Report Card for Donald Trump

[Mikebert]

(01-24-2017, 02:55 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 08:34 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: I think the thing with China was largely baked into the cards.  Have been saying so for years.  Better China than China AND Russia, I suppose. 

We'll see if they double down on this, or just use it as a negotiating bit.  Let's give him the proverbial 100 days, and see how this plays out.  Not just with China, but trade/immigration, too.

I agree on the first.

I don't think anything will come of the China thing.  Trump would have to push the issue.

I am very interested in the trade thing.  It is possible Trump may loose interest and drop the ball on the stuff he ran on which is opposed by movement conservatives, but I hope not.

Some of those areas are fairly sensitive, Trump might not have to push very hard.

Yeah, I am really curious (and concerned) to see how Trump's relationship with the movement conservatives in Congress plays out, and how that affects what (if any) policies come out.  It's a tough balancing act for both of them.

Could you expand on the bolded part?  Thanks

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Could you expand on the bolded part?  Thanks

Trump has voiced a desire to put things like "One China" on the table.  He spoke to Tsai.  He's talked about sending more and more advanced weapons to Taiwan.  Even the islands/reefs in the SCS are a flashpoint.  Territorial issues are a sensitive subject for China, especially where Western powers are involved.  This sort of saber-rattling/button-pushing, even if it is just a negotiating tactic, could provoke a much larger reaction than anticipated, especially if it took place during a time of deteriorating economic relations and slowing growth in the two economics, as could result from pursuit of his trade policies.  The PRC is not a democracy, but that doesn't mean it is devoid of internal politics or public pressure.  It would not be out of the question for tit for tat gambits by either power escalating rapidly.
China's rising civic generation has a severe sex imbalance as well, in a manner not unprecedented in Chinese history.  This has traditionally be correlated with violence and unrest, which can be channeled but not necessarily suppressed.  They have about reached the end of the growth model they have been following for the past 30+ years, and the rising hysteria in the US about Putin's Russia this past couple of years could just as easily become a rising hysteria about China given the right circumstances.  Both powers could perceive themselves as acting defensively and the other as being unreasonably aggressive.  Look at the lead-up to WWI.

[Mikebert]

(01-24-2017, 03:24 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Could you expand on the bolded part?  Thanks

Trump has voiced a desire to put things like "One China" on the table.  He spoke to Tsai.  He's talked about sending more and more advanced weapons to Taiwan.  Even the islands/reefs in the SCS are a flashpoint.  Territorial issues are a sensitive subject for China, especially where Western powers are involved.  This sort of saber-rattling/button-pushing, even if it is just a negotiating tactic, could provoke a much larger reaction than anticipated, especially if it took place during a time of deteriorating economic relations and slowing growth in the two economics, as could result from pursuit of his trade policies.  The PRC is not a democracy, but that doesn't mean it is devoid of internal politics or public pressure.  It would not be out of the question for tit for tat gambits by either power escalating rapidly.
China's rising civic generation has a severe sex imbalance as well, in a manner not unprecedented in Chinese history.  This has traditionally be correlated with violence and unrest, which can be channeled but not necessarily suppressed.  They have about reached the end of the growth model they have been following for the past 30+ years, and the rising hysteria in the US about Putin's Russia this past couple of years could just as easily become a rising hysteria about China given the right circumstances.  Both powers could perceive themselves as acting defensively and the other as being unreasonably aggressive.  Look at the lead-up to WWI.

I am familiar with WW I.  But in 1914 policymakers believed that it was not possible for full-scale great power warfare to lead to the end of civilization despite works like The War in the Air.  The policymakers were right, all-out war did not lead to Armageddon.  In fact another one 25 years later did not either. But nuclear weapons have change that. I read The War in the Air more than 30 years ago.  It was a masterful attempt to show how with the technology of 1907, it would be possible to wreak tremendous damage, if one kept at it long enough.  As events showed, nobody was willing to keep at it long enough to destroy civilization either in WW I or WW II.  Today it takes no effort at all to destroy civilization, just order an all-out first strike with our strategic forces and we are all dead or wish we were.

