Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

The Norks have a lot of SPGs too, which technically can also "shoot and scoot".  I mean, if they're just trying for maximum havoc and not accurate battery fire, they can fire 3-4 shells as fast as they can load them, scoot 400 meters down the road, and do it again.  And the embunkered fixed guns are going to require more than artillery shells to take out.  You pretty much need bombs for those.  

[DasBroot]

The world could recognise North Korea's legitimacy.  The US could unconditionally withdraw all troops from South Asia and swear they'll never return.  Russia and China could sign formal unconditional mutual defense pacts with Kim, including intervention in civil matters if needed should a rebellion rise up.

 

It wouldn't matter.

 

He's still going to build that bomb.  To prove he can and because it sets him apart - elevates him, in his own mind - from every other country with a chip on it's shoulder.

 

And he's not going to stop at one.

[Sociotard]

He'll get the bomb, but he might be less likely to use it. For that matter, he has the bomb already, so its a moot point. I just don't feel like "the same thing we've done for 60 years, only harder" is an informed decision at this point.

[Lawnmower Boy]

He'll get the bomb, but he might be less likely to use it. For that matter, he has the bomb already, so its a moot point. I just don't feel like "the same thing we've done for 60 years, only harder" is an informed decision at this point.

What if you make a really determined expression while you do it, and maybe grunt?

[Cassandra]

He'll get the bomb, but he might be less likely to use it. For that matter, he has the bomb already, so its a moot point. I just don't feel like "the same thing we've done for 60 years, only harder" is an informed decision at this point.

 

The difference North Korea will get weapons which puts the U.S. at risk.

 

The consequences of a North Korea conventional attack on Seoul would be nothing compared to the consequences of a North Korea attack on the United States.

[Sociotard]

That attack only happens if the US provokes it.

 

I know NK looks wacky, but if you filter it through a mindset of "our existence has always been threatened by the USA", they are very rational. They don't have enough nukes to neutralize the US as an enemy. They certainly don't have enough to neutralize the US and its allies, some of whom are right next to NK, and have US forces stationed there.  But even a few nukes, with enough of a strike range, can deter the US.  MAD works.

[Tech priest support]

The Republicans will cause trouble with NK so they can blame Democrats like Obama and Clinton (not bush) for not stopping NK earlier. They want to create a new boogie man to scare people into voting for them. So next year it'll be ''vote Republican or north Korea will murder you!!! ''

[Ternaugh]

The Republicans will cause trouble with NK so they can blame Democrats like Obama and Clinton (not bush) for not stopping NK earlier. They want to create a new boogie man to scare people into voting for them. So next year it'll be ''vote Republican or north Korea will murder you!!! ''

 

[Lord Liaden]

What if you make a really determined expression while you do it, and maybe grunt?

 

Works for Dragonball.

[Michael Hopcroft]

These guys had a TV show -- on Saturday Morning. Think on that for a second.

[Lord Liaden]

He'll get the bomb, but he might be less likely to use it. For that matter, he has the bomb already, so its a moot point. I just don't feel like "the same thing we've done for 60 years, only harder" is an informed decision at this point.

 

The irony is, the rhetoric coming out of North Korea really hasn't changed in decades. This is the same sort of saber Kim Jong Un's father and grandfather rattled, which in the past eventually led to them getting at least some of what they wanted. The situation was never allowed to get to the point of proving whether any of the Kims were actually serious. But now for the first time, similar rhetoric is coming out of Washington.

[DShomshak]

That attack only happens if the US provokes it.

 

I know NK looks wacky, but if you filter it through a mindset of "our existence has always been threatened by the USA", they are very rational. They don't have enough nukes to neutralize the US as an enemy. They certainly don't have enough to neutralize the US and its allies, some of whom are right next to NK, and have US forces stationed there.  But even a few nukes, with enough of a strike range, can deter the US.  MAD works.

That's what every expert that's appeared on All Things Considered or BBC World Service has said. (Sans comment on MAD.) See also the extended article in a recent New Yorker. The reporter also encountered many North Korean officials asking him how to interpret Trump -- asking if he really is crazy or just acting that way as a gambit.

 

The problem with deterring the US is that I am not convinced that Trump, or some of the people backing him, would not welcome a nuclear attack on, say, Seattle, Portland or Los Angeles. The result would be to kill a hundred thousand liberals and give an excuse for martial law in which all political opposition can be crushed, once and for all.

 

I know that is raving paranoia. It's insane. But so is electing a real estate promoter/game show host/sexual predator. Normal standards of possibility seem shaky.

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

The irony is, the rhetoric coming out of North Korea really hasn't changed in decades. This is the same sort of saber Kim Jong Un's father and grandfather rattled, which in the past eventually led to them getting at least some of what they wanted. The situation was never allowed to get to the point of proving whether any of the Kims were actually serious. But now for the first time, similar rhetoric is coming out of Washington.

The expert interviewed on ATC even mentione that The Onion parodied this NK trope, way back when. Something like, "Kim Jong Il Sees Sun Rise, Calls It Declaration of War."

 

Dean Shomshak

[Michael Hopcroft]

The problem with deterring the US is that I am not convinced that Trump, or some of the people backing him, would not welcome a nuclear attack on, say, Seattle, Portland or Los Angeles. The result would be to kill a hundred thousand liberals and give an excuse for martial law in which all political opposition can be crushed, once and for all.

