- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mark Bowden (Black Hawk Down, Killing Pablo) piece on North Korea
Posted on 8/8/17 at 10:43 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 8/8/17 at 10:43 pm to Big Scrub TX
You actually posted something interesting. Read the whole thing. I don't know what the U.S. should do.
This post was edited on 8/8/17 at 10:48 pm
0
Posted on 8/8/17 at 10:54 pm to Big Scrub TX
Maybe the low cost option is to accept and occasionally send food. In that situation the only victims are the North Koreans...better than millions of south and North Koreans dying at a significant cost to the world?
Posted on 8/8/17 at 10:56 pm to Big Scrub TX
We will choose option 4.
Posted on 8/8/17 at 11:47 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
And, I think Trump should be given some credit in very openly encouraging/inviting China to do something about it, and letting the world see those results. And I don't think China even half-assed it this time, like they usually do.
It's just this young Kim Jong a-hole didn't get that his father and grandfather were largely bluffers, left in place by the Chicoms to be a thorn in the side of the West. Maybe he really believes the cult he's the head of?
We should disabuse the whole peninsula of that nonsense, once and for all. Move on to some other problems to solve.
I actually don't think so - I think Kim is rational to the point of being hyper-rational, if you're looking at it from a game theory perspective. They want us to believe the regime is a little (or even a lot) crazy, and they've been very deft at boxing liberal democracies into a corner.
I liked Bowden's article a lot, but let's be clear about a few things: this doesn't end without 1) a nuclear South Korea and Japan and 2) Chinese interdiction that will almost certainly necessitate trade-offs in other parts of the region.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:01 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
1) a nuclear South Korea and Japan and 2) Chinese interdiction that will almost certainly necessitate trade-offs in other parts of the region.
I definitely agree with Kim being hyper-rational, as he understands that a pre-emptive nuclear strike would signal the end of his regime. Robert Kelly said something interesting on twitter, where he compared the leadership of NK to a crime family, and the key to causing inter-faction division would be to cut off Chinese aid. While that seems a worthwhile strategy, without Chinese help I don't see it occurring.
If this does end in a nuclear SO and Japan, there would be five countries with nuclear weapons. That seems to be a massive concession from the Chinese, doesn't it? Their aspirations in the South China Sea would seem predicated on overwhelming the region as a whole, but the entrance of two new nuclear powers would certainly change that dynamic. It would seem very much in China's interest to avoid any more nuclear neighbors.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 12:02 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:20 am to AbuTheMonkey
So China makes us an offer we cant refuse. They take care of North Korea for us if we concede Taiwan and recognize China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. What do you do, Mr. President?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:22 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.
Any takers? This is where we are and will be
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:27 am to Jim Rockford
No. Tell China SOKO gets nukes and Japan gets THAAD unless they get on board dealing with NOKO.
They can install whatever puppet they like and we'll help with the humanitarian crisis.
We have have the cards. Not them.
They can install whatever puppet they like and we'll help with the humanitarian crisis.
We have have the cards. Not them.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:32 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
It would seem very much in China's interest to avoid any more nuclear neighbors.
China wants less competition in the region, less US presence, and also to not deal with the inevitable humanitarian crisis that would occur after a Korean conflict.
Tell them we will provide Japan and SOKO with the resources they need to have an equitable and meaningful deterrent to NOKO while sustaining our presence if they remain an issue.
It's almost a foolhardy bluff that would almost certainly end in catastrophy if China doesn't blink, but I do believe something is going to happen anyway without ambitious intervention. Nothing really lost in the attempt.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:35 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
If this does end in a nuclear SO and Japan, there would be five countries with nuclear weapons. That seems to be a massive concession from the Chinese, doesn't it? Their aspirations in the South China Sea would seem predicated on overwhelming the region as a whole, but the entrance of two new nuclear powers would certainly change that dynamic. It would seem very much in China's interest to avoid any more nuclear neighbors.
Whether Japan or SK become nuclear is our ultimate trump card for them.
I think they'll ask for a returned ROC and then they'll figure it out later. That is their supreme goal way above all else. I think they'll give in to SK and Japan eventually knowing that we'll have to give other concessions down the line. They know that SK and Japan were already de facto covered under alliances, anyway.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 12:38 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:57 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
AbuTheMonkey
You intrigue the shite out of me.
How did you come up with a hole in the wall restaurant in Florence a few months ago?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 2:58 am to asurob1
quote:
Time to beginning moving forces in the area. No one says a single bullet needs to be fired...but let fat kim see the team he is playing against.
Agreed, but fat boy hasn't taken any of the hints thats been sent his way thus far. Not when we flew a bomber from St. Louis over to his area and back in a day and not when we sent a carrier group towards the region. I have a friend who is currently deployed on his sub from the NW out that way, so the situation is definitely being monitored.
Do you think he just has that big of balls?
or
Do you think he is just basically standing behind China saying "hold me back bro"?
The little fricker is definitely a habitual line stepper, its just a matter of time until someone says "frick it, we are tired of listening to your shite"
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:22 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:Any set or subset of NK situational analyses exclusive of China is not "for serious adults on the matter".
Required reading for serious adults on the matter:
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 6:58 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 6:52 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
1) a nuclear South Korea and Japan
Well, certainly Japan. But, I'm concerned about China's reaction to that. Facing reality, China can delete Japan in about a quarter hour. Are they going to allow Japan to become a threat to them.
South Korea is a little more problematic. I'm not sure they have the infrastructure that Japan does - Japan can go nuclear with about 60 days notice (probably less). I think South Korea has a longer ramp.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:32 am to asurob1
quote:
So far he has shown that he isn't a very capable leader...
Pretty sure people are happy with his leadership. Obama, not so much
Posted on 8/9/17 at 7:35 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Let’s consider each option. All of them are bad.
If all of them are bad (and they are), you need to take the option that permanently removes the threat from the equation.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:13 pm to geauxbrown
quote:
5. Is the North Korea situation to convince our allies and partners in the region to build and enhance their militaries, specifically missile defense and naval forces(that they buy from American defense companies of course), to counterbalance China's growing military might.
Those weapon systems are full of "rare Earth elements ". The Chinese control quite a large chunk of those elements (estimated at 80+%). I don't see the Chinese agreeing to this.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 2:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Luckily, the article mentions China's crucial role numerous times.
Any set or subset of NK situational analyses exclusive of China is not "for serious adults on the matter".
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News