Print

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

[Jopax]

Hundreds of heavy artillery guns pointed at major population centers in SK would like to have a word with your capability do deter any attack NK might mount.

[McTraveller]

Hundreds of heavy artillery guns pointed at major population centers in SK would like to have a word with your capability do deter any attack NK might mount.

Fair enough, I should have said "deter any nuclear attack against the US."

Their staging of artillery against SK though - again, that's part of the senseless thing. If NK did attack SK, it would be suicide.  I guess they might take quite a few others with them, but they may not care?  That's what scares me...there's no rationality to any of it.

[alway]

NK - just doesn't make any sense at all.  Aside from us sanctioning them for human rights things, why are they so mad? Why do we think they are so scary, when we do have the capability to deter any attack they might mount?

It's all just idiotic.  Playing a game of chicken or something even more stupid like "giving them a bloody nose" just makes no sense at all.

Ahahahahaha.

We staged a war in their country that resulted in the death of 1 in 5 people within living memory and forcibly split their country in two. Again, 3 million dead, 1.5 million of those civilians. But the US would surely never do anything to North Korea again, right? Just like it would only ever invade Iraq once, and how it would definitely respect the sovereignty of small foreign nations, right? Take a good long look at US actions worldwide and tell me with a straight face that we would not invade and topple the North Korean regime if not for the artillery pointed at an ally and potential nuclear deterrence. Everything they are doing is perfectly rational and is frankly the only way for their government to protect itself against US aggression.

[McTraveller]

Well I guess that's part of politics, right?  "We" didn't go to war there - people before I was born did.  I dislike being lumped in with a generation for things that happened before I even had a chance to deal with it.

I can't comment too much on the Korean war actually, I've not read much on it.  And M*A*S*H isn't a good substitute for actual history.

I dunno, maybe the US is just as aggressive as people claim?  But claiming "past behavior guarantees future behavior", especially when demographics change, is not really helpful.

I dunno, I guess maybe I close my eyes to too much, because I'm too busy working and keeping my family happy.  I do vote, but that doesn't seem to have a meaningful effect, other than in my personal conscience in how I voted since most outcomes haven't really aligned with my vote.

EDIT: That was some messed up grammar.

[Sheb]

NK - just doesn't make any sense at all.  Aside from us sanctioning them for human rights things, why are they so mad? Why do we think they are so scary, when we do have the capability to deter any attack they might mount?

It's all just idiotic.  Playing a game of chicken or something even more stupid like "giving them a bloody nose" just makes no sense at all.

Ahahahahaha.

We staged a war in their country that resulted in the death of 1 in 5 people within living memory and forcibly split their country in two. Again, 3 million dead, 1.5 million of those civilians. But the US would surely never do anything to North Korea again, right? Just like it would only ever invade Iraq once, and how it would definitely respect the sovereignty of small foreign nations, right? Take a good long look at US actions worldwide and tell me with a straight face that we would not invade and topple the North Korean regime if not for the artillery pointed at an ally and potential nuclear deterrence. Everything they are doing is perfectly rational and is frankly the only way for their government to protect itself against US aggression.

The country was split before the Korean War, and saying it was "staged" by the US is an... interesting interpretation of history.

[andrea]

I believe with a straight face that at this time USA would not launch a full invasion of NK even without the deterrents, as long as China backs North Korea.

That said, I agree that the artillery pointed to Seoul is rational and sensible. It is not an offensive measure ( attacking  SK would mean death), but a defensive one. They know they can't win a straight fight, and I am quite sure they don't want to rely entirely on chinese good will for safety, so their only option is making it known that an attack on NK will be extremely expensive in terms of lives. a nuclear arsenal is more showy and possibly less expensive to maintain than the current artillery barrage, hence more effective.

[Culise]

NK - just doesn't make any sense at all.  Aside from us sanctioning them for human rights things, why are they so mad? Why do we think they are so scary, when we do have the capability to deter any attack they might mount?

It's all just idiotic.  Playing a game of chicken or something even more stupid like "giving them a bloody nose" just makes no sense at all.

Ahahahahaha.

We staged a war in their country that resulted in the death of 1 in 5 people within living memory and forcibly split their country in two. Again, 3 million dead, 1.5 million of those civilians. But the US would surely never do anything to North Korea again, right? Just like it would only ever invade Iraq once, and how it would definitely respect the sovereignty of small foreign nations, right? Take a good long look at US actions worldwide and tell me with a straight face that we would not invade and topple the North Korean regime if not for the artillery pointed at an ally and potential nuclear deterrence. Everything they are doing is perfectly rational and is frankly the only way for their government to protect itself against US aggression.

The country was split before the Korean War, and saying it was "staged" by the US is an... interesting interpretation of history.

Aye. How dare the US refuse to sell heavy armaments to South Korea before the war?  I mean, if Truman had simply given in to a knee-jerk anti-Communist sentiment and given sold Rhee all the guns he wanted as well as not pulling back all troops except a couple hundred advisors, North Korea would never have sensed weakness and invaded.  It's all because the US didn't want a war that a war happened.

