Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-23-2017, 09:04 AM)David Horn Wrote: LBJ believed that Ho and company would negotiate if he made the pain great enough. They wouldn't.
Actually, they did - just not with LBJ. After all, we got a reasonable agreement in 1973, before the US reneged on our side of the bargain.
LBJ just didn't know how to negotiate. He would permit a cease fire every time we went to the negotiating table, which Vietnam used to build up its forces while we didn't. Nixon got it right: keep the military pressure up while negotiating. We needed Vietnam to keep feeling the pain.
I do agree that Kim is unlikely to give up his nuclear program in negotiations, though, at least as long as he thinks he can get what he wants without negotiations. From what he has seen, the US always caves in the end; alll he has to do is be patient.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-23-2017, 12:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 09:04 AM)David Horn Wrote: LBJ believed that Ho and company would negotiate if he made the pain great enough. They wouldn't.
Actually, they did - just not with LBJ. After all, we got a reasonable agreement in 1973, before the US reneged on our side of the bargain.
LBJ just didn't know how to negotiate. He would permit a cease fire every time we went to the negotiating table, which Vietnam used to build up its forces while we didn't. Nixon got it right: keep the military pressure up while negotiating. We needed Vietnam to keep feeling the pain.
Nixon bombed Laos and Cambodia back to the 13th century. Laos just collapsed. Cambodia went Khmer Rouge. The North Vietnamese got the entire enchilada handed to them on a platter. Not a great outcome in any of the three.
Warren Wrote:I do agree that Kim is unlikely to give up his nuclear program in negotiations, though, at least as long as he thinks he can get what he wants without negotiations. From what he has seen, the US always caves in the end; all he has to do is be patient.
True unless Raving Don (he needs a pseudonym too) pushes the envelope too far. Again, it's the Chinese that hold the key.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-23-2017, 09:04 AM)David Horn Wrote: (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.
Not really, you would need to have had a point first. You didn't. Your claim was that Western rationality and Eastern rationality are somehow different, whereas game theory indicates quite differently.
As to LBJ, I may or may not be wrong. I wasn't alive then and I really don't want to think much about a third rate president who died before I was even born. That being said you are right in that Kim won't negotiate reguardless the amount of pain, which is why the only solution is the absolute and utter destruction of North Korea and Korean Unification.
In many ways it is time to finish unfinished business.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-23-2017, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote: Spoken like the youngster you are. The Vietnam War was fought by the sons of the poor and not-powerful.
I never denied that. Remember I have a late uncle who was a Vietnam Vet himself.
Quote: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.
I didn't say it was inaccurate, so quit straw manning. I said it was not relevant to my assessment that the unification of North and South Vietnam did not result in long term economic consequences of the absorbing state.
As to Cheney I'm not very impressed with him, or W either. Both have never smelled gunpowder and were eager for war. Trump on the other hand seems reluctant to finish the unfinished business. If anything I'm more inclined to advocate regime change in the North of that peninsula than I am anywhere else. Kim has threatened us, and threatens our allies and as such it is prudent to neutralize that threat.
Unlike Iraq or Libya neither Saddam nor Gaddafi had active WMD Programs (unless you count the gold dinar as a wmd).
Quote: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.
If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(09-23-2017, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: (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.
You miss the point as usual. He wants to survive and trusting the US government to honor any agreement is unreasonable. As a consequence he see nukes and the means to deliver them as a way for him and his regime to survive. Like any other government he could care less about how many of the people he rules survive.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I more or less agree with you. But I also would also like to limit the franchise to veterains a la Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. In such a case having a volunteer military is a requirement. However, it is my view that if the goal is to have a democratic republic based on universal sufferage then a draft is absolutely necessary.
As to slavery, all forms of government are a form of slavery. The goal should be have the least amount of slavery possible since living in man's anarchic state of nature is impossible, and largely undesirable.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-24-2017, 10:22 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I more or less agree with you. But I also would also like to limit the franchise to veterains a la Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. In such a case having a volunteer military is a requirement. However, it is my view that if the goal is to have a democratic republic based on universal sufferage then a draft is absolutely necessary.
As to slavery, all forms of government are a form of slavery. The goal should be have the least amount of slavery possible since living in man's anarchic state of nature is impossible, and largely undesirable.
The original idea in the US was that "everyone" had the vote and "everyone" was a militia member. I'd be happier with everyone being required to have a gun and be available for the common defense in case of an invasion than with a draft into a standing army.
Limiting the franchise to veterans has always been an attractive idea to me, but I'm not sure it works.
I'd also argue that at some level, it makes sense to limit the franchise to people who pay taxes. This would control the problem of people on the dole becoming a majority and voting for economic collapse. It might be difficult to implement in practice, though.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(09-24-2017, 10:22 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I more or less agree with you. But I also would also like to limit the franchise to veterains a la Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. In such a case having a volunteer military is a requirement. However, it is my view that if the goal is to have a democratic republic based on universal sufferage then a draft is absolutely necessary.
