Saintsreport.com Forums
home Steve Gleasons Website
Saints Report News Saints Super Forum Everything Else Board Political Discussion Board Fantasy Football Board Tech Board SaintsReport Affiliate Merchandise Gameday Board Behind the Levee New Orleans Hornets Board Twitter Outdoor Boards Video Games Board Smack Board Music Board College Sports Board SR Live Chat Room Contribute to our site costs Become a subscribing SR member

Do you want to remove the ads? Support the site by becoming a subscribing member.


Go Back   New Orleans Saints - Saints Report - Message Boards > GENERAL > Political Discussion Board

Old 08-09-2017, 06:47 AM   #106
samiam5211
Super Forum Fanatic
 
samiam5211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Age: 39
Posts: 5,821
samiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
samiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersamiam5211 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennan77 View Post
You seem to be assigning a level of rationality that has never been exhibited. I certainly would not say that Trump is not a problem. But I also wouldn't say that he is the problem in this situation.

Actually rationality has been exhibited. North Korea wanting a nuclear weapon is exceptionally rational.

He may be depraved and sadistic, but there isn't any reason to assume Kim isn't rational.

Trump is the problem because he can't help but escalate the situation. Trump is the one who is irrational. There isn't any reason for the US to talk tough to North Korea. There isn't any reason to think that tough talk is going to get any sort of desirable outcome for the United States. Tough talk is what a child does when he wants to avoid a fight.
__________________
Trump loves the poorly educated.
samiam5211 is offline Reply With Quote


4 out of 8 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 07:35 AM   #107
Brennan77
Welcome to Thunderdome

 
Brennan77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Irish Channel
Age: 36
Posts: 44,455
Brennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Brennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club MemberBrennan77 Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiam5211 View Post
Actually rationality has been exhibited. North Korea wanting a nuclear weapon is exceptionally rational.

He may be depraved and sadistic, but there isn't any reason to assume Kim isn't rational.

Trump is the problem because he can't help but escalate the situation. Trump is the one who is irrational. There isn't any reason for the US to talk tough to North Korea. There isn't any reason to think that tough talk is going to get any sort of desirable outcome for the United States. Tough talk is what a child does when he wants to avoid a fight.
You might be correct. One could argue that there's nothing irrational, per se, about psychopathic behavior.

Still, who's the real problem here? I think in this case, you can have your cake and eat it too. You have plenty of room to criticize Trump, which is easy and apparently entertaining, while also acknowledging that he didn't create this situation with North Korea.


Last edited by Brennan77; 08-09-2017 at 08:10 AM.
Brennan77 is online now Reply With Quote


1 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 07:38 AM   #108
superchuck500
in the upside-down

 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Age: 44
Posts: 37,441
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiam5211 View Post
There isn't really anything we can do that could avoid NK wiping out Seoul if a military conflict happened.

North Korea isn't a true threat. It will never be in their interests to use a nuclear weapon. They only want the weapon as a bargaining chip.

Trump is the problem at the moment. He needs to stop escalating the situation.

Their nukes aren't really a bargaining chip, they're a deterrent against invasion. They believe it is the one thing that will finally take the invasion/overthrow/reunite-the-penninsula off the table. It's classic deterrent and entirely rational.
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


4 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:20 AM   #109
superchuck500
in the upside-down

 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Age: 44
Posts: 37,441
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Trump's threat was poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Most centrally, is that it puts him in a box. His threat of "fire and fury" was not based on DPRK action, but rather based on DPRK threats of action. Well, they threatened just hours later.

So what does Trump do now? Obviously he does nothing. So if the point was to prove that the US is willing to make baseless threats and engage in machismo saber rattling, I suppose it was a success. Otherwise, it was a failure from the moment he uttered it.

Quote:
Yesterday, President Trump took a break from his 17-day vacation to threaten North Korea. His words:

North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state. And as I said, they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.

This threat was a response to a continuing series of provocations by North Korea. However, it only took a couple of hours for North Korea to respond — by escalating their threats. North Korea’s official news agency reported a couple of hours later that Pyongyang was “threatening” missile strikes near Guam, where the U.S. has several military bases.

