Threat from the DPRK (North Korea)

[Warren Dew]

(09-20-2017, 04:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 01:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: Are you a gambler?  Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?

I prefer to play it safe, which is why I prefer to take my chances resolving this now rather than taking my much worse chances after Kim has nuclear weapons and free rein to sell them to terrorists and rogue states.

The people in Seoul might disagree with this.  Sure, we do fine, but they take a huge hit today, tomorrow and into the indefinite future.

If the US attacks only the nuclear program and not the Kim regime, then the risk of Kim shelling Seoul and dooming his own regime is very small.

In contrast, if the US does nothing, then a successful invasion of South Korea by North Korea is very likely within a decade.

You're acting like Kim is rational in the western sense of the term.  I would suspect that an attack on his nuclear program would trigger an artillery barrage of Seoul.  More to the point, I doubt we can knock out either his nuclear of missile program entirely, so we gain nothing at huge expense.

As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

[David Horn]

(09-20-2017, 09:09 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The problem Mr. Horn, is that Kim is rational.  There is no "western sense" to whether one is rational or not.  In fact I would say that all three have been particularly cold and calculating in their world wide actions.  Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un in particular.  Il-Sung mostly lived on foreign aid from the USSR and China.

I spent enough time in the far east to know that western philosophy and eastern philosophy are dramatically different.  The DPRK exists because the PRC entered the Korean War en masse.  We were tired and far away, so we left an armistice in place expecting it to resolve in time.  Time, in the eastern sense, is a much longer horizon than it is in the western sense.  So here we are.

In the meantime, the Kims decided that we were weak (their view of our decision to accept the armistice), and have tested our patience time and again.  What they fail to understand is a product of their philosophy: western patience is as short as our view of time.  If we actually decide that enough is enough, this will get very ugly very fast.

Kinser Wrote:As for shelling Seoul, I say let him.  It means the ROK will have no choice but to fight, and eventually reunify the peninsula.  They don't have much interest in doing that right now because modernizing the North would be a huge drag on their economy much like Germany experienced in their reunification.

So you're cheering on the idea of a land war in Asia then?  Do you honestly feel this makes any sense at all?

Kinser Wrote:Vietnam not so much.  Neither the south or the north were particularly developed at the time.

The Vietnam War was a meat grinder.  Spend some time watching Ken Burns series on the subject.

[David Horn]

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2017, 11:20 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: You Boomers are obsessed with the Vietnam War. I know, I know, for at least the Aquarian Boomers, it was your war.

For the rest of us, it was just another pip squeak conflict that never evolved into Total War.

One of many, ever since we shit our own pants after doing two small nukes in Japan. The thing about MAD is, it is us Americans who are the most shit scared of nukes. Way more than any other people I can think of.

I doubt that. Noone who is sane is not scared of nuclear war.

Boomers are obsessed with the Vietnam War. It was the event that convinced us that the millennia-old dedication to organized killing was nothing more than killing, often for no good reason. But everyone is eligible to learn from history; the lessons of history are not restricted to those who were young at the time of any particular event. Any family that lost their sons in Vietnam is obsessed with it too, one way or another. It does seem to be true that only those who have fought in a war know fully what war is. We should listen to them.

The lesson of Vietnam War is simple. It's time to stop war altogether. It's nonsense. People other than Aquarian Boomers can learn that lesson. All you have to do now is watch the current PBS TV series.

Certainly "total war" is something to avoid if at all possible. I know, and I understand, there are rogue regimes out there today like the Islamic State and North Korea that can't be allowed to roam around killing people or shooting missiles at us and our allies. Crime exists, and needs to be policed. And there are other regimes that are more tyrannical than even the United States of America is. That doesn't mean we have to go to war with them, and it doesn't mean we have to assume they are getting ready to attack us at any moment. They aren't.

The folks who made the USA-Vietnam War assumed that the "communists" in Vietnam were Hitler and would stop at nothing to conquer territory all the way from Saigon to San Diego if they were "appeased." It was never true, and the "communists" in this case were just folks who didn't like foreigners coming in and taking over their country and imposing their ideas on them. Ho Chi Minh was not Stalin and not Hitler, and even Putin is not Hitler or Stalin either. It is not worth killing people to pursue these illusions.

