RugbyRebels

Bumping

Lizard wrote:If a loony like Trump did Nuke NK at least the rest of the world, and the US once it's got rid of him, could plausibly deny they had anything to do with it. Trump could be sold down the river as a War Crim without it tarnishing anyone else too much (the chain of command might have to be sacrificed as well). This is arguably a small price to pay for getting rid of one more nuclear-armed lunatic.

China will not start a general war over DPRK. It would be bad for business and China will be as relieved as the rest of is that the problem is gone.

This all assumes that the smoking remnants of DPRK are quickly annexed to either SK or China and the power vacuum is not seized by someone else in the current regime.

Telegraph sensitive military information by twitter, preferably in a first person narrative style, that's what a real leader would do. What. The. Fuck?

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:Does one reward perhaps the world's cruelest dictatorship?

It's not quite that simple though, is it?

No it's not. But it's also not as simple as saying we need to get in there and talk and try to trade with them, both relating to North Korea and not

How about starting with not stimulating their annihilation on their fucking border. The idea that the regime is crazy is a propaganda myth. Like every other autocratic regime, they seek regime survival as priority number one. That means that they will never give up on their quest for nuclear deterrent.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

It's not quite that simple though, is it?

No it's not. But it's also not as simple as saying we need to get in there and talk and try to trade with them, both relating to North Korea and not

How about starting with not stimulating their annihilation on their fucking border. The idea that the regime is crazy is a propaganda myth. Like every other autocratic regime, they seek regime survival as priority number one. That means that they will never give up on their quest for nuclear deterrent.

The NK regime is full on crazy when considering their impact on their country as a whole. I wasn't I confess judging their behaviour by a desperate attempt to protect their own indulgent luxuriated positions. Odd as an aside you'd suddenly be on the side of what's a tiny elite, where's the love for the ordinary working slaves of NK? Or would you consider the idea of those NK penal work camps also propaganda? And even if you want to ignore the working slaves of NK, and you'd be a sick bastard to want to do that, what of the normal workers who've not yet been sent to a work camp?

Off topic I know but why are the official names of all these 1 party/1 family rule dictatorship countries always something like
'The Peoples Democratic Republic of ........' when they are neither democratic or run by the people?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
No it's not. But it's also not as simple as saying we need to get in there and talk and try to trade with them, both relating to North Korea and not

How about starting with not stimulating their annihilation on their fucking border. The idea that the regime is crazy is a propaganda myth. Like every other autocratic regime, they seek regime survival as priority number one. That means that they will never give up on their quest for nuclear deterrent.

The NK regime is full on crazy when considering their impact on their country as a whole. I wasn't I confess judging their behaviour by a desperate attempt to protect their own indulgent luxuriated positions. Odd as an aside you'd suddenly be on the side of what's a tiny elite, where's the love for the ordinary working slaves of NK? Or would you consider the idea of those NK penal work camps also propaganda? And even if you want to ignore the working slaves of NK, and you'd be a sick bastard to want to do that, what of the normal workers who've not yet been sent to a work camp?

The closest synonym to crazy is insane.¹ This is therefore clearly a question of rationality and not morality. There is no doubt that the regime is horribly cruel and immoral (so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against this strawman, I'd never try to dispute that). Regarding the rationality of the regime however, it is clearly rational and not irrational as per the 'crazy' propaganda myth. It is clear that their aggressive behaviour is a calculated response to external adversarialism, a response that succeeds in mobilizing support for the regime among the population.² The reason that I argue in favour of trading with them over aggressive warmongering is that I believe firmly that soft power is more effective in changing behaviour than hard power. In fact is is clear that NK's main propaganda theme, 'juche' (self-reliance), is strengthened by economic sanctions, not dispelled. In order to bring about progressive change, the propaganda of NK is what must be countered.