Today's leaders grew up with the prospect of nuclear war hanging over them.  I do not think 1914 is a relevant analogy.

[SomeGuy]

I find the prospect of a nuclear first strike between two powers like China and the US to be implausible.  Neither of their forces are on a hair-trigger alert, there is nothing like the Red Army poised to push through Western Europe to the sea within a few days right now, etc..  Seriously, detail me the scenario that leads directly from something like Taiwan to either country launching their missiles at the other in the full knowledge of a corresponding attack on their own facilities and populations, and explain to me why it would be the only outcome.

[Mikebert]

(01-24-2017, 04:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I find the prospect of a nuclear first strike between two powers like China and the US to be implausible.  Neither of their forces are on a hair-trigger alert, there is nothing like the Red Army poised to push through Western Europe to the sea within a few days right now, etc..  Seriously, detail me the scenario that leads directly from something like Taiwan to either country launching their missiles at the other in the full knowledge of a corresponding attack on their own facilities and populations, and explain to me why it would be the only outcome.

I agree.  You were implying this, by pointing to 1914.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 04:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 04:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I find the prospect of a nuclear first strike between two powers like China and the US to be implausible.  Neither of their forces are on a hair-trigger alert, there is nothing like the Red Army poised to push through Western Europe to the sea within a few days right now, etc..  Seriously, detail me the scenario that leads directly from something like Taiwan to either country launching their missiles at the other in the full knowledge of a corresponding attack on their own facilities and populations, and explain to me why it would be the only outcome.

I agree.  You were implying this, by pointing to 1914.

I am sorry I gave you that impression.  I meant the reference to refer solely to countries backing themselves into a war because their "defensive" actions were perceived by their rivals as intolerable aggressions, and vice versa.

Well, that, and reports suggesting that in the light of emerging A2/AD capabilities on both sides and the geographic layout of the Western Pacific, a conventional conflict between the two could resemble "trench warfare at sea".  The report looks at fully developed capacities in a 2040 timeframe, but I think aspects of it could be ported to an earlier period.  Or not.

The analysis you complemented me on earlier was simply a list of things that are going on now.  I don't think they preclude a more conventional conflict a little later on, and I don't think that conflict would necessarily escalate to a full-on nuclear exchange.  Probably wouldn't, really, for much the same reason the Korean War didn't.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2017, 05:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The analysis you complemented me on earlier was simply a list of things that are going on now.  I don't think they preclude a more conventional conflict a little later on, and I don't think that conflict would necessarily escalate to a full-on nuclear exchange.  Probably wouldn't, really, for much the same reason the Korean War didn't.

It's not likely that escalation during the Korean War was limited by the possibility of a nuclear exchange.  We had roughly 300 nukes in our inventory; the Soviets had 5 or so.  No one else had any.  It would have been very one sided.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 05:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 05:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The analysis you complemented me on earlier was simply a list of things that are going on now.  I don't think they preclude a more conventional conflict a little later on, and I don't think that conflict would necessarily escalate to a full-on nuclear exchange.  Probably wouldn't, really, for much the same reason the Korean War didn't.

It's not likely that escalation during the Korean War was limited by the possibility of a nuclear exchange.  We had roughly 300 nukes in our inventory; the Soviets had 5 or so.  No one else had any.  It would have been very one sided.

No, but they had a substantial enough military that Truman was unwilling to escalate anyways, citing fears from our allies that this would pull weapons and other resources from the critical European theater or Japan.  It was also felt it would set a bad precedent.

If you prefer another example, how about Vietnam?  Is this a criticism of the larger point, or solely my choice of examples?

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 08:34 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 05:57 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Looks like Trump has drawn his first red line.  Didn't take him long.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/l...ith-china/

Trump seems to be a big hurry, he's already working on objective six. I also notice the administration is making more noise on trade than on immigration. My belief has been that his trade policies are something *he* wants, whereas his immigration policy is more of something his voters want.
Not sure where he is going with this.  Maybe its no where.

I think the thing with China was largely baked into the cards.  Have been saying so for years.  Better China than China AND Russia, I suppose. 

We'll see if they double down on this, or just use it as a negotiating bit.  Let's give him the proverbial 100 days, and see how this plays out.  Not just with China, but trade/immigration, too.