As to slavery, all forms of government are a form of slavery. The goal should be have the least amount of slavery possible since living in man's anarchic state of nature is impossible, and largely undesirable.
The weak government of the Dark Ages made serfdom a certainty. Weak government could never free slaves; strong government could.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-23-2017, 10:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not really, you would need to have had a point first. You didn't. Your claim was that Western rationality and Eastern rationality are somehow different, whereas game theory indicates quite differently.
As to LBJ, I may or may not be wrong. I wasn't alive then and I really don't want to think much about a third rate president who died before I was even born. That being said you are right in that Kim won't negotiate regardless the amount of pain, which is why the only solution is the absolute and utter destruction of North Korea and Korean Unification.
In many ways it is time to finish unfinished business.
First, game theory is just that, theory. It applies where it does, and doesn't in this case.
Second, you are pretty free with taking risks that others might suffer. We're still safe here in our distant continent, but the South Koreans and Japanese, not so much.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (09-23-2017, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote: Spoken like the youngster you are. The Vietnam War was fought by the sons of the poor and not-powerful.
I never denied that. Remember I have a late uncle who was a Vietnam Vet himself.
Quote: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.
I didn't say it was inaccurate, so quit straw manning. I said it was not relevant to my assessment that the unification of North and South Vietnam did not result in long term economic consequences of the absorbing state.
As to Cheney I'm not very impressed with him, or W either. Both have never smelled gunpowder and were eager for war. Trump on the other hand seems reluctant to finish the unfinished business. If anything I'm more inclined to advocate regime change in the North of that peninsula than I am anywhere else. Kim has threatened us, and threatens our allies and as such it is prudent to neutralize that threat.
Unlike Iraq or Libya neither Saddam nor Gaddafi had active WMD Programs (unless you count the gold dinar as a wmd).
Quote: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.
If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
A post where we mostly agree. Great!
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I see you totally missed the point. Kinser got it. The point of a draft is skin-in-the-game. We live a communal existence, and the burdens should be shared communally. I can even agree that some form of non-military service should be available for those unsuited to the military. It might be 2 years in the military or 3 years working in a suitable shithole.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-24-2017, 01:20 AM)Galen Wrote: (09-23-2017, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote: (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.
You miss the point as usual. He wants to survive and trusting the US government to honor any agreement is unreasonable. As a consequence he see nukes and the means to deliver them as a way for him and his regime to survive. Like any other government he could care less about how many of the people he rules survive.
In the meantime, he and DJT are playing a game of high stakes chicken. Assume nothing.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-25-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I see you totally missed the point. Kinser got it. The point of a draft is skin-in-the-game. We live a communal existence, and the burdens should be shared communally.
This would make sense if we were communist. We aren't.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-25-2017, 05:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-25-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I see you totally missed the point. Kinser got it. The point of a draft is skin-in-the-game. We live a communal existence, and the burdens should be shared communally.
This would make sense if we were communist. We aren't.
Unless you live on your own island and provide totally for yourself, you are part of the commonweal. We all share the cost of the military, roads, police protection and social security. You may not like it, but it's the way it is. If I can't opt-out of the things government provides but I dislike, neither can you or anyone else.
You might take a minute to realize that we, as a nation, elected to NOT have a standing army by making it permanently impermanent in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12. We also provided for a militia in Paragraph 16. The underlying assumption: we were all expected to carry that burden (well, all white men at least).
... and communism has nothing to do with any of it.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-26-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote: (09-25-2017, 05:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-25-2017, 02:02 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-24-2017, 12:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-23-2017, 10:55 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If the idea is for the US to be a democratic republic then having a draft is absolutely necessary. I agree that getting rid of the draft was a mistake. Myself would like to see it re-instituted, hell we could even include two years of civilian national service instead of military enlistment as an option.
The draft is a form of slavery, plain and simple. There's no reason to bring it back.
Draftees are considerably less effective than volunteers. Especially in this day and age, when it costs so much money to train and equip each soldier, it makes no sense not to start with people with some motivation.
The days are gone when wars were won by the side with the largest number of barely competent cannon fodder just by giving each man a rifle. And we should be glad those days are gone, as the US would lose such wars due to relatively low population.
I see you totally missed the point. Kinser got it. The point of a draft is skin-in-the-game. We live a communal existence, and the burdens should be shared communally.
This would make sense if we were communist. We aren't.
Unless you live on your own island and provide totally for yourself, you are part of the commonweal. We all share the cost of the military, roads, police protection and social security. You may not like it, but it's the way it is. If I can't opt-out of the things government provides but I dislike, neither can you or anyone else.
You might take a minute to realize that we, as a nation, elected to NOT have a standing army by making it permanently impermanent in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12. We also provided for a militia in Paragraph 16. The underlying assumption: we were all expected to carry that burden (well, all white men at least).
None of which says we live a communal existence or that we need a draft.