¹http://swoogle.umbc.edu/SimService/GetSimilarity
²Nikolay Anguelov, Economic Sanctions vs. Soft Power

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
How about starting with not stimulating their annihilation on their fucking border. The idea that the regime is crazy is a propaganda myth. Like every other autocratic regime, they seek regime survival as priority number one. That means that they will never give up on their quest for nuclear deterrent.

The NK regime is full on crazy when considering their impact on their country as a whole. I wasn't I confess judging their behaviour by a desperate attempt to protect their own indulgent luxuriated positions. Odd as an aside you'd suddenly be on the side of what's a tiny elite, where's the love for the ordinary working slaves of NK? Or would you consider the idea of those NK penal work camps also propaganda? And even if you want to ignore the working slaves of NK, and you'd be a sick bastard to want to do that, what of the normal workers who've not yet been sent to a work camp?

The closest synonym to crazy is insane.¹ This is therefore clearly a question of rationality and not morality. There is no doubt that the regime is horribly cruel and immoral (so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against this strawman, I'd never try to dispute that). Regarding the rationality of the regime however, it is clearly rational and not irrational as per the 'crazy' propaganda myth. It is clear that their aggressive behaviour is a calculated response to external adversarialism, a response that succeeds in mobilizing support for the regime among the population.² The reason that I argue in favour of trading with them over aggressive warmongering is that I believe firmly that soft power is more effective in changing behaviour than hard power. In fact is is clear that NK's main propaganda theme, 'juche' (self-reliance), is strengthened by economic sanctions, not dispelled. In order to bring about progressive change, the propaganda of NK is what must be countered.

I doubt there's much support for the current regime, rather we'd find people who've never considered there's an alternative and people to afraid to try (and not just for themselves but for their family). Also crazy comes with more than one possible meaning, rather than looking up what the closest synonym is (how's that decided anyway?) one might consider it'd mean something akin to unsound.

Soft power as an influence, well yes, but what does that do for instances other than NK where one might want to apply curbs and have others say well you traded/negotiated with NK. It's a possible way to go, but it's not without serious flaws also

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
The NK regime is full on crazy when considering their impact on their country as a whole. I wasn't I confess judging their behaviour by a desperate attempt to protect their own indulgent luxuriated positions. Odd as an aside you'd suddenly be on the side of what's a tiny elite, where's the love for the ordinary working slaves of NK? Or would you consider the idea of those NK penal work camps also propaganda? And even if you want to ignore the working slaves of NK, and you'd be a sick bastard to want to do that, what of the normal workers who've not yet been sent to a work camp?

The closest synonym to crazy is insane.¹ This is therefore clearly a question of rationality and not morality. There is no doubt that the regime is horribly cruel and immoral (so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against this strawman, I'd never try to dispute that). Regarding the rationality of the regime however, it is clearly rational and not irrational as per the 'crazy' propaganda myth. It is clear that their aggressive behaviour is a calculated response to external adversarialism, a response that succeeds in mobilizing support for the regime among the population.² The reason that I argue in favour of trading with them over aggressive warmongering is that I believe firmly that soft power is more effective in changing behaviour than hard power. In fact is is clear that NK's main propaganda theme, 'juche' (self-reliance), is strengthened by economic sanctions, not dispelled. In order to bring about progressive change, the propaganda of NK is what must be countered.

I doubt there's much support for the current regime, rather we'd find people who've never considered there's an alternative and people to afraid to try (and not just for themselves but for their family). Also crazy comes with more than one possible meaning, rather than looking up what the closest synonym is (how's that decided anyway?) one might consider it'd mean something akin to unsound.