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2017, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-20-2017, 09:09 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The problem Mr. Horn, is that Kim is rational.  There is no "western sense" to whether one is rational or not.  In fact I would say that all three have been particularly cold and calculating in their world wide actions.  Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un in particular.  Il-Sung mostly lived on foreign aid from the USSR and China.

I spent enough time in the far east to know that western philosophy and eastern philosophy are dramatically different.  The DPRK exists because the PRC entered the Korean War en masse.  We were tired and far away, so we left an armistice in place expecting it to resolve in time.  Time, in the eastern sense, is a much longer horizon than it is in the western sense.  So here we are.

In the meantime, the Kims decided that we were weak (their view of our decision to accept the armistice), and have tested our patience time and again.  What they fail to understand is a product of their philosophy: western patience is as short as our view of time.  If we actually decide that enough is enough, this will get very ugly very fast.

Kinser Wrote:As for shelling Seoul, I say let him.  It means the ROK will have no choice but to fight, and eventually reunify the peninsula.  They don't have much interest in doing that right now because modernizing the North would be a huge drag on their economy much like Germany experienced in their reunification.

So you're cheering on the idea of a land war in Asia then?  Do you honestly feel this makes any sense at all?

Kinser Wrote:Vietnam not so much.  Neither the south or the north were particularly developed at the time.

The Vietnam War was a meat grinder.  Spend some time watching Ken Burns series on the subject.

Indeed. It is very likely that if the USA attacked North Korea preemptively, China would back NK and support them, and that NK would attack South Korea. They have a huge army ready to fight, and our side does not. The risk of a quagmire is large. The USA is acting proud and unwilling to make a deal that would stop NK testing. Just offer to stop our war exercises near North Korea. We lose nothing in such an agreement, but the USA it seems would rather wratchet up the tensions even to the possibility of attempting to preemptively "wipe NK off the map" with "fire and fury." So much for the idea that Daddy Drump is not a neo-con.

[David Horn]

(09-21-2017, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Indeed. It is very likely that if the USA attacked North Korea preemptively, China would back NK and support them, and that NK would attack South Korea. They have a huge army ready to fight, and our side does not. The risk of a quagmire is large. The USA is acting proud and unwilling to make a deal that would stop NK testing. Just offer to stop our war exercises near North Korea. We lose nothing in such an agreement, but the USA it seems would rather ratchet up the tensions even to the possibility of attempting to preemptively "wipe NK off the map" with "fire and fury." So much for the idea that Daddy Drump is not a neo-con.

It's an historical reality that those who have never experienced war, or purposely avoided it in DJT's case, are the ones most likely to be flippant about starting another one.  The prime example from the recent past: Dick Cheney.

[Warren Dew]

(09-21-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

Wrong.  We went into Vietnam to keep South Vietnam alive, which necessitated ground troops.  A strike to destroy North Korea's nuclear program doesn't require ground troops.

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2017, 01:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

Wrong.  We went into Vietnam to keep South Vietnam alive, which necessitated ground troops.  A strike to destroy North Korea's nuclear program doesn't require ground troops.

We would be risking North Korea invading the South with troops, China and maybe Russia declaring war on the USA and assisting NK's invasion with troops and missiles, and the US attack missing some missile sites from which missiles would be blasted at SK and Japan and maybe the USA too. You seem to trust the USA military a lot to get everything right. I don't.

Kim Jung Un considers that without his nuc program, he is vulnerable to attack anytime by the USA and South Korea.

It's a tempting idea you suggest; too tempting I'm afraid.

[pbrower2a]

(09-19-2017, 04:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 02:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Within a decade. In the meantime Kim Jong-Un could be overthrown in a military coup. He could do something really stupid that causes the People's Liberation Army to liberate northern Korea. He could choke on some food.

None of which the senior Kim has done in the past 70 years.  That he'll invade the South has a much higher likelihood.

I doubt it.

https://southfront.org/north-korea-vs-so...look-like/

Little mobility, obsolete technology in its military aircraft, naval vessels, and tanks, poor infrastructure for fuel transmission... that sounds less ready for war than Iraq in 1991.

Something else to consider: South Korea has great numbers of private automobiles. Any automobile can be fashioned into a car bomb, a menace to military units.

