America Is Being Let Down by Diploma-Dumbo Diplomacy
Which is why we should reinstitute and use friendship with Russia to make Putin get Assad off Russia's rival for the friendship of Syria, which is Iran. Our State Department is mentally incapable of thinking beyond the simple and narrow.
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
We won't live free until the Democrats, and their voters, live in fear.
I believe the Germans are better off for having lost WWII, and the North Koreans would have been better off if they had lost the Korean War. North Korea is amazingly backwards and poor, while South Korea is a much better place to live. I will agree that South Korea had its bumpy road, but it has turned out well.
North Korea is a problem. They close themselves off, live in poverty, and are very militaristic. I reassure you, China is not happy with them.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
The North would win, I believe , because it is militaristic. That's why it's militaristic.
Yes, I'm sure that the Chinese were staggered at the speed with which NK became a nuclear power. NOBODY wants a nuclear power on their doormat. Ask the Russians.
I can't agree that the Germans are better off. They lost half their country to one enemy and the other half to another. The Russians gave their half back.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
If the war continued today? North Korea is so poor, it is hard to believe they could win a long term war. Modern wars burn fuel at insane rates, and North Korea does not even have reasonable amounts of fuel.
Assuming conventionally war, North Korea would use their large artillery force, combined with their huge stockpile of ammunition to demolish anything within range of the border (which includes a third of the South Koreans, and their most important city Seoul. The South Koreans and Americans would use our air forces to knock out those guns, but far more of those guns would be knocked out just by being old, poorly maintained, and at that point over used. The damage would have already been done, but fewer lives would have been lost than you would think, because the South Koreans do have a lot of bomb shelters. At that point, South Korea begins invading North Korea with tanks and air supremacy.
North Korea's speed is not all that amazing. The program started in 1962, and the first test nuclear explosion happened in 2006.
China is more worried by their poverty, and closed off nature. China would love to have a partner they could trade with, not one that is begging for free fuel and food.
Why the Russians? The USA, China, and North Korea are close to Russia's borders, but in places that they would not consider close to their heartland. The UK and France are not particularly big nuclear powers, and are not on Russia's "doormat." Moscow (unlike Washington) is far inland, so far from submarines with missiles. India and Pakistan have small nuclear forces, and no reason to use them against Russia. Israel could potentially attack Russia with nuclear weapons, but again not on their "doormat".
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
We need a new appraisal of the possible outcomes of a war against a nuclear power. From my viewpoint, the concept of a ' conventional war' remains good only until one nuclear power- or the other - looks to be losing. Then it becomes a nuclear war. That's what nukes are for.
We should not actually go as far as testing this ' theory ' in practice. It's so logical that it doesn't even qualify as a ' theory '. That's the way it would be.
Motto; NEVER go to war with a nuclear power. It is unwinnable.
NK, incidentally, has ICBMs. That's remarkable speed of development.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
North Korea could not win a nuclear war. Let's say they hit Tokyo with a 100 kiloton nuclear weapon, and killed 2 million people. North Korea would be wiped off the map, and no one would be willing to defend them. They would still lose.
They would just do more destruction to others before losing. And guarantee more destruction to themselves. When dealing with a country willing to fire nuclear weapons at others, destroying any site (no matter how many civilians are around it) starts seeming very proportional.
North Korea's nuclear weapons could work to keep from being attacked, but once they start a war, there is no way that nuclear weapons make things better for them.
They tested ICBM's, but have not deployed them yet, so in a matter of speaking they have ICBMs. To deploy them, they would have to develop ICBM's that can carry payloads, and be aimed.
So after 60+ years of development, they still do not have ICBM's they can use. That is fast to you?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
We could have dropped some nukes on China when they intervened in the Korean war. But it wouldn't have changed much. Back then, China had a larger population than the U.S. What could we have done. Invade China and root out the commies? We couldn't even do that in South Vietnam. Which was a much smaller country.
Russia has no business invading the Ukraine. As for the Monroe Doctrine, It's a joke. Have you seen this?
General Smedley Butler.jpg
Just Tokyo, eh ? Add to that anything else within range- and neither you nor I know what that range is.
Again- push a nuclear power in a conventional war and nukes are guaranteed.
The trouble with the American way of viewing war is that nobody expects it to involve the N. American seaboards. N.Korean ICBMs are not taken seriously- as you evidence- and you expect, it seems, the Chinese to sit back and endure US nuke attacks on its borders . This arrogance will be fatal if it isn't curbed.
Walt;
Neither could we. Nobody could- so we should not be pushing for one.North Korea could not win a nuclear war.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
Nor does North Korea. They have not had a chance to test a payload in an ICBM aimed at a specific target. It would be a difficult thing for them to test, because they would need control over a launch site, and a target site spaced 10,000 miles apart; they are nowhere near a world superpower, so that is not going to happen. They are having trouble having embassies 10,000 miles apart.
