The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Mo » 08 Aug 2017, 17:46

In the 90s
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22484
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Jennifer » 08 Aug 2017, 22:45

Trump was an idiot to threaten "fire and fury" against NoKo, but Jong Un was even more idiotic by responding with a threat to attack Guam. What the hell does he hope to accomplish here?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14341
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Aresen » 08 Aug 2017, 23:09

Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2017, 22:45
Trump was an idiot to threaten "fire and fury" against NoKo, but Jong Un was even more idiotic by responding with a threat to attack Guam. What the hell does he hope to accomplish here?
I would like to see Trump and Kim Jong-Un go one on one hairpiece to hairpiece.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15880
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by lunchstealer » 09 Aug 2017, 03:09

Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2017, 22:45
Trump was an idiot to threaten "fire and fury" against NoKo, but Jong Un was even more idiotic by responding with a threat to attack Guam. What the hell does he hope to accomplish here?
You mean aside from destroying a naval base and an airfield that google earth shows stocked with several B-1s, a few B-52s, and a handful of Global Hawks?

The thing is that Un is crazy, but he's more traditionally strategic than bin Laden et al. He's not interested in knocking over a building that Americans are all proud of. He wants to knock some teeth out, not give us uselessly black eye.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Mo » 09 Aug 2017, 08:09

Jennifer wrote:Trump was an idiot to threaten "fire and fury" against NoKo, but Jong Un was even more idiotic by responding with a threat to attack Guam. What the hell does he hope to accomplish here?
NoKo always threatens Guam. It's their go to move.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7739
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Taktix® » 09 Aug 2017, 08:34

Serious Question: If nuclear war were to break out with North Korea, in 2017, it wouldn't be the world-ending nuclear holocaust stuff of the Cold War, right? Like, even if they manage to get a missile or two as far as the U.S. West coast, it still isn't enough to blanket the entire world in a nuclear winter I hope?

I understand a handful of WWII Japan-scale nukes wouldn't end the world, but are modern nukes like the ones North Korea is developing of the world-ending type? Or are the doomsday ones just something big superpowers like the U.S. and Russia have?

I'm just look for some bright side here...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Mo » 09 Aug 2017, 08:41

Right. It would be millions dead (mostly North Koreans and a lot of South Koreans) instead of billions. Though conventional war would lead to millions dead too.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by JasonL » 09 Aug 2017, 09:02

I also feel like the vibe from some corners that better diplomacy could have prevented this situation - it's a bit magical thinking. There's objectively no agreement better for Un than having a ballistic nuke that works and there's no credible deterrent due to Seoul's proximity.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Mo » 09 Aug 2017, 09:28

The only deescalation tool left is a Chinese sniper.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

Dangerman
Posts: 6214
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Dangerman » 09 Aug 2017, 09:56

It shouldn't be hard to poison the food of the only guy who eats well in the whole nation. Just spike all the caviar and brandy.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8919
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by nicole » 09 Aug 2017, 10:06

JasonL wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 09:02
I also feel like the vibe from some corners that better diplomacy could have prevented this situation - it's a bit magical thinking. There's objectively no agreement better for Un than having a ballistic nuke that works and there's no credible deterrent due to Seoul's proximity.
Yeah. Of course every administration I can remember has lied about this. "Don't worry, we got this, we won't let them get nukes." Well, fortunately for me I guess, I never believed that nonsense, and this is just the second of three times this is going to happen. First time wasn't as scary because they weren't trying to nuke us, of course, but still. Whatevs.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by JasonL » 09 Aug 2017, 10:12

The deal was always a joke. I get annoyed when people act like a good deal was in place and we screwed it up. There was no deal they were building the whole time it was a joke.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by fyodor » 09 Aug 2017, 11:52

lunchstealer wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 03:09
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2017, 22:45
Trump was an idiot to threaten "fire and fury" against NoKo, but Jong Un was even more idiotic by responding with a threat to attack Guam. What the hell does he hope to accomplish here?
You mean aside from destroying a naval base and an airfield that google earth shows stocked with several B-1s, a few B-52s, and a handful of Global Hawks?

