North Korea: What Next?

[Al_U_Card]

Trump and Tillerson have gutted the State Department - how can anyone expect any reasonable outcome when you eliminate all the grown-ups in the room and put the first graders in charge of the world?

That would be the same State Dept. that brought us Benghazi? Or was that just Hil in action? At least the 1st graders might try something new that could work. Teddy Roosevelt's big stick has not worked too well. Perhaps respect might be an option? Perhaps when you "know" what is "right" for others, it is a moot point?

[Winstonm]

Having first-graders in charge has worked so well that we now have North Korea threatening an atmospheric test of a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean, something that has not happened since 1980, not to mention that there exists the very real threat that any test could go horribly wrong and explode too close to South Korea or Japan, not to mention the fallout that will spread worldwide due to wind currents, all the while our tantrum-thrower-in-chief and his personal insults have been interpreted by North Korea as an attack on the country and North Korea has announced it would start shooting down American warplanes even if they were not in North Korean airspace - which they have done in the past.

 

Educated people are saying we are closer to nuclear war than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Here's a little aside to Donald Trump: You're no Jack Kennedy! That should terrify us all, including deluded Canadians.

[barmar]

Educated people are saying we are closer to nuclear war than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Here's a little aside to Donald Trump: You're no Jack Kennedy! That should terrify us all, including deluded Canadians.

He's not even a George W. Bush. It's hard to imagine that we have a President who makes me look back fondly on the foreign policy of both Bushes. Yeah, they got us into interminable wars in the Middle East, and probably precipitated the rise of ISIS, but these never seemed like they might result in an existential crisis.

[Zelandakh]

Educated people are saying we are closer to nuclear war than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Then they need to re-educate themselves. You and they are forgetting 1983. I doubt we are closer to nuclear war now than then.

 

And thinking of 1983, whatever happened to the SDI? A "star wars" style defence system would be rather useful right now. At the time it was written that we needed about 10 more years of research to make it feasible - that was 30 years ago! Perhaps someone should consider using some of that military budget Redspawn is so obsessed about to re-open that program or at the very least bump up the priority of its grandchild (the MDA).

[jjbrr]

Zel, THAAD?

[barmar]

And thinking of 1983, whatever happened to the SDI?

Detente and the breakup of the Soviet Union?

 

Even if NK has atomic bombs, it seems like it will be quite some time, if ever, before they'd have an arsenal comparable to Russia's, which is what Star Wars was intended to protect against. I'd also like to think that our defensive monitoring has improved significantly in the 3 decades since then.

[The_Badger]

And thinking of 1983, whatever happened to the SDI? A "star wars" style defence system would be rather useful right now.

 

It's quite incredible really that the world was made a safer place from nuclear attack in the 1980s by relying on the computer graphics of an appropriately-named Hollywood blockbuster and a bit of Reagan bluff.

 

And the latest about the current North Korean crisis is that Russian and North Korean diplomats have met in the last few days, and Vladimir Putin is urging the USA to 'back down' from a pre-emptive strike. Which prompts the question, why Russia and not China?

[Al_U_Card]

JFK, for all his peccadillos, was a genuine peace-maker during a time of hawkish belligerence. He is the main reason, on this side of the Atlantic, why we are not glowing piles of rubble.

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ugn2p

[Zelandakh]

Zel, THAAD?

The problem with this, as well as the arguably better Aegis system, is that it is designed to destroy missiles in their terminal phase rather than in boost, post-boost or midcourse. One of the key ideas of SDI was the ability to intercept ICBMs earlier than land-based systems can with a corresponding increase in safety and protection, particularly against the popular MIRV design.

[RedSpawn]

It's quite incredible really that the world was made a safer place from nuclear attack in the 1980s by relying on the computer graphics of an appropriately-named Hollywood blockbuster and a bit of Reagan bluff.

