Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, RK.

The way I saw it, you have two incompetent people, who were incompetent in different ways.

Hillary clearly demonstrated that she was not suitable for secure communications, as she consistently (and was even repeatedly confronted over, as I recall) violated safe handling protocols for convenience. (this is the exact same sin as making your password "Password", because you cannot remember or be bothered to use a one time pad generator, because "I dont have all day to enter 32 characters of gibberish every damn time!")

Trump demonstrated that he was not suitable for ANY OFFICE.

Given that the office was commander in chief of the armed forces, (a VERY infosec heavy position), I felt both candidates were unsuitable.

Again, *I WANTED BERNIE*.

[RedKing]

Are we really having the "BUT HER EMAILS" conversation? I mean, Jesus fuck...I am no fan of the woman and I've let it go.
At this point, I don't care if she was plotting half a dozen political assassinations on her private server. It'd still be better than the incompetent clusterfuck we have now. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be on the brink of war with a nuclear state because Clinton had a Twitter addiction and poor impulse control.

Isn't that like, pretty much what is happening right now though? Trump's addiction to publicly displaying his poor impulse control in regards to N. Korea?

:thatsthejoke.gif


@wierd:
So did I. But I'm not going to sit here and waste time and energy arguing that she's unfit for an office she did not win and will almost certainly never hold. It's like spending time arguing why Sarah Palin would have been a terrible VP. She didn't get to be one, and never will, so it's a moot point.

[Max™]

See the last few posts explaining things?

That, that right there is why she lost, if both sides had people who cared about reasoned argument it would be great to lay out a sensible position and explain things from there, but it is a well established fact at this point that the Republican politicians in office and the people who voted them into power do not give a fuck about facts and reason.

We're no longer in a world where you could reasonably argue they have some sort of "best interest" in mind, or any clue what the fuck they're doing. There might be a couple dozen competent politicians in Congress atm, but they're well outnumbered by the cunts who jumped on the "BUT HER EMAILS" bandwagon or the "BUT HE'S A BLACK GUY" train to get elected and have no clue what the fuck they're actually doing.

This was especially clear after seeing various senators interviewed about the most recent ACA repeal attempt where none of them had a fucking clue what was going on or even why they were doing it beyond "we said we would and by gum that's what we're gonna do!" soundbites.

[Dunamisdeos]

Are we really having the "BUT HER EMAILS" conversation? I mean, Jesus fuck...I am no fan of the woman and I've let it go.
At this point, I don't care if she was plotting half a dozen political assassinations on her private server. It'd still be better than the incompetent clusterfuck we have now. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be on the brink of war with a nuclear state because Clinton had a Twitter addiction and poor impulse control.

Isn't that like, pretty much what is happening right now though? Trump's addiction to publicly displaying his poor impulse control in regards to N. Korea?

:thatsthejoke.gif


@wierd:
So did I. But I'm not going to sit here and waste time and energy arguing that she's unfit for an office she did not win and will almost certainly never hold. It's like spending time arguing why Sarah Palin would have been a terrible VP. She didn't get to be one, and never will, so it's a moot point.

That's fair, also ya' got me . Also, I hold the opinion that there is no way N. Korea will back down. They cannot back down. Their entire method of maintaining control revolves around constructing and saving face. If they do, it would be tantamount to fighting and losing a war in their minds.

The only way out of this is to give NK an out that saves face. I don't see Trump as capable of that, because his ego turns everything into a pissing contest.

I think we are headed for a confrontation, folks.

[wierd]

If this trainwreck keeps derailing with N Korea, I agree.  It is only a matter of time before somebody takes the mouthing off too far, and pushes a button which starts WWIII, given the number of nuclear powered actors that have mutual retaliation treaties.

[Lord Shonus]

That's far less likely than the doomsayers predict. The only likely way that a US-NK confrontation could escalate into WWIII is if China and/or Russia decided to intervene. It would be extremely stupid of China or Russia to intervene in a war North Korea started, for a huge number of reasons. Thus, either we assume that both China and Russia have pants-on-head imbeciles in charge, or we accept that the only way they get involved is if the US unambiguously fires the first shot - and probably only if that shot is nuclear.

This is by far the least likely way for the situation to escalate, principally because Kim is driving the bus here. Trump isn't helping, but so far nothing that Trump has done comes anywhere close to the level of provocation that would justify Chinese/Russian intervention. Trump would have to step things up considerably before that became a possibility, while all Kim has to do is shoot down a US plane or accidentally crash a test rocket into downtown Tokyo.

There are a lot of mutual-defense treaties involved - but there are no mutual-attack treaties.

[wierd]

Depends on just how far down the rabbit hole china is willing to go to keep a US-friendly nation off their doorstep.

EG, if kimmykims fires first, and the US retaliates by launching an unholy strike of conventional tomahawk or patriot missiles, and totally flattening all of NK--- (NK is small enough that with existing conventional devices, total destruction is perfectly feasible.) then the only nuke launched would be from Kimmy Kim-- NK would not be a nuclear hellhole, and SK could simply move its border (even if it would be nursing wounds from the likely shelling NK would give them.) 

China wants that to not happen. It wants that to not happen sufficiently badly that it is willing to let imbeciles play with nuclear dildos.

I think that warrants some contemplation.

[Lord Shonus]

Do you really think that the Chinese leadership would even consider "every Chinese city becomes a radioactive crater, and millions of Chinese -inevitably including us personally- are killed" to be a satisfactory alternative to "we have a US ally on our border"?

