4 ms·

Well, good thing is we're all getting an object lesson right now. Watch North Korea and the U.S. interact. That is how war happens. Leaders who for various rea

Well, good thing is we're all getting an object lesson right now. Watch North Korea and the U.S. interact. That is how war happens. Leaders who for various reasons taunt and provoke each other, implementing what to either populace seems a reasonable policy. (NK would like to be able to defend against the US, so they get nukes. The US would like to not be nuked, so they agitate strongly against them). Alas, these policies are in conflict, so tensions rise. At some point, a small event - a misunderstanding, a border skirmish, etc - happens. In the context of already ratcheted up tensions, it spirals out of control because everybody feels the need to react quickly, before the other side escalates. Nobody says "over my dead body". Everybody takes the next step, a step that's entirely reasonable from their perspective, but opens up "reasonable" steps for the other side. The core problem is that neither side considers the needs of the other side. Peace requires active communication to constantly de-escalate and compromise, from both sides. An interest in a common good. War is what happens when you lose that and move to self-interest.

jessaustin 9y ago
USA has constantly pressured DPRK over the course of decades, mostly for domestic political purposes. At many points we could have chosen less confrontation, but usually we chose more. Recently we offered Qaddafi the same deal we have continually offered the Kims, and then after he accepted it we "changed our minds" and shoved a bayonet up his ass. Even now we continue the pressure (somewhat erratically, because Trump), when doing so has no conceivable "self-interest" on a national level. Of course more war is very much in the interest of armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in politics and the media. If war were ever in the overall national interest, we'd occasionally win a war or even just accomplish some vague goal by fighting one. That has never happened in my lifetime or that of my parents. Of course I have to stipulate now that the Kim Dynasty are very bad no-good people whom we should all detest, otherwise trolls might pretend to misunderstand me.
- nsnick 9y ago
  At some point you have to stand up to despots in the name of human rights.
  - vkou 9y ago
    This has never been a goal of the Department of State - only the excuse.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  > That has never happened in my lifetime or that of my parents. Unless your parents are really young, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War is an obvious counterexample. There was a reasonably clear goal and the goal was accomplished. I will grant that this is the only example I can think of right now, though.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    I was in high school then, and unlike others I actually remember the bullshit I hear on the news. We were told that it wasn't like Korea, because the troops would come home immediately. To the contrary, the continued presence (to the present day!) of USA military in Kuwait, Iraq, and especially Saudi destabilized the Middle East and was the primary motivator for the author of 9/11. If evicting Iraqis from Kuwait was "the goal", why was that other crap necessary?
    - bzbarsky 9y ago
      I think listening to the news to figure out what goals anyone has is a pretty lost cause. The news anchors will say things that have no bearing on reality. People they interview will say things that have only slightly more bearing on reality, maybe. I agree that keeping troops in place after the war was a bit questionable. Though one does need to answer the "OK, we kick Iraq out, what keeps them from coming back?" question. Which was answered in a ham-handed way, if at all. Keeping troops in Kuwait maybe made sense. Keeping troops in Saudi... one of the ostensible goals was in fact to prevent an Iraqi invasion of Saudi, not just to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. I do think in retrospect this was a bad idea. It's harder to tell how it looked at the time, and in particular what the Saudi government was telling the US government.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Kuwait's position, of a rich weak nation with no military alliances bordering a hungry strong one, was somewhat untenable. It is folly to fight a war for a short-term benefit. If spanking Saddam and then leaving would so obviously result in his invading Kuwait again, then the decision to deploy was effectively a decision to deploy indefinitely [0]. That was also folly. One can forgive impermanent mistakes, however. In retrospect, withdrawing troops soon after they repelled Iraq and then encouraging fracking in USA would have been a better decision. It was certainly discussed at the time, and Korea was certainly mentioned in those discussions. The reason we didn't "choose" to do that, is that military-industrial complex would have made much less money in that case. That's always true, however. An ineffective military that is always fighting is an eternal fountain of money for them. [0] One supposes that another option would have been to disrupt the governance of Iraq such that it would stop invading Kuwait, but later experience suggests that could also have had its drawbacks...
- wnscooke 9y ago
  Communist ideology as embraced by nations typically involves spreading that ideology as far and wide as possible (including in the non-purified forms of communism). Your opening sounds like the USA had no reason to pressure the DPRK. I can't speak to specific incidents you may have in mind, but communism would have spread globally, bringing with it suffering, had it not been opposed and pressured.
oh_sigh 9y ago
Except this isn't really how wars happen, because the US and NK have been trading barbs since ... the 1950s, even though we are technically still at war with them, there is nothing akin to a hot war, or anything radically different from the status quo, anywhere on the horizon
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jessaustin 9y ago

