4 ms·

You want to come off as determined, not insane. You want to make it clear to people you will retaliate if attacked, but you want to make it just as clear that y

You want to come off as determined, not insane. You want to make it clear to people you will retaliate if attacked, but you want to make it just as clear that you will not launch a preemptive strike. Because if the enemy thinks you are crazy enough to start a nuclear exchange, they may decide to launch a preemptive strike themselves, so at least the initiative is on their side. If you read about the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, you won't find anything about "acting crazy" > We wouldn't want to upset Rocket Man with any kind of personal insult, that's just crazy. Strategic patience was really working out so well, but if that doesn't work somehow we could always try appeasement? There are a whole world of options between appeasement and personal insults. And I really don't see what personal insults are supposed to do. Like, are you expecting Kim Jong Un to say "sorry, we'll stop our nuclear program, just please don't call me 'Little Rocket Man' anymore"?

zaroth 9y ago
The point is we aren't tip-toeing around a country when they have been threatening the annihilation of the US and others for years. Here's a chronology of NK threats... from 2013! [1] You think waiting it out a couple more years while they perfect their ICBMs is a good plan? The tweets today are just more of the same positioning. Trump knows better than anyone, you negotiate from a position of strength, from a position of; I'm willing to come to the table if you have something to offer me, but I really don't have to be here, and we're not drawing this out another few years while you keep racing full speed toward weaponization. I personally think the most likely outcome by pushing brinkmanship to the edge and with unanimous UN sanctions supported by Russia and China is that Rocket Man gets assassinated from within. [1] - http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/21/a-running-list-of-north-koreas-near-daily-threats-updated/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/21/a-running-list-of-north-...
- openasocket 9y ago
  > You think waiting it out a couple more years while they perfect their ICBMs is a good plan? Who said anything about waiting? I certainly didn't. > Trump knows better than anyone, you negotiate from a position of strength Find me any book anywhere that lists name calling as a legitimate negotiating tactic. Or profoundly hollow threats. You understand that the DPRK is dug into their country like a tick and the military options are almost universally horrible? They have artillery positions spread all across the DMZ, many of which are capable of reaching Seoul. If the US were to attack the DPRK, and the war stayed conventional, there would be over 300,000 South Korean civilian casualties in the first 24 hours. Even if we devoted all of our air power in the Pacific to reducing those artillery positions it would take over a week to neutralize them all. Loss projections show millions of civilians dead inside a week. And all of this ignores the fact that China would enter the war on the side of the DPRK if we invaded without casus belli. Kim Jung Un is a bank robber who's taken hostages and rigged the whole building up with explosives on a dead man's switch. And the SWAT team thinks it's a good idea to taunt him. Sure, they could take him out without any SWAT casualties, but you wind up with a bunch of dead hostages and some new real estate opening up on Main. To negotiate from a position of power, you would need to be able to take some sort of unilateral action that didn't have such profound consequences for yourself and your allies.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    It was a question - so you agree waiting isn't an option (any more). I think to have an effective negotiation, you have to first "clear the air" in a sense that you aren't going to kow-tow to Kim, or pretend that he's anything other than exactly what he is. There's no future for the regime currently leading NK, so any real negotiation is actually targeting whoever is going to replace Kim. Taunting him (and watching how he responds) is a calculated part of this process. The unanimous UN resolution, and the executive order which backed it up last week I think speak for themselves. [1] I don't agree with 38North's conclusions but they describe the order itself fairly well. I doubt very much that China will come out on DPRK's side at the end of this; we will get just enough out of Rocket Man to justify any strike in China's eyes. I think people are putting far too much weight on an op-ed if they think China will militarily defend NK. What China is doing is walking back their mutual defense treaty from 1961 to make it clear that NK is on their own if they provoke an attack. They want to keep a deterrent in place as much as possible against a first strike against NK, but I think the reality is that China won't be there with tanks, missiles, or troops when NK falls. Or if they are, it's because they are the ones taking over. Come to think of it, I'm sure we would happily pay China $100+ billion in trade allowances if they would do us the favor. My personal opinion is that if we do end up making targeted strikes against NK military installations, they will be with the promise of overwhelming nuclear strike if artillery fire were ever to touch Seoul. Like I said before though, I think it's much more likely that Rocket Man is deposed before that happens. [1] - http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jdethomas092217/ http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jdethomas092217/

