you?

We need to stop acting like this bomb means a threat to anyone. It is only a threat if we try to unseat the Kim's. The actual, real world, threat is North Korea selling off their technology. We have to try to stop that. And this means stop burying our heads in the sand about North Korea having the bomb.

NK has no claim of self defense against the US that is even half as strong as our existing case of actually BEING in a position of self defense... who is the one hurling WMDs around?

A bully says that if you don't give him your milk money, he will punch you in the belly.
You say that if he punches you in the belly, then you will kill his entire family and burn down his house.
So, the bully punches you, "in self defense".

Violence over mere words.

 

[bilby]

My prediction? China will do whatever is necessary to keep US troops from occupying the border with China.

I don't see what their issue would be... they know we have no interest in any military action against them.. they are our best customers... Neither of us want to go war with the other. no one can win that one. China and the US are like professional friends that are having some issues with their children getting along..

The Germans and the English could have said EXACTLY the same about each other in 1914. Indeed, many people on both sides did say exactly that.

Except that their ties were, if anything, rather stronger than the ties between the US and China are today.

The parallels here with the events in the run up to The Great War are far greater than people seem to want to accept.

Sure, there are lots of differences too; but if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn't) it is that strong trade relations and a mutually advantageous peace, are not sufficient to prevent war.

 

[DBT]

The element of irrationality is often underestimated in human relationships and affairs

 

[barbos]

I don't see what their issue would be... they know we have no interest in any military action against them.. they are our best customers... Neither of us want to go war with the other. no one can win that one. China and the US are like professional friends that are having some issues with their children getting along..

The Germans and the English could have said EXACTLY the same about each other in 1914. Indeed, many people on both sides did say exactly that.

Except that their ties were, if anything, rather stronger than the ties between the US and China are today.

The parallels here with the events in the run up to The Great War are far greater than people seem to want to accept.

Sure, there are lots of differences too; but if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn't) it is that strong trade relations and a mutually advantageous peace, are not sufficient to prevent war.

But were there strong trade relations back then?
WW1 was a result of industrialization causing major rearrangement of power multiplied by old habits of warring with each other. They thought "we will fight a little and it will all be good afterwards". Unfortunately military "progress" was such that it ended up in complete disaster for everybody.

 

[bilby]

The Germans and the English could have said EXACTLY the same about each other in 1914. Indeed, many people on both sides did say exactly that.

Except that their ties were, if anything, rather stronger than the ties between the US and China are today.

The parallels here with the events in the run up to The Great War are far greater than people seem to want to accept.

Sure, there are lots of differences too; but if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn't) it is that strong trade relations and a mutually advantageous peace, are not sufficient to prevent war.

But were there strong trade relations back then?

Yes, very much so.

In 1913, the German economy was more interlinked with future adversaries than allies. Britain, France, Italy, and Russia accounted for 36% of pre-war German trade. Britain alone provided more German trade than the 12% share of Austria‐Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire combined

Source

WW1 was a result of industrialization causing major rearrangement of power multiplied by old habits of warring with each other. They thought "we will fight a little and it will all be good afterwards". Unfortunately military "progress" was such that it ended up in complete disaster for everybody.

The key decision makers, particularly in the case of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, all anticipated a long war, and (particularly in the case of Germany) were not so much confident of victory, as they were confident that later war would result in a far greater probability of defeat.

The German leadership were belligerent and fearful - their main fear being that if they didn't strike early enough, the decline in power of their allies and the rising power of their enemies (particularly Russia) could make any future war un-winnable.

Kind of how the US might feel, if they were to see a possible future enemy developing the ability to launch a nuclear attack on the continental US. Or how China might feel if they were to see a possible future enemy preparing to invade a 'buffer zone' and potentially station troops right on their borders.

 

[barbos]

But were there strong trade relations back then?

Yes, very much so.

In 1913, the German economy was more interlinked with future adversaries than allies. Britain, France, Italy, and Russia accounted for 36% of pre-war German trade. Britain alone provided more German trade than the 12% share of Austria‐Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire combined

Source

It does not mean trade was large (with respect to overall economy)

WW1 was a result of industrialization causing major rearrangement of power multiplied by old habits of warring with each other. They thought "we will fight a little and it will all be good afterwards". Unfortunately military "progress" was such that it ended up in complete disaster for everybody.

The key decision makers, particularly in the case of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, all anticipated a long war, and (particularly in the case of Germany) were not so much confident of victory, as they were confident that later war would result in a far greater probability of defeat.

The German leadership were belligerent and fearful - their main fear being that if they didn't strike early enough, the decline in power of their allies and the rising power of their enemies (particularly Russia) could make any future war un-winnable.