USA has constantly pressured DPRK over the course of decades, mostly for domestic political purposes. At many points we could have chosen less confrontation, but usually we chose more. Recently we offered Qaddafi the same deal we have continually offered the Kims, and then after he accepted it we "changed our minds" and shoved a bayonet up his ass. Even now we continue the pressure (somewhat erratically, because Trump), when doing so has no conceivable "self-interest" on a national level. Of course more war is very much in the interest of armaments manufacturers and their sockpuppets in politics and the media. If war were ever in the overall national interest, we'd occasionally win a war or even just accomplish some vague goal by fighting one. That has never happened in my lifetime or that of my parents. Of course I have to stipulate now that the Kim Dynasty are very bad no-good people whom we should all detest, otherwise trolls might pretend to misunderstand me.

nsnick 9y ago
At some point you have to stand up to despots in the name of human rights.
- vkou 9y ago
  This has never been a goal of the Department of State - only the excuse.
bzbarsky 9y ago
> That has never happened in my lifetime or that of my parents. Unless your parents are really young, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War is an obvious counterexample. There was a reasonably clear goal and the goal was accomplished. I will grant that this is the only example I can think of right now, though.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  I was in high school then, and unlike others I actually remember the bullshit I hear on the news. We were told that it wasn't like Korea, because the troops would come home immediately. To the contrary, the continued presence (to the present day!) of USA military in Kuwait, Iraq, and especially Saudi destabilized the Middle East and was the primary motivator for the author of 9/11. If evicting Iraqis from Kuwait was "the goal", why was that other crap necessary?
  - bzbarsky 9y ago
    I think listening to the news to figure out what goals anyone has is a pretty lost cause. The news anchors will say things that have no bearing on reality. People they interview will say things that have only slightly more bearing on reality, maybe. I agree that keeping troops in place after the war was a bit questionable. Though one does need to answer the "OK, we kick Iraq out, what keeps them from coming back?" question. Which was answered in a ham-handed way, if at all. Keeping troops in Kuwait maybe made sense. Keeping troops in Saudi... one of the ostensible goals was in fact to prevent an Iraqi invasion of Saudi, not just to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. I do think in retrospect this was a bad idea. It's harder to tell how it looked at the time, and in particular what the Saudi government was telling the US government.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Kuwait's position, of a rich weak nation with no military alliances bordering a hungry strong one, was somewhat untenable. It is folly to fight a war for a short-term benefit. If spanking Saddam and then leaving would so obviously result in his invading Kuwait again, then the decision to deploy was effectively a decision to deploy indefinitely [0]. That was also folly. One can forgive impermanent mistakes, however. In retrospect, withdrawing troops soon after they repelled Iraq and then encouraging fracking in USA would have been a better decision. It was certainly discussed at the time, and Korea was certainly mentioned in those discussions. The reason we didn't "choose" to do that, is that military-industrial complex would have made much less money in that case. That's always true, however. An ineffective military that is always fighting is an eternal fountain of money for them. [0] One supposes that another option would have been to disrupt the governance of Iraq such that it would stop invading Kuwait, but later experience suggests that could also have had its drawbacks...
wnscooke 9y ago
Communist ideology as embraced by nations typically involves spreading that ideology as far and wide as possible (including in the non-purified forms of communism). Your opening sounds like the USA had no reason to pressure the DPRK. I can't speak to specific incidents you may have in mind, but communism would have spread globally, bringing with it suffering, had it not been opposed and pressured.

oh_sigh 9y ago

Except this isn't really how wars happen, because the US and NK have been trading barbs since ... the 1950s, even though we are technically still at war with them, there is nothing akin to a hot war, or anything radically different from the status quo, anywhere on the horizon

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]