zaroth 9y ago

The point is we aren't tip-toeing around a country when they have been threatening the annihilation of the US and others for years. Here's a chronology of NK threats... from 2013! [1] You think waiting it out a couple more years while they perfect their ICBMs is a good plan? The tweets today are just more of the same positioning. Trump knows better than anyone, you negotiate from a position of strength, from a position of; I'm willing to come to the table if you have something to offer me, but I really don't have to be here, and we're not drawing this out another few years while you keep racing full speed toward weaponization. I personally think the most likely outcome by pushing brinkmanship to the edge and with unanimous UN sanctions supported by Russia and China is that Rocket Man gets assassinated from within. [1] - http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/21/a-running-list-of-north-koreas-near-daily-threats-updated/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/21/a-running-list-of-north-...

openasocket 9y ago
> You think waiting it out a couple more years while they perfect their ICBMs is a good plan? Who said anything about waiting? I certainly didn't. > Trump knows better than anyone, you negotiate from a position of strength Find me any book anywhere that lists name calling as a legitimate negotiating tactic. Or profoundly hollow threats. You understand that the DPRK is dug into their country like a tick and the military options are almost universally horrible? They have artillery positions spread all across the DMZ, many of which are capable of reaching Seoul. If the US were to attack the DPRK, and the war stayed conventional, there would be over 300,000 South Korean civilian casualties in the first 24 hours. Even if we devoted all of our air power in the Pacific to reducing those artillery positions it would take over a week to neutralize them all. Loss projections show millions of civilians dead inside a week. And all of this ignores the fact that China would enter the war on the side of the DPRK if we invaded without casus belli. Kim Jung Un is a bank robber who's taken hostages and rigged the whole building up with explosives on a dead man's switch. And the SWAT team thinks it's a good idea to taunt him. Sure, they could take him out without any SWAT casualties, but you wind up with a bunch of dead hostages and some new real estate opening up on Main. To negotiate from a position of power, you would need to be able to take some sort of unilateral action that didn't have such profound consequences for yourself and your allies.
- zaroth 9y ago
  It was a question - so you agree waiting isn't an option (any more). I think to have an effective negotiation, you have to first "clear the air" in a sense that you aren't going to kow-tow to Kim, or pretend that he's anything other than exactly what he is. There's no future for the regime currently leading NK, so any real negotiation is actually targeting whoever is going to replace Kim. Taunting him (and watching how he responds) is a calculated part of this process. The unanimous UN resolution, and the executive order which backed it up last week I think speak for themselves. [1] I don't agree with 38North's conclusions but they describe the order itself fairly well. I doubt very much that China will come out on DPRK's side at the end of this; we will get just enough out of Rocket Man to justify any strike in China's eyes. I think people are putting far too much weight on an op-ed if they think China will militarily defend NK. What China is doing is walking back their mutual defense treaty from 1961 to make it clear that NK is on their own if they provoke an attack. They want to keep a deterrent in place as much as possible against a first strike against NK, but I think the reality is that China won't be there with tanks, missiles, or troops when NK falls. Or if they are, it's because they are the ones taking over. Come to think of it, I'm sure we would happily pay China $100+ billion in trade allowances if they would do us the favor. My personal opinion is that if we do end up making targeted strikes against NK military installations, they will be with the promise of overwhelming nuclear strike if artillery fire were ever to touch Seoul. Like I said before though, I think it's much more likely that Rocket Man is deposed before that happens. [1] - http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jdethomas092217/ http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jdethomas092217/