The thing is that Un is crazy, but he's more traditionally strategic than bin Laden et al. He's not interested in knocking over a building that Americans are all proud of. He wants to knock some teeth out, not give us uselessly black eye.
Um, is knocking out some teeth any more strategic than giving a black eye? Maybe if you're fighting a biter? :lol:

Seriously, does knocking out a relatively close airfield with some bombers do anything but slow down the US response?

I'm not sure what's strategic about inviting a very likely US response that would destroy his regime. Even if he's got some damn good bunker to hide in, is it worth being a ruler if you have no more country to rule? Or is he banking on the US still doing nothing because SK? Thankfully, I presume he's not that crazy and this just counts as more bluster. I can see war being warded off if no one does anything overtly hostile beyond words and tests. They can bluster at each other all they want and it's probably no big deal. As soon as one side actually aims an actual weapon at the other, then I think we can presume millions dead?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8919
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by nicole » 09 Aug 2017, 12:12

fyodor wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 11:52
lunchstealer wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 03:09
Jennifer wrote:
08 Aug 2017, 22:45
Trump was an idiot to threaten "fire and fury" against NoKo, but Jong Un was even more idiotic by responding with a threat to attack Guam. What the hell does he hope to accomplish here?
You mean aside from destroying a naval base and an airfield that google earth shows stocked with several B-1s, a few B-52s, and a handful of Global Hawks?

The thing is that Un is crazy, but he's more traditionally strategic than bin Laden et al. He's not interested in knocking over a building that Americans are all proud of. He wants to knock some teeth out, not give us uselessly black eye.
Um, is knocking out some teeth any more strategic than giving a black eye? Maybe if you're fighting a biter? :lol:

Seriously, does knocking out a relatively close airfield with some bombers do anything but slow down the US response?

I'm not sure what's strategic about inviting a very likely US response that would destroy his regime. Even if he's got some damn good bunker to hide in, is it worth being a ruler if you have no more country to rule? Or is he banking on the US still doing nothing because SK? Thankfully, I presume he's not that crazy and this just counts as more bluster. I can see war being warded off if no one does anything overtly hostile beyond words and tests. They can bluster at each other all they want and it's probably no big deal. As soon as one side actually aims an actual weapon at the other, then I think we can presume millions dead?
Dude has millions of hostages and the backing of a major power. Doesn't seem crazy to count on.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7124
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Shem » 09 Aug 2017, 12:33

JasonL wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 10:12
The deal was always a joke. I get annoyed when people act like a good deal was in place and we screwed it up. There was no deal they were building the whole time it was a joke.
No, they really weren't. They had stopped for the better part of 10 years. The '93 deal worked. They started back up after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, who never would have been regime-changed if he had nukes. It was reinforced after they watched the West abandon Gaddafi even after he gave up his WMD program. The armistice worked for 50 years because they lived in a world where national sovereignty was inviolate as long as you follow some simple rules. The '93 deal was as much about reassuring them that this was still the case after the end of the cold war as anything. Iraq proved, beyond a doubt, that this was no longer the case. We now expect them to make a deal even though we've already shown no willingness to guarantee sovereignty past the end of a current presidential term, even though a guarantee of sovereignty is the only thing they really want from us. A nuke is the means by which they guarantee we won't move on them. If it then allows them to retreat from military spending, so much the better.

The idea that the US hasn't played a role in driving this only works if you assume the Kims are too stupid to notice what happened to their cohorts in the Hobbes Club when the wrong warmongers (we see you still hanging around DC looking for an in, John Bolton) got into a position of influence. Kim sees us as an existential threat. Would you give up your gun to a guy who just invaded your neighbor's house if he offered you cash for it?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by JasonL » 09 Aug 2017, 12:39

You are saying they weren't cheating on the 93 deal? Why'd we have penalty sanctions etc? Of course they noticed that it's better to have nukes. Because it is better to have nukes. Extortion for more money to build more military capacity during a famine is not a successful deal. The speed at which development has progressed is only surprising if you thought they took a decade off really.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26117
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2017, 12:42