Just don't strike first. North Korea will need China to rescue it.

[Kinser79]

(09-21-2017, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-20-2017, 09:09 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The problem Mr. Horn, is that Kim is rational.  There is no "western sense" to whether one is rational or not.  In fact I would say that all three have been particularly cold and calculating in their world wide actions.  Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un in particular.  Il-Sung mostly lived on foreign aid from the USSR and China.

I spent enough time in the far east to know that western philosophy and eastern philosophy are dramatically different.

That isn't what you said. You said that Kim was not acting rationally. Reason does not require philosophy be it eastern or western. I fail to see what you gain from this non sequitur.

 

Quote: The DPRK exists because the PRC entered the Korean War en masse.

Agreed. But why did the PRC enter the war in mass? There is one strain of thought that says that Mao was defending a fellow communist, but that is of course to misunderstand Mao. Mao's relationships with foreigners was frigid at the best of times, which is quite typical of the Chinese in general. Rather Mao viewed having a US ally on his boarder as an existential threat to China and the construction of socialism in China. In his mind it would be far better to have a revisionist with a kooky form of Marxism-Leninism on the other side of the Yalu.

 

Quote: We were tired and far away, so we left an armistice in place expecting it to resolve in time.  Time, in the eastern sense, is a much longer horizon than it is in the western sense.  So here we are.

Speaking from a philosophical standpoint I would agree. In general Americans, Brits and Western Europeans have a short time-reference. In general Westerners think of the next day, next quarter, year. The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans see the world in large civilizational archs and are willing to take decades of pain for centuries of prosperity.

Quote:In the meantime, the Kims decided that we were weak (their view of our decision to accept the armistice), and have tested our patience time and again.  What they fail to understand is a product of their philosophy: western patience is as short as our view of time.  If we actually decide that enough is enough, this will get very ugly very fast.

Kim Jong-Il probably did not act on the assumption that the US was weak. Rather he acted on the assumption that the PRC would likely back him up if he was attacked (which was true for him at the time). Rather, his desire to have nuclear weapons was to use as a means to prop up his his regime and to threat the world with whenever he needs rice and penicillin.

Kim Il-Sung was more interested in reunifying Korea but was kept in check by the USSR. The Cold War kept the peace because the USSR didn't want a nuclear war, much less for the Korean peninsula, which while important to Kim Il-Sung was relatively unimportant to Moscow.

As for Kim Jong-Un, I think he's attempting to play the same game that Kim Jong-Il did, however, unfortunately for him the US' patience is wearing thin.

I don't know how much this has to do with time preferences, but I would say that in the West the culture promotes people attempting to be nice (or at least diplomatic) until that has been utterly exhausted. When we Westerners stop being nice, then we're really not nice.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:As for shelling Seoul, I say let him.  It means the ROK will have no choice but to fight, and eventually reunify the peninsula.  They don't have much interest in doing that right now because modernizing the North would be a huge drag on their economy much like Germany experienced in their reunification.

So you're cheering on the idea of a land war in Asia then?  Do you honestly feel this makes any sense at all?

Land wars happen all the time in Asia. What I want is the threat the DPRK represents, and presents the world with being neutralized. Now if that can be done with sanctions we should do that, if that can be done by taking out some weapons systems and leaving others alone we should do that, if it means liberating North Korea by brute force, well we should do that.

The issue is simple. Either the US allows other powers to openly and deliberately threat it and its allies or it does not.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:Vietnam not so much.  Neither the south or the north were particularly developed at the time.

The Vietnam War was a meat grinder.  Spend some time watching Ken Burns series on the subject.

Vietnam was mostly pointless from the US perspective.

My point was that neither the North Vietnam, nor South Vietnam was particularly developed and as such their reunification did not present the unifying power with economic drag down in the act of unifying. Rather their problem was mostly related to essentially having a protracted war on their own soil. The war itself essentially started in 1940 and lasted to 1975. I would say that most of the 20th century represented for Vietnam a Mega-Crisis, just like from 1839-1949 China had a Mega-Crisis.

I don't need to watch a documentary from Ken Burns to understand these things, I merely need to look at the economic data. That is far more telling than a long winded documentary that takes hours to explain something that can be understood in 10 minutes. Having a core Boomer uncle who was a Vietnam vet though I do understand that Boomers in particular are obsessed with that conflict.

