I'm just going through my usual insomnia and decided to have a geek out on some current affairs. It was either an essay on North Korea or a crack at the Article 50 thread.. No brainer!
Yeah that shit is trademarked my friend and you will be hearing from my lawyers.
So, it turns out that the Carl Vinson and its escorts were not heading to the Korean peninsula as Trump claimed. (Trump doesn't know which way is up maybe?) It is said the aircraft carrier has carried out some exercises with the Australian navy and is now swanning around in the Indian Ocean. The South Koreans are understandably a bit pissed. https://pri.org/stories/2017-04-18/us-fleet-trump-supposedly-sent-north-korea-spent-days-sailing-wrong-direction
By way of an update. So, the Carl Vinson was not where Trump said it was. But rest assured, some of the world's most advanced fighters, USAF's F-35A stealth planes, have been deployed overseas for the first time.......
By way of an update. So, the Carl Vinson was not where Trump said it was. But rest assured, some of the world's most advanced fighters, USAF's F-35A stealth planes, have been deployed overseas for the first time.......
By way of an update. So, the Carl Vinson was not where Trump said it was. But rest assured, some of the world's most advanced fighters, USAF's F-35A stealth planes, have been deployed overseas for the first time.......
By way of an update. So, the Carl Vinson was not where Trump said it was. But rest assured, some of the world's most advanced fighters, USAF's F-35A stealth planes, have been deployed overseas for the first time.......
to RAF Lakenheath....
I don't think you need worry about the F-35s. They would barely have the range to reach North Africa from Lakenheath let alone North Korea. I suspect the reason they're at Lakenheath is part of the general trials and training for what is basically a new type of aircraft entering service.
By way of an update. So, the Carl Vinson was not where Trump said it was. But rest assured, some of the world's most advanced fighters, USAF's F-35A stealth planes, have been deployed overseas for the first time.......
to RAF Lakenheath....
I don't think you need worry about the F-35s. They would barely have the range to reach North Africa from Lakenheath let alone North Korea. I suspect the reason they're at Lakenheath is part of the general trials and training for what is basically a new type of aircraft entering service.
This is correct, and also as the new carrier is due to start sea trials soon, i guess they are keen to get the aircraft and pilots ready as soon as possible.
I know you guys will think I'm making up a lame joke or something but one of the protest North Korea flags was nabbed by one of my friends and has actually, genuinely ended up in North Korea.
North Korea have successfully launched what they call a ICBM claiming it is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Other experts have doubted the claims but recognise the latest test as a leap forward in the missile capability of North Korea.
I think it's widely accepted that it's only a matter of time before Kim Jong-Un has a fully functional ICBM capability. Some saying within five years.
The regime continually snub their noses at international condemnation and sanctions.
Should we be worried and what should we do about it ?
I'd have thought China will have to step up, they can't afford for NK to get into too much trouble.
Nobody wants to go to war with NK (no matter how easy it would be to steamroll them) because they don't want to deal with the fallout. China especially would have a nightmare dealing with it.
It will have "Nuke the shit out of them today" at one end....and "Let's all sit down, hold hands and talk it through" at the other end.
If the Americans were smart they'd launch a preemptive nuclear attack whilst simultaneously holding a multi party touchy feely conference. All sides of the debate would be happy.
If the UK has a nuclear 'deterrent' then as far as I can tell it is OK for others to have them too isn't it? It keeps the peace so I am told, and absorbs all the spare money sloshing around that otherwise would be wasted on health and education and so on. It is a bit rich for China, Russia, France, the UK, and the USA...let alone India, Pakistan, Israel, and maybe South Africa, Taiwan and Iran to all have those lovely nukes but expect North Korea to get by on bows and arrows.
I'd like to think that's an outdated view Seth. That maybe we can discourage other countries from going down that route, while minimising any possible threat of us ever using them. Which, let's face it, we almost certainly won't given the assured mutual destruction. Any country we felt compelled to attack would probably be backed by a nuclear power anyway.
On the bright side, war is economically bad, and that's the main deterrent.
If the UK has a nuclear 'deterrent' then as far as I can tell it is OK for others to have them too isn't it? It keeps the peace so I am told, and absorbs all the spare money sloshing around that otherwise would be wasted on health and education and so on. It is a bit rich for China, Russia, France, the UK, and the USA...let alone India, Pakistan, Israel, and maybe South Africa, Taiwan and Iran to all have those lovely nukes but expect North Korea to get by on bows and arrows.
A simplistic and totally wrong view.
I really have no problem with the police fire arms unit. None whatsoever.
I do have a problem wid da gangsta in Woolwich wiv da shoota innit Bruv.
One way of modernising the situation would be to set a good example and abandon our nuclear arsenal, de commissioning I think it is called. You may think my view is simplistic, but a nuclear strike is unlikely to be subtle and nuanced.