Nobody truly abandons a nuke program, but some programs run as back-burner insurance policies while others run as high-priority initiatives. One of these things is less bad than the other.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17135
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by Hugh Akston » 09 Aug 2017, 12:45

thoreau wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 12:42
Nobody truly abandons a nuke program, but some programs run as back-burner insurance policies while others run as high-priority initiatives. One of these things is less bad than the other.
In that the only country to actually deploy nukes against another ran their development program as a high-priority initiative?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by fyodor » 09 Aug 2017, 12:47

Shem wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 12:33
JasonL wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 10:12
The deal was always a joke. I get annoyed when people act like a good deal was in place and we screwed it up. There was no deal they were building the whole time it was a joke.
No, they really weren't. They had stopped for the better part of 10 years. The '93 deal worked. They started back up after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, who never would have been regime-changed if he had nukes. It was reinforced after they watched the West abandon Gaddafi even after he gave up his WMD program. The armistice worked for 50 years because they lived in a world where national sovereignty was inviolate as long as you follow some simple rules. The '93 deal was as much about reassuring them that this was still the case after the end of the cold war as anything. Iraq proved, beyond a doubt, that this was no longer the case. We now expect them to make a deal even though we've already shown no willingness to guarantee sovereignty past the end of a current presidential term, even though a guarantee of sovereignty is the only thing they really want from us. A nuke is the means by which they guarantee we won't move on them. If it then allows them to retreat from military spending, so much the better.

The idea that the US hasn't played a role in driving this only works if you assume the Kims are too stupid to notice what happened to their cohorts in the Hobbes Club when the wrong warmongers (we see you still hanging around DC looking for an in, John Bolton) got into a position of influence. Kim sees us as an existential threat. Would you give up your gun to a guy who just invaded your neighbor's house if he offered you cash for it?
Y'know, I was and am against our invasion of Iraq. But SH did invade another sovereign country (even if our invasion waited a while till after that and was ostensibly in response to violations of agreements forced in response to said invasion). If you're saying NK leaders couldn't tell they only had to follow that rule, I'll take your word for it. But at the risk of sounding like a hawk, I think that's a point that oughtter be included in whatever analysis.

BTW, are you saying we just need to verbally guarantee NK's sovereignty and they'll settle down? Or are you saying that ship has already sailed as a result of our invasions of Iraq and Libya?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by JasonL » 09 Aug 2017, 12:48

I think it very likely we funded nontrivial amounts of current program with funds they received in the good ol peaceful deal days.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by fyodor » 09 Aug 2017, 12:52

thoreau wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 12:42
Nobody truly abandons a nuke program, but some programs run as back-burner insurance policies while others run as high-priority initiatives. One of these things is less bad than the other.
Hopefully, presumably, whatever deals we made or make contain specific criteria that for what constitutes upholding the deal such that the difference between abandoning and putting on back-burner is rendered semantic mootness.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6832
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by fyodor » 09 Aug 2017, 12:55

JasonL wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 12:48
I think it very likely we funded nontrivial amounts of current program with funds they received in the good ol peaceful deal days.
As funds are fungible, how could that not be?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26117
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2017, 13:04

Am I the only one who's a bit concerned that the US has no ambassador in Seoul even while Trump is using his tiny hands to rattle the saber?
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by JasonL » 09 Aug 2017, 13:16

No, you are not the only one. To be clear - I have lots of concerns about who is in office now and what we do for next steps. I'm more saying this was going to happen unless the regime collapsed under its own weight or something.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22445
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: The Not-So- and All-Too-Real World of North Korea

Post by JasonL » 09 Aug 2017, 13:17

fyodor wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 12:55
JasonL wrote:
09 Aug 2017, 12:48
I think it very likely we funded nontrivial amounts of current program with funds they received in the good ol peaceful deal days.
As funds are fungible, how could that not be?
Because they were supposed to buy food and alleviate poverty because that was the deal. Or something.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shem and 3 guests