[Kinser79]

(09-21-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

Not quite.  Vietnam was the result of not thinking really.  Ike and Kennedy both sought to keep the US out of it, but LBJ it seems could be impressed by Generals.

The theory at the time was that that if Vietnam went commie all of south east Asia would.  But the thing is I don't think Ho actually was a commie, Ho Chi Minh Thought as the CP of Vietnam has explained it amounts to little more than Vietnamese nationalism and state support of vital industries and services.

Rather the failure of Vietnam is that the US was not being rational, but rather acting irrationally to the fact that Ho Chi Minh sought out Soviet assistance after he had been already refused by the US in his mission to drive out the French.

[Warren Dew]

(09-22-2017, 04:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

Quote: We were tired and far away, so we left an armistice in place expecting it to resolve in time.  Time, in the eastern sense, is a much longer horizon than it is in the western sense.  So here we are.

Speaking from a philosophical standpoint I would agree.  In general Americans, Brits and Western Europeans have a short time-reference.  In general Westerners think of the next day, next quarter, year.  The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans see the world in large civilizational archs and are willing to take decades of pain for centuries of prosperity.

I'm not so sure that Brits and Europeans are like the US on this.  There's a saying that in Britain, 100 miles is a long distance, while in America, 100 years is a long time.  I think that's where the big split is on time scales - between the US and most of the rest of the world.

[Kinser79]

(09-21-2017, 12:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Indeed. It is very likely that if the USA attacked North Korea preemptively, China would back NK and support them, and that NK would attack South Korea. They have a huge army ready to fight, and our side does not. The risk of a quagmire is large. The USA is acting proud and unwilling to make a deal that would stop NK testing. Just offer to stop our war exercises near North Korea. We lose nothing in such an agreement, but the USA it seems would rather ratchet up the tensions even to the possibility of attempting to preemptively "wipe NK off the map" with "fire and fury." So much for the idea that Daddy Drump is not a neo-con.

It's an historical reality that those who have never experienced war, or purposely avoided it in DJT's case, are the ones most likely to be flippant about starting another one.  The prime example from the recent past: Dick Cheney

Trump had four deferments for University (classed 1-S), which wasn't all that uncommon, and unlike Dick Cheney he actually was an undergrad at the time.  The fifth deferment was a 1-Y medical deferment which exempted him from military service.

US Selective Service Wrote:1-S - Student deferred by statue - (H) high school; © college.

1-Y - Registrant qualified for service only in time of war or national emergency.

Note: The 1-Y classification was abolished December 10, 1971. Local boards were subsequently instructed to reclassify all 1-Y registrants by administrative action.

Had it been WW2 instead of a "police action" like Vietnam he would have been drafted even with the bone spurs.  He would have likely been sent to the the Air Force or Navy since bone spurs in the heels usually prevents one from prolonged marching as the Army and Marines expect.  As for Student deferments, even the non-rich got those for High School so unless you want people dropping out of school to be drafted instead....I see no problems with Trump's lack of service.

It should be noted I was very nearly rejected by the military myself--the Navy wasn't my first choice, but the Marine Corps wouldn't take me as I have flat feet.  The USMC rejected me at the MEPS, but I was able to speak with the local recruiter who checked and the Navy didn't care about flat feet so I enlisted there.

I also have a cousin who was rejected by the military entirely as he is asthmatic.

Note: That copyright sign is supposed to be the letter C in parentheses. The forum auto-coded that for some reason and I'm unsure how to undo it.

[Kinser79]

(09-21-2017, 03:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 04:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 02:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Within a decade. In the meantime Kim Jong-Un could be overthrown in a military coup. He could do something really stupid that causes the People's Liberation Army to liberate northern Korea. He could choke on some food.

None of which the senior Kim has done in the past 70 years.  That he'll invade the South has a much higher likelihood.

I doubt it.

https://southfront.org/north-korea-vs-so...look-like/

Little mobility, obsolete technology in its military aircraft, naval vessels,  and tanks, poor infrastructure for fuel transmission... that sounds less ready for war than Iraq in 1991.

Something else to consider: South Korea has great numbers of private automobiles. Any automobile can be fashioned into a car bomb, a menace to military units.