We live private existences with the exception of a few services contracted to the government as permitted by the Constitution, which in fact prohibits a draft by prohibiting involuntary servitude.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
09-26-2017, 12:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2017, 12:17 PM by Eric the Green.)
Interesting debate. As a "veteran" of the anti-Vietnam War and peace movements, I am opposed to the draft. But the Vietnam War also made it plain that there were too many deferments and alternatives from the draft for people with means, so that it was mainly poor, non-college people of color who were drafted. That was as unfair as forcing people to fight for a country doing the wrong thing.
A more-lenient standard for conscientious objection would be better. I did not qualify, although I objected. I got out through being a student, and then as ineligible-4F. I would not have gone, even though I was eligible for a time.
I certainly disagree with any limitations on voting, and with putting a gun in every able-bodied citizen's cold, dead hands in a militia. Overall I think the current system of a volunteer army is best. It may attract people who can't get a job any other way, but it also attracts people who believe in serving or who have talents in that military direction.
We do have obligations to the state and the commonweal, but does that include being willing to die in a war, at a time when war is obsolete and should be abolished (especially, as Warren suggested, at a time when cannon fodder is less decisive)? I'm dubious. Most recent wars have been unnecessary, costly, deadly boondoggles (the wars in Vietnam and Iraq being the prime examples), even if some military actions still may be necessary. So this fact very much casts doubt on the idea that young people should be required to go to war. If we have an obligation to serve our country, our country's leaders ALSO have an obligation to be competent decision makers regarding war and peace, which they definitely are NOT (and today that fact could not be more obvious). Universal civilian service instead? Maybe, but I wince at that a bit, since it is required at one's prime time of life. But if the burden is short, then it's something I might not oppose.
Ultimately, I think that authoritarian command structures like the government/military and corporations/businesses are going to be replaced by synchonicity and a common mind, much as Jefferson suggested we humans could be like birds who don't need a leader to follow each other in precise formations. But we are a ways from that, and given our current ways of conducting ourselves, both as individuals in our country and between countries and groups, laws/rules and thus enforcer/commander bosses of some kind seem necessary. Spiritual evolution will be the path through which we can move beyond command structures.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
09-26-2017, 06:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2017, 06:52 PM by Mikebert.)
(09-19-2017, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: That link is rather interesting. However, it fails to take into account two very large factors.
1. With nuclear weapons the DPRK would have a real deterrent against US involvement.
True, that is why DPRK is pursuing them. I would so the same if I were them.
Quote:The ROK with its large industrial base, and high GDP would be prime targets for the DPRK to take over to prop up the regime.
This is true too, but it ignores the whole point of the link. Just because North Korean would like South Korean plunder doesn't mean they can win the war they would need to fight to get it.
If North Korea uses nukes against the South or Japan or US forces then our response would be genocidal. China and Russia would do the same if their territory/sphere of interest were attacked with nukes. So they would protest vehemently against American genocide (and the collateral damage that falls on them), but there would be no WW III. We know that, they know that, Kim knows that. If Kim wants to fight it will start conventional. The war potential arrayed against him is enormous. For him to win, it would have to be right away. Hence an examination of the forces deployed right now, their kind, number and quality would be useful, which is what the article was for. It does not look like Kim could achieve a quick victory without using nukes, which then will result in total destruction of North Korea, including Kim, his government, his military, his family legacy and everything else he cares about.
Totalitarian rulers like Kim do not preserve their power by taking foolish risks. He's the third generation of Kims. They apparently know what they are doing and so he will take no foolish risks.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
09-26-2017, 07:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2017, 07:09 PM by Mikebert.)
(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.
And what sort of "strike" do you think would destroy North Korea's nuclear program? Surely you haven't forgotten the Iraq war? The original objective for that war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs, particularly their nuke program. Don't you think if we could have achieved that goal with a "strike" rather than an invasion, we would have done that? Surely you haven't forgotten they we had total control of the airspace above the country?
It is not possible to take out North Korea's (or Iraq's) nukes using an air strike unless you want to go nuclear. Are you advocating starting a nuclear war with a first strike? How do you recommend we respond when China nukes Israel (tit for tat, you nuke our client we nuke yours)? Do you really want to go there?
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
09-26-2017, 07:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2017, 07:40 PM by Warren Dew.)
(09-26-2017, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: (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.
And what sort of "strike" do you think would destroy North Korea's nuclear program? Surely you haven't forgotten the Iraq war? The original objective for that war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs, particularly their nuke program.
You actually believe that? No, the objective in Iraq was regime change, not just to destroy the "WMDs", and certainly not just to destroy nukes. Even those that believed in the WMDs believed that they were chemical weapons, and chemical weapon production facilities are far easier to hide than nuclear weapon production facilities.
No, the reason to go into Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and get out of the sanctions that were a humanitarian disaster and also were becoming politically untenable, and to control what kind of government succeeded him.
|