One way of modernising the situation would be to set a good example and abandon our nuclear arsenal, de commissioning I think it is called. You may think my view is simplistic, but a nuclear strike is unlikely to be subtle and nuanced.
Seth. I refer you to the quote by Sheik Ilderim to Juda Ben Hur
"Balthazar is a good man. Until all are men like him we must keep our swords bright"
North Korea have successfully launched what they call a ICBM claiming it is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Other experts have doubted the claims but recognise the latest test as a leap forward in the missile capability of North Korea.
I think it's widely accepted that it's only a matter of time before Kim Jong-Un has a fully functional ICBM capability. Some saying within five years.
The regime continually snub their noses at international condemnation and sanctions.
Should we be worried and what should we do about it ?
From a US perspective, the problem is, there's not a whole lot left that we can do, short of taking Military action. And it's really important to understand that Military action has some potentially terrible outcomes: 1) Retaliation against OCONUS (Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, etc.) 2) Retaliation against CONUS (California, Washington, Portland if they really want to kill off flannel and craft beer)--unlikely, but not impossible, and our missile defense isn't great. 3) Retaliation against Seoul. This doesn't require nuclear weapons. They can attack Seoul with traditional weapons and do a tremendous amount of damage without much forewarning. They can hit Seoul with rocks ffs. This would almost certainly happen.
Now, Russia and particularly China CAN do a lot more in terms of sanctions and pressure, despite what Trump said about his new mucker Xi Jinping*. In some ways, it's in China's best interest--as @JiMMy 85 points out the fallout from a toppling of the North Korean regime would almost certainly see hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing into China.
But there is another side to this--North Korea is also pretty beneficial to China. For a start, it provides a sort of common enemy in the region, and a distraction from conflict between China and the west. Secondly, we know that the worst imaginable situation for China is a unified Korean peninsula with close ties to the west. As such, North Korea provides a fantastic buffer for them.
My hopes are that the new administration in South Korea hopes to thaw tensions. Beyond that, putting pressure on China and Russia. But frankly, neither of them have much incentive to stop supporting, or at least start admonishing, North Korea.
This is, of course, the problem with foreign policy by tweet, and the foreign policy approach of this White House in general. As Mike Dubke put it, "There is no Trump Doctrine." Now that isn't necessarily the worst thing, except for the fact that the State Department is down to the bare bones in terms of staff, awaiting numerous political appointments, and by the fact that Trump just tweets what he thinks about foreign policy. And these tweets, as Sean Spicer has said, Are Official White House Statements.
What this leaves us with is a completely inconsistent policy. Not having a "Trump Doctrine" wouldn't be so bad if you felt like the White House at least had a unified plan for handling foreign policy. Instead, there has long been talk that Trump views foreign policy as he views everything, as transnational. And while I wouldn't say that evaluating individual situations on merit is bad, it makes it incredibly hard for allies and partners to react. The worst of this is of course NATO and Article 5, but it's the same for China and South Korea and Japan. How are they to know that they won't be blasted in an official White House Statement tomorrow because Trump sees something on cable news about them not doing enough (no really, that's how he gets his news and what seems to cause him to tweet the most) and then tweets about them. It is an incredibly destabilizing, not to mention entirely counter-productive, way of handling foreign policy.
Sorry, CONUS is Continental US and OCONUS is Outside Continental US.
@SDAddick, I'd just like to point out, re your point 2, we've got the craft beer thing covered over here on the East Coast, so all is not lost. I would advise selling shares in flannel manufacturing though
@SDAddick, I'd just like to point out, re your point 2, we've got the craft beer thing covered over here on the East Coast, so all is not lost. I would advise selling shares in flannel manufacturing though
*Good* craft beer.
That's right, I don't have to like the hipsters, or want to listen to them tell me about how beer is a profound communion between nature and man and how it's "like getting back to our roots, man" but they do make good craft beer .
I do worry about the Cheeto in Chief. It just seem like he'll wake up one morning and just decide to shoot at some country because he's tired of dealing with it.
One single nuclear strike, either by accident or design, whether made in haste or after deliberation, whether made by a nutter or a genius, whether the 52% of the planet decide it is justified or not will be an utter disaster for the planet. The planet. However the technology exists and can't be uninvented. If a nutter like Trump has it, then why not a nutter like Kim Jong Il? Is there supposed to be a scale of nutters, like approved nutters, taste the difference nutters? I know SHG understands the terrible threat of Nuclear power, but I wonder if the younger generation really get it. If they did they would surely not talk about strikes in such a casual way.
Comments
It is said the aircraft carrier has carried out some exercises with the Australian navy and is now swanning around in the Indian Ocean. The South Koreans are understandably a bit pissed.
https://pri.org/stories/2017-04-18/us-fleet-trump-supposedly-sent-north-korea-spent-days-sailing-wrong-direction
to RAF Lakenheath....