Just don't strike first. North Korea will need China to rescue it.

President Xi Jinping is unlikely to rescue the DPRK.  The PRC has already signed on to Trump's latest rounds of economic sanctions which essentially amounts to asset freezes on countries, companies and other entities that do business with the DPRK. 

Xi understanding where China's rice comes from signed on, seriously you cannot underestimate how powerful a motivator only having two or three weeks of grain reserves can be for a country with 1 billion people in it.  As such Rocket Man needs to rethink how strongly Big Brother China will back up little Korea.

[Kinser79]

(09-22-2017, 04:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-22-2017, 04:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

Quote: We were tired and far away, so we left an armistice in place expecting it to resolve in time.  Time, in the eastern sense, is a much longer horizon than it is in the western sense.  So here we are.

Speaking from a philosophical standpoint I would agree.  In general Americans, Brits and Western Europeans have a short time-reference.  In general Westerners think of the next day, next quarter, year.  The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans see the world in large civilizational archs and are willing to take decades of pain for centuries of prosperity.

I'm not so sure that Brits and Europeans are like the US on this.  There's a saying that in Britain, 100 miles is a long distance, while in America, 100 years is a long time.  I think that's where the big split is on time scales - between the US and most of the rest of the world.

I've been to the UK and Western Europe extensively while I was in the fleet.  Europeans in general view 100 years to be a long time, while their references in distance is quite different than in the US.  In the case of the UK, the whole thing could be squashed into Alabama with room to spare, and Alabama is not a particularly big state.

I will agree that Americans are more likely to think in terms of quarters or years instead of decades as Europeans tend to do.

[Galen]

(09-20-2017, 04:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: You're acting like Kim is rational in the western sense of the term.  I would suspect that an attack on his nuclear program would trigger an artillery barrage of Seoul.  More to the point, I doubt we can knock out either his nuclear of missile program entirely, so we gain nothing at huge expense.

Actually, Kim is behaving in a very rational manner.  He learned the lesson of Libya, which is that if you don't have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them then your nation is subject to regime change courtesy of the US government which, as ruler, you are unlikely to survive.  I suggest that you ponder what the gold dinar would have meant to the petrodollar and the ability of the US to export inflation has it has done since 1974.

[David Horn]

(09-22-2017, 04:25 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

Not quite.  Vietnam was the result of not thinking really.  Ike and Kennedy both sought to keep the US out of it, but LBJ it seems could be impressed by Generals.

The theory at the time was that that if Vietnam went commie all of south east Asia would.  But the thing is I don't think Ho actually was a commie, Ho Chi Minh Thought as the CP of Vietnam has explained it amounts to little more than Vietnamese nationalism and state support of vital industries and services.

Rather the failure of Vietnam is that the US was not being rational, but rather acting irrationally to the fact that Ho Chi Minh sought out Soviet assistance after he had been already refused by the US in his mission to drive out the French.

You worked hard to make my point.  There's nothing inherently rational about the US of A, anymore than any other country.  We respond to our passions as do others.  You did get LBJ a bit wrong though.  LBJ believed that Ho and company would negotiate if he made the pain great enough.  They wouldn't.  Kim won't either.

[David Horn]

(09-23-2017, 06:00 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-20-2017, 04:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: You're acting like Kim is rational in the western sense of the term.  I would suspect that an attack on his nuclear program would trigger an artillery barrage of Seoul.  More to the point, I doubt we can knock out either his nuclear of missile program entirely, so we gain nothing at huge expense.

Actually, Kim is behaving in a very rational manner.  He learned the lesson of Libya, which is that if you don't have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them then your nation is subject to regime change courtesy of the US government which, as ruler, you are unlikely to survive.  I suggest that you ponder what the gold dinar would have meant to the petrodollar and the ability of the US to export inflation has it has done since 1974.

I've heard that line a hundred times.  No, Kim learned from the experience of his father and grandfather.  He may also have learned from Vietnam.  In any case, the more we raise the stakes, the more likely that this will lead to something horrific. 

The Chinese may have some clout.  We don't.