That is the kind of risk that intervening in Korean War II would carry. If Trump launched first, I could see them intervening. If Kim starts a war? That cost the PRC way too much when Il-Sung did it. I really find it unlikely that China would jump into the wood chipper right behind Jong-Un.

[Madman198237]

I would expect nothing more hostile than a buildup of Chinese military personnel (As in, in the millions once again) on the NK border, to prevent SK/US/allies from entering Chinese territory. Although depending on the politics involved at that point, they might also prevent NK troops/civilians from crossing the border as well.

[wierd]

Shonus:

It is still disingenuous to conflate "US does not retaliate with nukes" with "Not a confrontation."

It would be too costly for the US to utilize a nuke (however much mister trump might find the idea desirable.)  SK is too close, and is a powerful trade partner. A single nuke on NK would rain fallout on SK, causing debilitating conditions there for generations. The losses in capital investments, technological cooperation, logistical support vs china in the future, and a number of other factors all point toward conventional-only retaliation.

Personally, here is what I would do if NK struck first--

Tactical missile strikes against the artillery batteries along the SK boarder, to prevent or minimize damage to SK assets. 
Tactical missile strikes against nuclear launch facilities and naval yards
drone aircraft strikes on convoy routes, and military bases (launched from SK, after removing the prior targets.)

I am quite certain that our military leadership could devise better plans than this, but sending footsoldiers is the LAST thing you want to do, given how deeply fortified against landwar NK is.

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm not in a position to find the link, but I distinctly recall a news article where China straight-up said that they would not intervene in a war that NK starts.

I do believe that if NK leadership finds itself in a position of actually losing face or firing a missile, they will fire that missile.

[EnigmaticHat]

I agree with everyone, no way they follow NK into hell.  I think if Trump attacks first what we have on our hands is a worse Cuban Missile Crisis (and I'm aware how bad that was).  Both allowing that invasion, and nuclear war, would be unacceptable to the Chinese government on absolute terms.  So we'd probably see some very scary, very fast brinksmanship.  There's no way the Chinese join the war conventionally on NK's side; conventional war between nuclear powers gets weirder the more you think about it.

The scary thing is when Steve Bannon gave his extremely ill advised interview and said NK has us beat, the figure he cited was 10 million people in Seoul being killed by artillery in the first hour.  I refuse to accept Bannon realized that on his own or had the presence of mind to lie about that.  So IMO he was actually reading the IC reports Trump was ignoring, and that's the current US intelligence estimate for what happens if war breaks out.  Which they were likely keeping under wraps because "they beat us, we've got nothing" is atrocious international diplomacy.

[Madman198237]

Yeah, because stealth aircraft care about land-warfare.

It MIGHT involve a Tomahawk or similar cruise-missile strike, if it comes to blows.

What it will NOT involve is anything obvious.

If NK brings up enough provocation (Nuclear detonation over the Pacific?) that China won't back them, there would probably be diplomatic backpedalling into "Oh we'll negotiate, alright?" followed by a sudden nighttime strike of stealth aircraft hitting power stations, antiaircraft missile batteries, radar installations, communications sites, and nuclear silos with near-simultaneous strikes (Remember Iraq? Yeah, pretty much THAT, except even more extreme because the stakes are higher), followed by a wave of conventional aircraft and cruise missiles, to bomb the rest of the defenses to pieces. This is, of course, followed by deployment in force of SK and US troops (Really depends on US politics at the time) from the ocean, as compared to over land across the 38th, which is a kill zone and nothing but a kill zone. It does, of course, depend on the assets available out there. It's not an ideal position, since moving half a dozen nuclear-powered supercarriers into the area is going to get noticed, and fast.

Anyway, that's

[Lord Shonus]

Shonus:

It is still disingenuous to conflate "US does not retaliate with nukes" with "Not a confrontation."

It would be too costly for the US to utilize a nuke (however much mister trump might find the idea desirable.)  SK is too close, and is a powerful trade partner. A single nuke on NK would rain fallout on SK, causing debilitating conditions there for generations. The losses in capital investments, technological cooperation, logistical support vs china in the future, and a number of other factors all point toward conventional-only retaliation.

Personally, here is what I would do if NK struck first--

Tactical missile strikes against the artillery batteries along the SK boarder, to prevent or minimize damage to SK assets. 
Tactical missile strikes against nuclear launch facilities and naval yards
drone aircraft strikes on convoy routes, and military bases (launched from SK, after removing the prior targets.)

I am quite certain that our military leadership could devise better plans than this, but sending footsoldiers is the LAST thing you want to do, given how deeply fortified against landwar NK is.

You seem to have veered into a completely different subject than I was talking about. I was discussing the possibility that China and/or Russia would intervene if the conflict escalated to open shooting, not what the ideal strategy would be if it did. My primary point was simply that entering the hypothetical war would be extremely risky for either, and neither is likely to take that risk unless the US is unambiguously the aggressor.

As for strategy, your proposal isn't too far off from what most armchair generals are proposing (what the actual generals are proposing is, of course, classified) with the exception that the US would probably have to use nuclear weapons if NK used them, in order to preserve MAD.

[wierd]

That can be overcome with proper diplomacy with china right now, stating that should Un decide his nuclear dildo needs to fly, the US will flatten him with conventional only means (as a diplomatic courtesy to them, to avoid fallout landing in their back yard.), but should china launch nuclear devices, they will not get the same quarter.

If anything, a conventional-only retaliation (that is successful) would put a big sock in the mouth of small rogue states that feel that having a few (as in, just a handful) of nuclear devices makes them big boys. It reminds the world that the REAL big boys can flatten you WITHOUT nukes.