 

And the latest about the current North Korean crisis is that Russian and North Korean diplomats have met in the last few days, and Vladimir Putin is urging the USA to 'back down' from a pre-emptive strike. Which prompts the question, why Russia and not China?

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-limits-us-missile-defense-12503

 

Good article.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/take-north-korea-us-military-capabilities-pacific/?page=3

 

It's important to see our military capabilities with all the overtures for war that have been made.

[Zelandakh]

It's important to see our military capabilities

Why? Can't we take it as read that the US has pretty decent military hardware?

[jjbrr]

I, for one, hope we never have to see the US military capabilities.

[barmar]

Why? Can't we take it as read that the US has pretty decent military hardware?

Indeed, everyone knows the US has the most powerful military in the world. I think the point of that slide show is just to emphasize how much of it is deployed in the Pacific, sitting ready for NK to do something stupid.

 

The problem may be that Kim has so much hate and hubris that it's not really a deterrent.

[Winstonm]

Indeed, everyone knows the US has the most powerful military in the world. I think the point of that slide show is just to emphasize how much of it is deployed in the Pacific, sitting ready for NK to do something stupid.

 

The problem may be that Kim has so much hate and hubris that it's not really a deterrent.

 

Or it may be that he is being painted as having so much hate and hubris that we really don't know the truth about him.

 

It was only about 10 years ago or so the hawks were also up in arms about the "madman" Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being quoted as wanting to wipe Israel from the map - a quote that has since been questioned for its accuracy.

[Al_U_Card]

Indoctrination works both sides of the street. From the US attempts on Kim's father and grandfather, plus sanctions plus all the rest, they don't need much in the way of propaganda to fear the US.

Axis of evil, terror-states and madmen in power, the climate of fear in the US is easy to direct towards whatever target-du-jour pokes its head up in the global whack-a-mole game that is current and recent US foreign policy.

[Zelandakh]

Axis of evil, terror-states and madmen in power

Are you writing about NK or USA here? :unsure: :blink: :ph34r:

[Al_U_Card]

Are you writing about NK or USA here? :unsure: :blink: :ph34r:

Hmmmnnn, let's see, do Iran and NK have central banks? Might be related...

[barmar]

Indoctrination works both sides of the street. From the US attempts on Kim's father and grandfather, plus sanctions plus all the rest, they don't need much in the way of propaganda to fear the US.

Axis of evil, terror-states and madmen in power, the climate of fear in the US is easy to direct towards whatever target-du-jour pokes its head up in the global whack-a-mole game that is current and recent US foreign policy.

Not just very recent. Was it much different a generation ago when it was the Soviet Union we were afraid of?

 

I think the difference between Iran and both NK now and USSR then is that the latter have nuclear capabilities. And NK has been doing some real sabre-rattling with all its missile tests.

[Al_U_Card]

Not just very recent. Was it much different a generation ago when it was the Soviet Union we were afraid of?

 

I think the difference between Iran and both NK now and USSR then is that the latter have nuclear capabilities. And NK has been doing some real sabre-rattling with all its missile tests.

Israel got their nuclear program and warheads back in the 60's. The USSR was like a bear compared to Iran (hawk) and NK (wasp) in relative terms. There is so much polarization and disinformation circulating that even though we "thought" the USSR was a big threat, it might only have been to the ideology of imperialistic profit-making demonstrated by all (super) powers.

We have always lived in perilous times, some more global than others.

[barmar]

I was only a year old during the Cuban missile crisis, so I don't have firsthand knowledge of what it was like (time for Ken to chime in, I guess), but I think that the fear of the Soviets during that time was as reasonable as current fear of NK. Maybe even more justified -- NK is still doing lots of testing, Russia had a mature nuclear arsenal comparable to our own, and a launching point right on our doorstep.

[Al_U_Card]

I was only a year old during the Cuban missile crisis, so I don't have firsthand knowledge of what it was like (time for Ken to chime in, I guess), but I think that the fear of the Soviets during that time was as reasonable as current fear of NK. Maybe even more justified -- NK is still doing lots of testing, Russia had a mature nuclear arsenal comparable to our own, and a launching point right on our doorstep.