To be fair, though, it *is* a decent portrayal of how the North Koreans likely see the war, which is how it would affect their approach to a second such conflict.  To argue in North Korea that it was a war of aggression by North Korea, and worse, that it was a failed war of aggression?  That seems like it would be counterproductive.  The official line, as far as I know, is that it was a defensive action triggered by South Korean aggression aimed at deposing the Syngman Rhee government, at which point the South Korean population would welcome North Korean leadership with open arms, but American intervention and Rhee's own brutality prevented that.  To be fair again, in 1950s, most of those elements weren't too far off from the truth, either.  Rhee did want a war, which is why Truman didn't trust him, Rhee was actively purging South Korea of Communist guerilla activity (notably in the Jeju massacres that wiped out as much as 10% of the island population), and both sides were staging provocations in the DMZ.  It's just the whole that adds up to something that smells a bit funny because the Kim government was no better and was actively preparing the war for the last five years, down to even wiring Moscow for an official imprimatur.

EDIT: Added some further thoughts on the matter.

[alway]

To be fair, though, it *is* a decent portrayal of how the North Koreans likely see the war, which is how it would affect their approach to a second such conflict. 

This, by the way, is the part that actually matters when attempting to reach a reasonable conclusion about the rational behind the actions of another. There's likely a lot more embellishment and pro-government bits about how the North Korean government protected the people from the American onslaught through noble self-sacrifice etc and so forth; some of which is probably widely believed, and some of which is considered dubious or outright farcical. But the foundational bedrock on which the North Korean view of history is built would essentially just come down to taking the facts and interpreting them as favorably towards North Korea as they can be; similar to pretty much every other country.

[EnigmaticHat]

NK is a "top heavy" regime, like the Soviets were.  Wealthy politicians held up by a big military held up by a small and poor civilian economy.

Kim Jong Un doesn't give a shit about who was on the right side of history.  Kim Jong Un wants to stay in power.  There are 3 existential threats to his power.  His own military is the worst threat, followed by South Korea backed by us, followed by his own civilian population.  Wealth doesn't play into the equation, because the military will get their bread before the civilians do.

This is why NK looks so insane to outsiders.  A "top heavy" regime will always sag under the weight of its bloated military, causing the already weak civilian economy to grow weaker and weaker.  This is what did the Soviets in.  But the Soviets did not have a larger economy ready to bail them out.  NK has China.  And besides, a distant threat to Kim Jong Un like economic collapse is far less relevant than the short term threats.

[Loud Whispers]

lmao right side of history

[EnigmaticHat]

That bit was in response to the "did the US do the wrong thing in the Korean War" conversation.  The point I was making is that Kim Jung Un isn't acting on old grudges he's acting on practical realities.  So it doesn't really matter in this case how much we did or did not mess up.

[misko27]

It wouldn't get my vote on its own, but it would certainly help.

I figured that, as it would solidify the supervillain vote, Oprah's unleashing bees would gain her the unqualified support of Bay12.

Meanwhile, this is, um, something. Trump has endorsed the return of earmarks, and Congress is, quote, "intoxicated" with the prospect. It's not guaranteed that they will return as of yet, as earmarks are, after all, very toxic politically (particularly in an election year), but it's something worth noting.

[EnigmaticHat]

I love this.  Bring back the swamp.  Washington DC was so much better when the buildings were sinking into the mud and there were mosquitoes everywhere.  Let's build some more water pumps and have them pump water *into* the low elevation areas.

[Jopax]

I like how they're going: "We're not gonna be corrupt shitbags this time, honest!"

Like that's ever been true, hah.

[Frumple]

It wouldn't get my vote on its own, but it would certainly help.

I figured that, as it would solidify the supervillain vote, Oprah's unleashing bees would gain her the unqualified support of Bay12.

Sadly, not all supervillains are created equal insofar as governance goes. Unending swarms of bees aren't enough on their own, these days. Just as mermaids would not have had their children's bones harvested were they not expensive, the ethos of b12 takes more than just supervillainy. There also needs to be things like a continued assurance of food, perhaps in the form of nutrient enriched honey.

Meanwhile, this is, um, something.

Yeah, wouldn't count the chickens before they hatch, and all that. Trump's trump, gods know how he'd react if the bill was actually on the table and who the hell knows if the GOP could even manage to pass it even if trump maintained it. That said...

A longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, Aderholt said he could back a return to earmarks “as long as it’s done on a fair and transparent basis.” He said it’s better for elected representatives to dole out government cash, rather than “a group of bureaucrats a thousand miles away.”

“The misnomer about that is that it is a ‘swamp’ issue,” Aderholt said. “You could make the argument that this is more getting rid of the swamp, holding people accountable.”

... heh. You can make that argument, it just takes either brain damage or blatant duplicity. Which I guess means we'll get to see it at some point in the next few years.