 

I know that is raving paranoia. It's insane. But so is electing a real estate promoter/game show host/sexual predator. Normal standards of possibility seem shaky.

 

 

I can do you one better in the paranoia front. What if they decide to have the USA nuke itself and then claim NK did it? It's terrifying that I can even imagine such a thing.

[BoloOfEarth]

I can do you one better in the paranoia front. What if they decide to have the USA nuke itself and then claim NK did it? It's terrifying that I can even imagine such a thing.

 

While certain members of the administration may be crazy-pants, what you're suggesting would also mean key members of the military would have to be similarly inclined.  While our toddler-in-chief can order the use of nukes, he can't simply re-target them himself.  Saner, more capable heads would have to handle that task, and I'm pretty confident that's an order that wouldn't be followed.  So I think you can safely put such paranoid fears to rest.

[Tech priest support]

It would not be a nuke deployed by the military on trump's order. It would be a nuke made off the record and planted in America, probably in a liberal dominated area. Like new York or California, and detonated to claim it was a terrorist attack and let the government pull a power grab that would make the abominable ''patriot act'' look trivial.

[Sociotard]

The one thing that makes me uneasy, is if NK sold one of their nukes to a terror group, or even a government that couldn't secure them well enough.  These sanctions are making it harder to make ends meet in a responsible way . . . 

[Ranxerox]

It would not be a nuke deployed by the military on trump's order. It would be a nuke made off the record and planted in America, probably in a liberal dominated area. Like new York or California, and detonated to claim it was a terrorist attack and let the government pull a power grab that would make the abominable ''patriot act'' look trivial.

 

Trump and his people aren't competent enough to pull something like this.  Really, they would be reporting on the plot on the front page Washington Post before it got out of the spitballing phase, and since nothing would have actually have happened yet, the Trump administration would successfully play off as some poor taste joking.  Then Trump would hold a rally and ask if the joke was really in all that poor of taste.  His audience would assure him that no not really.  There might be some chanting of "Blow them up! Blow them up!"

[Tech priest support]

I wish that would happen. It might get more people voting next time.

[Lord Liaden]

With all the focus on North Korea in the American media, the ongoing negotiations to revise NAFTA have largely been overlooked. I wouldn't be surprised if that was deliberately planned -- Donald Trump has long had a habit of starting controversy over one issue to divert attention from another.

 

However, other maneuvers have been going on related to those negotiations. You may not have heard that this week, the Trump administration slapped a 219% tariff on Canadian vehicle manufacturer Bombardier, claiming unfair subsidies by the Canadian government. American aerospace giant Boeing had been asking for 80%, so this number caught everyone by surprise.

 

Here's a Canadian perspective on the American international trade situation: Trump was looking for a trade war. Now he has one.

[DasBroot]

The one thing that makes me uneasy, is if NK sold one of their nukes to a terror group, or even a government that couldn't secure them well enough.  These sanctions are making it harder to make ends meet in a responsible way . . . 

 

This is my greatest sense of unease as well - though I have my concerns that *North Korea* could secure them well enough.  I've never really been concerned that they'll nuke Seoul or Guam pre-emptively - though honestly I am not sure these days if we'd be 'allowed' to retaliate with military force (to disarm and disable, not invade) even if they did.

 

And once he's making multiple nukes per year (seriously, won't stop at one) selling a few might look appealing.

 

As for the 'false flag' suitcase nuke? In addition to what Ranxerox said don't every countries (or even places within a country) radioactive materials (enriched uranium) have their own unique signature because nobody shares the exact details of their enrichment process?

 

edit: Thank you, professor Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_forensics

 

Somebody would talk.  We live in a society where people who blow the lid off of government schemes or practices in any way shape or form get movies made about them.  To be the person who 'saved the world'? People recruited for this scheme would be climbing over each other to get to the media.

[Hermit]

Trump cannot open his damn mouth about Puerto Rico without mentioning the debt crisis there. *Sigh*

 

It seems to show to me where his priorities clearly are. 

[Old Man]

I especially like how he has to be publicly shamed into doing the bare minimum to support the recovery effort, and clearly has no interest in even knowing what the situation is outside of his failed golf course.

 

Fortunately there are private relief efforts underway but it can't possibly make up for the lack of federal leadership.

[Ternaugh]

One of my co-workers pointed out that since Puerto Rico doesn't actually vote for presidents, Trump has no incentive to help them.

[DShomshak]

Yesterday's All Things Considered had a rather grim story about the investigation of Russian "fake news" meddling in 2016. Whaddaya know, it's still going strong. With the flap over NFL players not standing for the National Anthem, Russia's trool farms and bots have been working overtime to flood Twitter and Facebook with incendiary messages aimed at both sides -- both hashtags TakeAKnee and BoycottNFL, for instance. As the reporter explained, the goal for sowing anger and division in American society is to force the country and government to turn its energies inward, too busy wrestling with itself to be effective abroad. If they can get actual blood-in-the-streets violence, wow, they've won big.

 

Makes me glad I have nothing to do with Facebook and Twitter.

 

Dean Shomshak