This faces the U.S. with a problem. U.S. leaders have traditionally been careful with their language, especially when dealing with nuclear powers, and for good reason. If the U.S. cares about its credibility, then it only wants to make threats that it will deliver on. Now, North Korea has effectively called Trump’s bluff. If the U.S. responds as Trump has promised, it will mark a very dangerous escalation. If the U.S. does not respond, then Trump’s credibility — and perhaps U.S. credibility — will be damaged.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.27d4f8120a40
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


3 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:22 AM   #110
RKNSaint
Pro-Bowler
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
RKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to behold
RKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
Their nukes aren't really a bargaining chip, they're a deterrent against invasion. They believe it is the one thing that will finally take the invasion/overthrow/reunite-the-penninsula off the table. It's classic deterrent and entirely rational.
Sorry...I don't follow you on this. Is there really anyone who would want to invade NK? Overthrow? I can kinda of see that scenario. Especially, if he keeps up the threats. Maybe there is and it is a true fear they have. A nuclear capable NK surely seems a real bargaining chip to me.

In the end what does this guy really want? Does he even know? And if the world were to give it to him would he even be satisfied?

Coworker of mine recommends we leave Korea and let the region figure out a way to deal with him. Seems far fetched but would be an interesting move. SK / others in the region (Japan) have economies that if directed towards defense could deal with it. Heck, Samsung could probably foot the bill.

Edit to add that I agree that Trump countering the rhetoric with rhetoric isn't a helpful move. I think some may view it as standing up to a bully but there is no real upside to it. The end game isn't acceptable to any rational person. However, ignoring the guy as recommended by Russia and China while he continues to up his capability doesn't seem to be a good strategy either.
RKNSaint is offline Reply With Quote


Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:25 AM   #111
efil4stnias
ppfffffttttt
 
efil4stnias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Madisonville
Age: 47
Posts: 25,553
efil4stnias has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
Trump's threat was poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Most centrally, is that it puts him in a box. His threat of "fire and fury" was not based on DPRK action, but rather based on DPRK threats of action. Well, they threatened just hours later.

So what does Trump do now? Obviously he does nothing. So if the point was to prove that the US is willing to make baseless threats and engage in machismo saber rattling, I suppose it was a success. Otherwise, it was a failure from the moment he uttered it.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.27d4f8120a40
ever witness a "near fight"?

Where one guy has friends that are "holding him back" and notice how the verbal barbs increase in number and severity?

I just hope the friends dont step out the way here.
__________________
1987 Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four F's and one D: "Son, looks to me like you're spending too much time on one subject."
efil4stnias is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:31 AM   #112
superchuck500
in the upside-down

 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Age: 44
Posts: 37,441
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKNSaint View Post
Sorry...I don't follow you on this. Is there really anyone who would want to invade NK? Overthrow? I can kinda of see that scenario. Especially, if he keeps up the threats. Maybe there is and it is a true fear they have. A nuclear capable NK surely seems a real bargaining chip to me.

In the end what does this guy really want? Does he even know? And if the world were to give it to him would he even be satisfied?

Coworker of mine recommends we leave Korea and let the region figure out a way to deal with him. Seems far fetched but would be an interesting move. SK / others in the region (Japan) have economies that if directed towards defense could deal with it. Heck, Samsung could probably foot the bill.

What are you suggesting he's trying to bargain for? The number one objective of any government is self-preservation. The DPRK is a nation that is not even 65 years old and formally still at war. It is a global pariah. It believes that the West, led by the United States, wishes to eliminate it in favor of a reunited Korean Peninsula under Seoul's government.

The DPRK's entire military strategy is to make losses too great for any invader, whether it be ROK or a US-led force. But without ICBM capability, the DPRK's deterrent is based on casualties in the ROK - and while those are human beings, they aren't Americans and it is not unrealistic of them to conclude that until American lives are at risk, the US could determine that loss of life in South Korea is acceptable to eliminate a threat against US interests.

The deterrent strategy is not fully realized until DPRK can deliver unacceptable American losses. The idea that they would acquire this capability - which they deem existential - and then bargain it away (and for what) has never been reasonably stated.
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


3 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:34 AM   #113
superchuck500
in the upside-down

 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Age: 44
Posts: 37,441
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by efil4stnias View Post
ever witness a "near fight"?

Where one guy has friends that are "holding him back" and notice how the verbal barbs increase in number and severity?

I just hope the friends dont step out the way here.