Kind of how the US might feel, if they were to see a possible future enemy developing the ability to launch a nuclear attack on the continental US. Or how China might feel if they were to see a possible future enemy preparing to invade a 'buffer zone' and potentially station troops right on their borders.

Nobody was expecting WW1 going the way it actually went.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My prediction? China will do whatever is necessary to keep US troops from occupying the border with China.

I don't see what their issue would be...

That really isn't very relevant. What is relevant is that they would have an issue with it.

...they know we have no interest in any military action against them.

You don't seem to understand what is at stake. It isn't invasion of China, it in influence on the region.

 

[Malintent]

I don't see what their issue would be... they know we have no interest in any military action against them.. they are our best customers... Neither of us want to go war with the other. no one can win that one. China and the US are like professional friends that are having some issues with their children getting along..

Uh, we are obviously major trading partners, but hardly friends.

I said "professional friends", not "friends". there is a difference... you would have a drink with either, but only one gets a ride to the airport.

 

[Malintent]

I don't see what their issue would be... they know we have no interest in any military action against them.. they are our best customers... Neither of us want to go war with the other. no one can win that one. China and the US are like professional friends that are having some issues with their children getting along..

The Germans and the English could have said EXACTLY the same about each other in 1914. Indeed, many people on both sides did say exactly that.

Except that their ties were, if anything, rather stronger than the ties between the US and China are today.

The parallels here with the events in the run up to The Great War are far greater than people seem to want to accept.

Sure, there are lots of differences too; but if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn't) it is that strong trade relations and a mutually advantageous peace, are not sufficient to prevent war.

Right, OK... Let me know when Adolph Jong-un invades and takes over China. I'll revisit that concern then.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see what their issue would be...

That really isn't very relevant. What is relevant is that they would have an issue with it.

...they know we have no interest in any military action against them.

You don't seem to understand what is at stake. It isn't invasion of China, it in influence on the region.

Are you saying that China fears Western influence? really?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Germans and the English could have said EXACTLY the same about each other in 1914. Indeed, many people on both sides did say exactly that.

Except that their ties were, if anything, rather stronger than the ties between the US and China are today.

The parallels here with the events in the run up to The Great War are far greater than people seem to want to accept.

Sure, there are lots of differences too; but if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn't) it is that strong trade relations and a mutually advantageous peace, are not sufficient to prevent war.

Right, OK... Let me know when Adolph Jong-un invades and takes over China. I'll revisit that concern then.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see what their issue would be...

That really isn't very relevant. What is relevant is that they would have an issue with it.

...they know we have no interest in any military action against them.

You don't seem to understand what is at stake. It isn't invasion of China, it in influence on the region.

Are you saying that China fears Western influence? really?

Not fear it, rather they want to have the influence so things roll in their favor over in the US's favor.

 

[LordKiran]

Right, OK... Let me know when Adolph Jong-un invades and takes over China. I'll revisit that concern then.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see what their issue would be...

That really isn't very relevant. What is relevant is that they would have an issue with it.

...they know we have no interest in any military action against them.

You don't seem to understand what is at stake. It isn't invasion of China, it in influence on the region.

Are you saying that China fears Western influence? really?

Not fear it, rather they want to have the influence so things roll in their favor over in the US's favor.

That in itself is enough to cause war. When two people with mutually exclusive goals intersect, the result is either conflict or concession. Given America's reaction to our last president 'bowing' I think its safe to say that concession isn't a viable option politically. So the war is coming, both parties can't afford to look weak and will do anything they can to defend their prides. The only lasting way to stave off war is to make entering into it far too costly. Effectively the creation of a political and militarist stalemate before the fighting even begins, which is fine until you have a North Korea/Black Hand type flashpoint that fucks everything up in a day and age where people are actively looking for a pretext.

NK's bombs dont scare me. The courage they give to a destabilizing force in the world is what scares me.

 

[sharon45]

Uh, we are obviously major trading partners, but hardly friends.

I said "professional friends", not "friends". there is a difference... you would have a drink with either, but only one gets a ride to the airport.

Hardly "professional friends."

 

[bilby]

The Germans and the English could have said EXACTLY the same about each other in 1914. Indeed, many people on both sides did say exactly that.

Except that their ties were, if anything, rather stronger than the ties between the US and China are today.

The parallels here with the events in the run up to The Great War are far greater than people seem to want to accept.

Sure, there are lots of differences too; but if history has taught us anything (and apparently it hasn't) it is that strong trade relations and a mutually advantageous peace, are not sufficient to prevent war.

Right, OK... Let me know when Adolph Jong-un invades and takes over China. I'll revisit that concern then.

I think you are getting your World War analogies confused. It's not Adolf Jong-Un we need to worry about; it's Kaiser Drumpf.