South Korea
Both got an S, K, U, O..
Easy mistake.
Or Belgium colours?! Confused myself.
Anyone else?
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/south-korea-proposes-a-world-cup-bid-north-korea
I think it's widely accepted that it's only a matter of time before Kim Jong-Un has a fully functional ICBM capability. Some saying within five years.
The regime continually snub their noses at international condemnation and sanctions.
Should we be worried and what should we do about it ?
It will have "Nuke the shit out of them today" at one end....and "Let's all sit down, hold hands and talk it through" at the other end.
Nobody wants to go to war with NK (no matter how easy it would be to steamroll them) because they don't want to deal with the fallout. China especially would have a nightmare dealing with it.
"Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?"
It keeps the peace so I am told, and absorbs all the spare money sloshing around that otherwise would be wasted on health and education and so on.
It is a bit rich for China, Russia, France, the UK, and the USA...let alone India, Pakistan, Israel, and maybe South Africa, Taiwan and Iran to all have those lovely nukes but expect North Korea to get by on bows and arrows.
On the bright side, war is economically bad, and that's the main deterrent.
I really have no problem with the police fire arms unit. None whatsoever.
I do have a problem wid da gangsta in Woolwich wiv da shoota innit Bruv.
You may think my view is simplistic, but a nuclear strike is unlikely to be subtle and nuanced.
"Balthazar is a good man. Until all are men like him we must keep our swords bright"
1) Retaliation against OCONUS (Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, etc.)
2) Retaliation against CONUS (California, Washington, Portland if they really want to kill off flannel and craft beer)--unlikely, but not impossible, and our missile defense isn't great.
3) Retaliation against Seoul. This doesn't require nuclear weapons. They can attack Seoul with traditional weapons and do a tremendous amount of damage without much forewarning. They can hit Seoul with rocks ffs. This would almost certainly happen.
Now, Russia and particularly China CAN do a lot more in terms of sanctions and pressure, despite what Trump said about his new mucker Xi Jinping*. In some ways, it's in China's best interest--as @JiMMy 85 points out the fallout from a toppling of the North Korean regime would almost certainly see hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing into China.
But there is another side to this--North Korea is also pretty beneficial to China. For a start, it provides a sort of common enemy in the region, and a distraction from conflict between China and the west. Secondly, we know that the worst imaginable situation for China is a unified Korean peninsula with close ties to the west. As such, North Korea provides a fantastic buffer for them.
My hopes are that the new administration in South Korea hopes to thaw tensions. Beyond that, putting pressure on China and Russia. But frankly, neither of them have much incentive to stop supporting, or at least start admonishing, North Korea.
*While looking for the original article about how Xi Jingping had told him over dinner about the complex North Korea situation, I learned that Trump has tweeted today insinuating that Japan, South Korea, and China intervene. Even putting to one side the fact that the President of the United States gets his information on foreign policy seemingly largely from foreign leaders, there are a tremendous number of problems here:
Here is a tweet from May 29
Here is a tweet from June 20:
Here are the tweets from yesterday:
This is, of course, the problem with foreign policy by tweet, and the foreign policy approach of this White House in general. As Mike Dubke put it, "There is no Trump Doctrine." Now that isn't necessarily the worst thing, except for the fact that the State Department is down to the bare bones in terms of staff, awaiting numerous political appointments, and by the fact that Trump just tweets what he thinks about foreign policy. And these tweets, as Sean Spicer has said, Are Official White House Statements.
What this leaves us with is a completely inconsistent policy. Not having a "Trump Doctrine" wouldn't be so bad if you felt like the White House at least had a unified plan for handling foreign policy. Instead, there has long been talk that Trump views foreign policy as he views everything, as transnational. And while I wouldn't say that evaluating individual situations on merit is bad, it makes it incredibly hard for allies and partners to react. The worst of this is of course NATO and Article 5, but it's the same for China and South Korea and Japan. How are they to know that they won't be blasted in an official White House Statement tomorrow because Trump sees something on cable news about them not doing enough (no really, that's how he gets his news and what seems to cause him to tweet the most) and then tweets about them. It is an incredibly destabilizing, not to mention entirely counter-productive, way of handling foreign policy.
Sorry, CONUS is Continental US and OCONUS is Outside Continental US.
That's right, I don't have to like the hipsters, or want to listen to them tell me about how beer is a profound communion between nature and man and how it's "like getting back to our roots, man" but they do make good craft beer
The planet.
However the technology exists and can't be uninvented. If a nutter like Trump has it, then why not a nutter like Kim Jong Il?
Is there supposed to be a scale of nutters, like approved nutters, taste the difference nutters?
I know SHG understands the terrible threat of Nuclear power, but I wonder if the younger generation really get it.
If they did they would surely not talk about strikes in such a casual way.