I have also witnesses a near fight where one of the fighters is small, loud, and insecure - and the other is asymmetrically more powerful. Usually, the bigger guy recognizes that the little guy is being stupid and that a fight is not going to end well for the little guy . . . and so the big guy stands there quietly or calmly suggests to the little guy's friends that he's going to get his *** whipped. Unless the big guy is just an *******.
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


6 out of 6 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:35 AM   #114
RKNSaint
Pro-Bowler
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
RKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to behold
RKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
Trump's threat was poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Most centrally, is that it puts him in a box. His threat of "fire and fury" was not based on DPRK action, but rather based on DPRK threats of action. Well, they threatened just hours later.

So what does Trump do now? Obviously he does nothing. So if the point was to prove that the US is willing to make baseless threats and engage in machismo saber rattling, I suppose it was a success. Otherwise, it was a failure from the moment he uttered it.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.27d4f8120a40

Ideally, Trump chooses silence while the world figures out what to do with NK. Time will tell if it was a baseless threat. Much bigger issues I wish the President could focus on but you can't just ignore NK and let them continue to gain capability to destroy us.

Why can't the US, China, Japan, Russia & SKorea huddle up and come up with a plan to disarm this guy. Certainly an armed madman threatening world destruction is something they can agree on and come up with a plan to deal with him.
RKNSaint is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:45 AM   #115
tomwaits
Frontier Psychiatrist
 
tomwaits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pflugerville, TX
Age: 42
Posts: 14,063
tomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Club
tomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Clubtomwaits 40K Burger Club
I think a lot of you guys have it right that N. Korea leadership wants a nuke to protect their own power. They are not looking to do any first strikes, they are looking to avoid regime change. The US has shown that it is in the regime change business, and N. Korea is trying to do what it can to avoid being the next target of the US military.

N. Korea's "threats" are basically saying don't come regime change us, and if you do, we have nothing to lose, so we will take as many of you with us as we can on our way out. They know regime change means they all die, so to them, every military solution is a "nuclear" solution. That could mean launching actual nuclear weapons at whatever targets they can hit with their current tech, or it could mean using as much artillery as possible on Seoul before they are destroyed. Seoul metro is 25 million+ people.
I have read that N. Korea often watches footage of Ceaușescu's fall in Romania to remind their military leaders that if they fail, they will all be killed in the same way.

Tillerson and Trump's posturing and stating that they are done talking with N. Korea and ending the policy on "strategic patience" is fuel for N' Korea's leaders to show their military that they are right in their assessment that the US wants a regime change and they need to expand their military power as much as possible to avoid the firing squad.

The goal here should be preventing a lot of people from being killed. US military action will do the opposite of that. I am not ok with a million South Korean's dying and the US responding with, "Yeah, but at least they weren't Americans."
__________________
Take apart your nightmares and leave them by the door.
tomwaits is offline Reply With Quote


8 out of 8 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:46 AM   #116
not2rich
NO State of Mind
 
not2rich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Denver
Age: 49
Posts: 6,538
not2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Member
not2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
What are you suggesting he's trying to bargain for? The number one objective of any government is self-preservation. The DPRK is a nation that is not even 65 years old and formally still at war. It is a global pariah. It believes that the West, led by the United States, wishes to eliminate it in favor of a reunited Korean Peninsula under Seoul's government.

The DPRK's entire military strategy is to make losses too great for any invader, whether it be ROK or a US-led force. But without ICBM capability, the DPRK's deterrent is based on casualties in the ROK - and while those are human beings, they aren't Americans and it is not unrealistic of them to conclude that until American lives are at risk, the US could determine that loss of life in South Korea is acceptable to eliminate a threat against US interests.

The deterrent strategy is not fully realized until DPRK can deliver unacceptable American losses. The idea that they would acquire this capability - which they deem existential - and then bargain it away (and for what) has never been reasonably stated.
All Trump's blustering and tough talk, or more serious discussion of "preventive" war - all of that simply confirms to NK the need to develop and maintain their deterrent capability.

Americans casually called Kim Jong Un "crazy," but although he is evil and paranoid, his primary objective is self-preservation. He is rational enough to know that NK military and nuclear capability can deter an attack, but also that attacking Seoul or the U.S. without provocation would result in annihilation.

He wouldn't do that - unless convinced the U.S. intended to strike NK first.