Soft power as an influence, well yes, but what does that do for instances other than NK where one might want to apply curbs and have others say well you traded/negotiated with NK. It's a possible way to go, but it's not without serious flaws also

The flaw with trading with them is you have to pay for their mineral wealth, and can't just extract it yourself. Geostrategy is intimately tied to geography, and it is a geographic/geologic fact that North Korea has the largest deposits of rare-earth metals of anywhere in the world. That mineral wealth worth trillions of dollars combined with its border with both Russia and China makes it a prime target for the two foremost geostrategic aims of the USA at the moment - containment of China/Russia, and extraction of natural resources. The question the world faces at the moment is will the USA risk global nuclear horror in order to achieve these geostrategic goals.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The closest synonym to crazy is insane.¹ This is therefore clearly a question of rationality and not morality. There is no doubt that the regime is horribly cruel and immoral (so I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against this strawman, I'd never try to dispute that). Regarding the rationality of the regime however, it is clearly rational and not irrational as per the 'crazy' propaganda myth. It is clear that their aggressive behaviour is a calculated response to external adversarialism, a response that succeeds in mobilizing support for the regime among the population.² The reason that I argue in favour of trading with them over aggressive warmongering is that I believe firmly that soft power is more effective in changing behaviour than hard power. In fact is is clear that NK's main propaganda theme, 'juche' (self-reliance), is strengthened by economic sanctions, not dispelled. In order to bring about progressive change, the propaganda of NK is what must be countered.

I doubt there's much support for the current regime, rather we'd find people who've never considered there's an alternative and people to afraid to try (and not just for themselves but for their family). Also crazy comes with more than one possible meaning, rather than looking up what the closest synonym is (how's that decided anyway?) one might consider it'd mean something akin to unsound.

Soft power as an influence, well yes, but what does that do for instances other than NK where one might want to apply curbs and have others say well you traded/negotiated with NK. It's a possible way to go, but it's not without serious flaws also

The flaw with trading with them is you have to pay for their mineral wealth, and can't just extract it yourself. Geostrategy is intimately tied to geography, and it is a geographic/geologic fact that North Korea has the largest deposits of rare-earth metals of anywhere in the world. That mineral wealth worth trillions of dollars combined with its border with both Russia and China makes it a prime target for the two foremost geostrategic aims of the USA at the moment - containment of China/Russia, and extraction of natural resources. The question the world faces at the moment is will the USA risk global nuclear horror in order to achieve these geostrategic goals.

The other slight flaw in trading with them is you'd be trading with some disgusting people. Though we do trade with the Saudis

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I doubt there's much support for the current regime, rather we'd find people who've never considered there's an alternative and people to afraid to try (and not just for themselves but for their family). Also crazy comes with more than one possible meaning, rather than looking up what the closest synonym is (how's that decided anyway?) one might consider it'd mean something akin to unsound.

Soft power as an influence, well yes, but what does that do for instances other than NK where one might want to apply curbs and have others say well you traded/negotiated with NK. It's a possible way to go, but it's not without serious flaws also

The flaw with trading with them is you have to pay for their mineral wealth, and can't just extract it yourself. Geostrategy is intimately tied to geography, and it is a geographic/geologic fact that North Korea has the largest deposits of rare-earth metals of anywhere in the world. That mineral wealth worth trillions of dollars combined with its border with both Russia and China makes it a prime target for the two foremost geostrategic aims of the USA at the moment - containment of China/Russia, and extraction of natural resources. The question the world faces at the moment is will the USA risk global nuclear horror in order to achieve these geostrategic goals.

The other slight flaw in trading with them is you'd be trading with some disgusting people. Though we do trade with the Saudis

You're even countering your own points. Saves me the effort I guess.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The flaw with trading with them is you have to pay for their mineral wealth, and can't just extract it yourself. Geostrategy is intimately tied to geography, and it is a geographic/geologic fact that North Korea has the largest deposits of rare-earth metals of anywhere in the world. That mineral wealth worth trillions of dollars combined with its border with both Russia and China makes it a prime target for the two foremost geostrategic aims of the USA at the moment - containment of China/Russia, and extraction of natural resources. The question the world faces at the moment is will the USA risk global nuclear horror in order to achieve these geostrategic goals.

The other slight flaw in trading with them is you'd be trading with some disgusting people. Though we do trade with the Saudis

You're even countering your own points. Saves me the effort I guess.