My first experience in an airplane was a trip to Jamaica that had to be "detoured" around Cuba because of the crisis.

The so-called missel-gap was a fiction used to energize the arms build-up and only JFK stood between the Joint Chiefs and a nuclear holocaust. (Curtis Lemay wanted to take out the Russians before they gained parity and he was willing to sacrifice 40 million US citizens to say nothing of the Russian losses forecast.

Kruschev warmed to Kennedy through their back-channel communications and detente in all areas was in the cards until JFK went to Dallas.

Civil rights was a bigger issue in the news (except for the Bay of Pigs and The Missle crisis). NK is a distraction and an incentive.

[Zelandakh]

(Curtis Lemay wanted to take out the Russians before they gained parity and he was willing to sacrifice 40 million US citizens to say nothing of the Russian losses forecast.

Your evidence for LeMay being aware of the delegation of Russian nuclear launch control to field commanders?

 

It is certainly true that LeMay wanted to bomb Cuban missile sites. It is also true that Harold Brown reported that he and LeMay both estimated that there would be approximately 30-40 million casualties if the Soviets made a preemptive nuclear strike. But this is the first time I have heard these two pieces of information linked somehow to being a specific number of accpetable casualties.

 

In truth it was the navy, not the air force, that got closest to starting WWIII through their attempts to intercept Soviet subs. The point being that the US was not aware of the change of authorities on the Soviet side and was therefore unable to anticipate at the time just how close they had come to a nuclear strike from the subs (2 of the 3 commanders wanted to launch but the third voted to wait).

 

As your are slandering a famous USAF general, it should also be pointed out that LeMay was partly responsible for the strategic decision for the USAF to maintain its conventional bomber fleet as he recognised that implementation of nuclear forces would be too indiscriminate, to unncontrollable and generally a complete over-reaction. It might seem amazing for us that not everyone could see this clearly but the records show that this was specifically his strategic vision in the mid-60s and the army and navy both underwent dramatic reconstructions based around nuclear forces and proposed nuclear war scenarios.

 

So, over to you. Do you have evidence to back your claims this time or is it the same old thing as in the GW thread?

[Al_U_Card]

Your evidence for LeMay being aware of the delegation of Russian nuclear launch control to field commanders?

 

It is certainly true that LeMay wanted to bomb Cuban missile sites. It is also true that Harold Brown reported that he and LeMay both estimated that there would be approximately 30-40 million casualties if the Soviets made a preemptive nuclear strike. But this is the first time I have heard these two pieces of information linked somehow to being a specific number of accpetable casualties.

 

In truth it was the navy, not the air force, that got closest to starting WWIII through their attempts to intercept Soviet subs. The point being that the US was not aware of the change of authorities on the Soviet side and was therefore unable to anticipate at the time just how close they had come to a nuclear strike from the subs (2 of the 3 commanders wanted to launch but the third voted to wait).

 

As your are slandering a famous USAF general, it should also be pointed out that LeMay was partly responsible for the strategic decision for the USAF to maintain its conventional bomber fleet as he recognised that implementation of nuclear forces would be too indiscriminate, to unncontrollable and generally a complete over-reaction. It might seem amazing for us that not everyone could see this clearly but the records show that this was specifically his strategic vision in the mid-60s and the army and navy both underwent dramatic reconstructions based around nuclear forces and proposed nuclear war scenarios.

 

So, over to you. Do you have evidence to back your claims this time or is it the same old thing as in the GW thread?

Slander refers to the spoken word while libel refers to print. Being famous makes him somehow better? His actions prior to the assassination and his presence at the JFK autopsy are more intriguing. He was, indeed, very involved in all kinds of bombing activity as most are aware. Reading more about the CMC will answer your questions better than I ever could.

[Zelandakh]

So you have zero evidence...again? *sigh*