The cost of a so-called "preventive" war is simply unacceptable to eliminate a risk that NK would launch an attack that would be entirely against their self-interest. It would be more productive and safe for the U.S. to simply develop a robust missile defense system.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoweigh View Post
Because someone is wrong on the internet and it gets my jimmies rustled.
not2rich is offline Reply With Quote


Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:50 AM   #117
not2rich
NO State of Mind
 
not2rich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Denver
Age: 49
Posts: 6,538
not2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Member
not2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Membernot2rich Prestigious Diamond Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomwaits View Post
The goal here should be preventing a lot of people from being killed. US military action will do the opposite of that. I am not ok with a million South Korean's dying and the US responding with, "Yeah, but at least they weren't Americans."
That's a callous calculation, for sure, but don't forget there are over a hundred thousand American service members and civilians living S. Korea.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoweigh View Post
Because someone is wrong on the internet and it gets my jimmies rustled.
not2rich is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 09:50 AM   #118
RKNSaint
Pro-Bowler
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
RKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to behold
RKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to beholdRKNSaint is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
What are you suggesting he's trying to bargain for? The number one objective of any government is self-preservation. The DPRK is a nation that is not even 65 years old and formally still at war. It is a global pariah. It believes that the West, led by the United States, wishes to eliminate it in favor of a reunited Korean Peninsula under Seoul's government.

The DPRK's entire military strategy is to make losses too great for any invader, whether it be ROK or a US-led force. But without ICBM capability, the DPRK's deterrent is based on casualties in the ROK - and while those are human beings, they aren't Americans and it is not unrealistic of them to conclude that until American lives are at risk, the US could determine that loss of life in South Korea is acceptable to eliminate a threat against US interests.

The deterrent strategy is not fully realized until DPRK can deliver unacceptable American losses. The idea that they would acquire this capability - which they deem existential - and then bargain it away (and for what) has never been reasonably stated.
I am catching up to what you are describing. Your last paragraph makes complete sense. My idea of a bargaining chip meant it brings everyone to his table but in no way (as he has stated) does he put his nuclear capability on the table.

Back to what he really wants. If deterrent to a united peninsula is his sole concern then we should state that an invasion/united peninsula is not of US concern. We are ok with letting them rot in their miserable existence as is. A seemingly very capable (agree on the untested part) nuclear armed regime making threats is still an issue. That can't be ignored and has to be dealt with.

To me it distills down to (A) What does this guy really want? (B) Can the world give it to him? (C) Stop the threats to the US.
RKNSaint is offline Reply With Quote


Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 10:01 AM   #119
nolaspe
Bury me in smoke...
 
nolaspe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,283
nolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Member
nolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Membernolaspe Prestigious Diamond Club Member
Looks like Mattis and Kelly have their work cut out for them...


__________________
"It's not about the blocked punt or the ring, it's about what you're gonna do when you walk out of this room," - Steve Gleason “Mustang Three-Actual, this is Mustang Six. Good news, brother: Your Saints just won the Super Bowl.”
nolaspe is online now Reply With Quote


Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 08-09-2017, 10:09 AM   #120
superchuck500
in the upside-down

 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mt. Pleasant, SC
Age: 44
Posts: 37,441
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Diamond Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKNSaint View Post
I am catching up to what you are describing. Your last paragraph makes complete sense. My idea of a bargaining chip meant it brings everyone to his table but in no way (as he has stated) does he put his nuclear capability on the table.

Back to what he really wants. If deterrent to a united peninsula is his sole concern then we should state that an invasion/united peninsula is not of US concern. We are ok with letting them rot in their miserable existence as is. A seemingly very capable (agree on the untested part) nuclear armed regime making threats is still an issue. That can't be ignored and has to be dealt with.

To me it distills down to (A) What does this guy really want? (B) Can the world give it to him? (C) Stop the threats to the US.

As far as I'm aware, every time that Pyongyang "threatens" the US, it is premised upon a US attack on the DPRK. In other words, every instance is based on "we will do X, if you try to attack us".

Is that really a threat?
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.



Saintsreport.com - New Orleans Saints News, Info & Community! All marks, logos and images related to the Saints are the property of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL and NFL Properties. We are in no way affiliated with the New Orleans Saints or the NFL. All commentary and original artwork, ©1997-2016 SaintsReport.com, owned and operated by Andrus Whitewing, DBA Saints Report,LLC. All rights reserved. Copying of original columns prohibited without a return link and credit given. Teasing articles is ok.



Some of the Photos and pictures used throughout the site are copyright © Michael C. Hebert and are used with the permission of Michael C. Hebert and the New Orleans Saints.