There have been many conventional wars with nuclear powers, and only one went nuclear. That is as far from a guarantee as you can get.
For well over 60 years, America has expected a nuclear war, not just hitting the seaboard, but the entire country. It is baked into war plans, but also the basic understanding American adults have of the world.
South Korea is talking about developing their own nuclear weapons because they do not see us as using nuclear weapons. North Korea would use a nuclear weapon, and then we would respond with conventional weapons. South Korea wants to respond with nuclear weapons.
I doubt the South Koreans would care how the Chinese would react. The vast majority of South Koreans would already be dead. It is mutually assured destruction, but only in Korea.
The main purpose of nuclear weapons seems to be to scare opponents away from fighting a war, not to do much in the war that follows. That being said, there is a flaw in nuclear weapons that would allow for a victory.
First, you cannot scare opponents away from a war that you start. So Ukraine could care less that the Russians who invade them have nuclear weapons, and the South Koreans would not care that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons if the North Koreans invaded. Second, it becomes extremely destructive to everyone if the nuclear weapons are used. There is a real chance Russian or North Korean military commanders would refuse an order to use them. When you game it all out, nuclear weapons can sometimes lead to a complete defeat that the lack of nuclear weapons would have avoided.
There is also a less understood chance that South Korea and the USA would be more aggressive if they thought they had to go to war with North Korea. There are plans to try to take out the nuclear weapons and/or the command structure in North Korea, when there was no similar plans for Iraq. This could mean defeating North Korea would go faster than defeating Iraq.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
That's just a matter of understanding the science- which countries with ballistic missiles certainly do.
That's right- it went nuclear out of malice. The opponents were almost unarmed.There have been many conventional wars with nuclear powers, and only one went nuclear. That is as far from a guarantee as you can get.
That's why the Russians almost certainly believe that the US would opt for a first strike. As a result, there is no way that they will allow NATO into Ukraine. That's my understanding of the Russian position. It's been said over and over by international military experts- push the Russians into a conventional defeat and nukes will surely follow. I agree.For well over 60 years, America has expected a nuclear war, not just hitting the seaboard, but the entire country. It is baked into war plans, but also the basic understanding American adults have of the world.
[quote]
South Korea is talking about developing their own nuclear weapons because they do not see us as using nuclear weapons. North Korea would use a nuclear weapon, and then we would respond with conventional weapons. South Korea wants to respond with nuclear weapons.
I doubt the South Koreans would care how the Chinese would react. The vast majority of South Koreans would already be dead. It is mutually assured destruction, but only in Korea. [quote]
Oh, I see- you envision a ' limited nuclear catastrophe '. Good luck with that. People of like mind should be removed from positions of power immediately.
The strategy is quite simple, based upon known values. The US used atomic bombs , quite unnecessarily, against a defeated opponent. It was a callous slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, women and children. So no country can expect anything different from the US. Their only hope of survival, as a free society of their own choosing, is to also be nuclear armed. Nothing else will turn the insane point of US power-craving- as we've seen in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The US even backs fascist Israel militarily and goes to war on its behalf, even though the UN- and the world at large- marks it as a criminal state.The main purpose of nuclear weapons seems to be to scare opponents away from fighting a war, not to do much in the war that follows. That being said, there is a flaw in nuclear weapons that would allow for a victory.
First, you cannot scare opponents away from a war that you start. So Ukraine could care less that the Russians who invade them have nuclear weapons, and the South Koreans would not care that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons if the North Koreans invaded. Second, it becomes extremely destructive to everyone if the nuclear weapons are used. There is a real chance Russian or North Korean military commanders would refuse an order to use them. When you game it all out, nuclear weapons can sometimes lead to a complete defeat that the lack of nuclear weapons would have avoided.
There is also a less understood chance that South Korea and the USA would be more aggressive if they thought they had to go to war with North Korea. There are plans to try to take out the nuclear weapons and/or the command structure in North Korea, when there was no similar plans for Iraq. This could mean defeating North Korea would go faster than defeating Iraq.
India, Pakistan and N. Korea are nuclear armed- and no friends of the US empire. It goes without saying that neither the Russian nor the Chinese are particular about which other, non-Western, countries develop nukes for their own defense against US ' democracy '. So the US, by its nuclear madness, set in motion a nuclear chain of events that it cannot control. It hopes to continue its hegemony through conventional warfare- but the world has had enough of that. It's likely that the Russians would come to the aid of Iran , once the US attacks it, as planned- and the Chinese will not permit the defeat of N.Korea. So, best that Yangui goes home, Walt- and then you can quit trying to formulate how America is going to continue into the future by means of conventional warfare overseas. Imo- it ain't gonna happen
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
Bookmarks