[David Horn]

(09-22-2017, 04:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 12:54 PM)David Horn Wrote: It's an historical reality that those who have never experienced war, or purposely avoided it in DJT's case, are the ones most likely to be flippant about starting another one.  The prime example from the recent past: Dick Cheney

Trump had four deferments for University (classed 1-S), which wasn't all that uncommon, and unlike Dick Cheney he actually was an undergrad at the time.  The fifth deferment was a 1-Y medical deferment which exempted him from military service.

Had it been WW2 instead of a "police action" like Vietnam he would have been drafted even with the bone spurs.  He would have likely been sent to the the Air Force or Navy since bone spurs in the heels usually prevents one from prolonged marching as the Army and Marines expect.  As for Student deferments, even the non-rich got those for High School so unless you want people dropping out of school to be drafted instead....I see no problems with Trump's lack of service.

Spoken like the youngster you are.  The Vietnam War was fought by the sons of the poor and not-powerful.  Here's a perfect example that I know personally: out of a high school graduating class of ~600, >200 managed to stay in college long enough to get doctoral level degrees.  Most of them had no business getting anything more than a bachelors degree, if that.  I, being less endowed financially, did my 4 years during the height of the war, including a tour in-country.  

You discount the Ken Burns documentary, but it's dead-nuts accurate.  And for the record, I do have a real problem with both Cheney and Trump in this regard.  GWB too, for that matter.

Kinser Wrote:It should be noted I was very nearly rejected by the military myself--the Navy wasn't my first choice, but the Marine Corps wouldn't take me as I have flat feet.  The USMC rejected me at the MEPS, but I was able to speak with the local recruiter who checked and the Navy didn't care about flat feet so I enlisted there.

I also have a cousin who was rejected by the military entirely as he is asthmatic.

The rules changed in 1973 when they killed the draft -- a mistake of epic proportions.  They finally had a draft that was unbiased, and the PTB killed it dead.  No rich guy wants his son drafted.

[pbrower2a]

(09-23-2017, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-22-2017, 04:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 12:54 PM)David Horn Wrote: It's an historical reality that those who have never experienced war, or purposely avoided it in DJT's case, are the ones most likely to be flippant about starting another one.  The prime example from the recent past: Dick Cheney

Trump had four deferments for University (classed 1-S), which wasn't all that uncommon, and unlike Dick Cheney he actually was an undergrad at the time.  The fifth deferment was a 1-Y medical deferment which exempted him from military service.

Had it been WW2 instead of a "police action" like Vietnam he would have been drafted even with the bone spurs.  He would have likely been sent to the the Air Force or Navy since bone spurs in the heels usually prevents one from prolonged marching as the Army and Marines expect.  As for Student deferments, even the non-rich got those for High School so unless you want people dropping out of school to be drafted instead....I see no problems with Trump's lack of service.

Spoken like the youngster you are.  The Vietnam War was fought by the sons of the poor and not-powerful.  Here's a perfect example that I know personally: out of a high school graduating class of ~600, >200 managed to stay in college long enough to get doctoral level degrees.  Most of them had no business getting anything more than a bachelors degree, if that.  I, being less endowed financially, did my 4 years during the height of the war, including a tour in-country.  

You discount the Ken Burns documentary, but it's dead-nuts accurate.  And for the record, I do have a real problem with both Cheney and Trump in this regard.  GWB too, for that matter.

And we have an overload of over-educated draft-dodgers who believe that war is for the proles and peasants to die in and for elites to avoid. I would have probably ended up 4-F anyway, but I would have met my civic duty somehow, like working in a defense plant. As someone born too late to participate in the war in Vietnam. I got hurt by the economic competition of those over-educated draft dodgers.

Kinser Wrote:It should be noted I was very nearly rejected by the military myself--the Navy wasn't my first choice, but the Marine Corps wouldn't take me as I have flat feet.  The USMC rejected me at the MEPS, but I was able to speak with the local recruiter who checked and the Navy didn't care about flat feet so I enlisted there.

I also have a cousin who was rejected by the military entirely as he is asthmatic.

The rules changed in 1973 when they killed the draft -- a mistake of epic proportions.  They finally had a draft that was unbiased, and the PTB killed it dead.  No rich guy wants his son drafted.[/quote]

I still registered for the draft, but even had I been neurologically-normal and had a military career, then I would have had few opportunities for combat. I'd probably have been a desk officer, the sort involved in procurement.