Ideally we'd trade less with the Saudis, not seek to build on our immorality

This in some ways sums up just how odd NK is

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/worl ... ml?mcubz=0

Ordinarily the US State Dept and the CIA have any number of sources they can talk to about leaders in a given country, in North Korea they have Rodman. Which also creates a problem for them knowing who to talk to, even if the US pick up a phone the chances they'd find anyone who wants to even remotely engage on reducing the nuclear programme is feck all. Basically the US is left with military options, or leaving it to China (and maybe Russia)

Sanctions are not and will not be the answer.

NK, just like any other nation should be able to, and allowed to defend themselves, but they've been absolute dicks about it. Have sanctions stopped them getting this far? No. Will further sanctions stop them further developing their nuclear defence? Again no.

Their people will suffer, but it's not as if there's many people in the sanction happy countries not already suffering in other ways at the hands of their own governments. Moot point at the end of the day.

The only way to avoid this pissing contest developing further is opening up a debate with NK. Ease some sanctions, allow some trade with the cessation of further nuclear and missile tests.

What NK is doing is no different from what any other nuclear enabled nation has done in building its deterrent.

If anyone is begging for war, it's the US with its resolute mindset to keep sanctioning with the knowledge that NK will keep responding and then the US will have no other choice but to drop a shit load of bombs on NK whilst convincing the world that they did everything they could to avoid conflict.

It's an interesting strategic conundrum. Assuming that the US (with or without allies) decides that DPRK needs to have its nukes forcibly removed, and assuming that China can be convinced to remain at least neutral, (not to mention putting aside the political aftermath) what would be the war plan?

I doubt the US could ever have confidence that some limited show of force intended to convince the current regime to disarm would not be met with disproportionate retaliation. So total defeat and "regime change" would seem to be necessary. Unless the US is willing to sacrifice South Korea (unlikely) it needs to find a way to disable the DPRK military within minutes to avoid Seoul being pulverised by conventional artillery. Despite the recent testing, this is a more realistic threat than nuclear attack on Japan or US territory by ICBM. So they need to take out the artillery which apparently amounts to thousands of guns near the border. Tactical "field" nukes might do the job, but deployment and delivery in sufficient numbers may be problematic.

I would love to see what plans exist for this.

I doubt there is anyplan which doesn't recognise th enormous risk to Seoul. There is some speculation that much of the weaponry th NK displays is obsolete and may not b effective, but enough will work to cause significant damage, even if NK troops don't surge south.

There is also the nightmare scenario that a nuke or two is missed and gets used. There is no guarantee that the defensive missile systems will actually take out an incoming missile.

The only solutions lie with China. Who Trump seems to praise one moment and insult the next.

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... es/537909/

Read that yesterday. Quite a read but I was wondering whether they would end up in shit for publishing it?

It's hard to argue with the gist of that article.

So, just as Irma hits Cuba, the Trump announces... he's extending the trade embargo on Cuba...

https://frontnews.eu/news/en/12759/Trum ... a-for-year

morepork wrote:It's hard to argue with the gist of that article.

The only reason he ran for presidency was to put 2 fingers up to Obama. Now he is there, he has no real policy, other than those ideas that Fox news might give him and some hazy shyte picked up from his boot lickers.

morepork wrote:It's hard to argue with the gist of that article.

Yep I agree, but it does come close to the line so I'm wondering if Trump's lawyers have looked at it.

I see Trump has said churches in Texas should get FEMA funds for opening their doors and helping people affected by Harvey.

Tax exempt organisations benefiting from tax dollars. How very Trump.

I wonder if the offer extends to non-christian organisations who helped?

WaspInWales wrote:I see Trump has said churches in Texas should get FEMA funds for opening their doors and helping people affected by Harvey.

Tax exempt organisations benefiting from tax dollars. How very Trump.

I wonder if the offer extends to non-christian organisations who helped?

Note also the complete radio silence over the big earthquake in Mexico.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -debt-deal

This is a big f'ck you to the Republicans. Strange.