China didn't start their adventurism in the South China Sea until Obama pulled US carrier task force patrols from the area.  That doesn't necessarily mean they would back off if we sent our carriers back, but there's a reasonable chance.

Trump did misstep by not saving TPP as a bargaining chip.  Torpedoing TPP was worth quite a bit to China, and it could have been used to extract some concessions.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-24-2017, 09:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 08:34 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 05:57 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Looks like Trump has drawn his first red line.  Didn't take him long.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/l...ith-china/

Trump seems to be a big hurry, he's already working on objective six. I also notice the administration is making more noise on trade than on immigration. My belief has been that his trade policies are something *he* wants, whereas his immigration policy is more of something his voters want.
Not sure where he is going with this.  Maybe its no where.

I think the thing with China was largely baked into the cards.  Have been saying so for years.  Better China than China AND Russia, I suppose. 

We'll see if they double down on this, or just use it as a negotiating bit.  Let's give him the proverbial 100 days, and see how this plays out.  Not just with China, but trade/immigration, too.

China didn't start their adventurism in the South China Sea until Obama pulled US carrier task force patrols from the area.  That doesn't necessarily mean they would back off if we sent our carriers back, but there's a reasonable chance.

Trump did misstep by not saving TPP as a bargaining chip.  Torpedoing TPP was worth quite a bit to China, and it could have been used to extract some concessions.

Uh, but what if China called our bluff?  The TPP is a stinking pile of shit that's not even a trade agreement. Rather, it's an intellectual property give away for transnationals.  That means it's utterly worthless.

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 10:02 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Uh, but what if China called our bluff?  The TPP is a stinking pile of shit that's not even a trade agreement. Rather, it's an intellectual property give away for transnationals.  That means it's utterly worthless.

That would have been a problem, yes.  Perhaps that's why Trump didn't use that bluff.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2017, 06:22 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 05:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 05:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The analysis you complemented me on earlier was simply a list of things that are going on now.  I don't think they preclude a more conventional conflict a little later on, and I don't think that conflict would necessarily escalate to a full-on nuclear exchange.  Probably wouldn't, really, for much the same reason the Korean War didn't.

It's not likely that escalation during the Korean War was limited by the possibility of a nuclear exchange.  We had roughly 300 nukes in our inventory; the Soviets had 5 or so.  No one else had any.  It would have been very one sided.

No, but they had a substantial enough military that Truman was unwilling to escalate anyways, citing fears from our allies that this would pull weapons and other resources from the critical European theater or Japan.  It was also felt it would set a bad precedent.

If you prefer another example, how about Vietnam?  Is this a criticism of the larger point, or solely my choice of examples?

I think your larger point Is right.  I only cited the nukes issue as being an unlikely contributor.  After all, Truman fired MacArthur for going too far, and he should have.  The last thing we needed was yet another major war in the 20th century.  Of course, we got one anyway.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2017, 09:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: China didn't start their adventurism in the South China Sea until Obama pulled US carrier task force patrols from the area.  That doesn't necessarily mean they would back off if we sent our carriers back, but there's a reasonable chance.

Trump did misstep by not saving TPP as a bargaining chip.  Torpedoing TPP was worth quite a bit to China, and it could have been used to extract some concessions.

Even if this is true, just how many commitments should the US have taken-on simultaneously?  As it is, we still have a Middle East we systematically disrupted, and found that Humpty Dumpty doesn't reassemble well.

The TPP, and the European analog: the TAP, were the last gasps of corporate economic diplomacy ... at least for a while.  Let's see how this plays.  To be honest, I'm of two minds on this, even though the TPP deal was clearly flawed in a big way.  We're moving into a post-industrial world ... whatever that means.  In an environment like that, rigid deals can be good or bad.

FWIW, China is happy we torpedoed the TPP, which puts them in the driver's seat in Asia.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:People have done the math with no agenda aforethought. Guess what. WW3 would not be the end of the world.

Correct.  Nuclear winter is grossly overhyped, studies done by RAND, Kahn, and others have shown that casualties, while horrific, would not kill the majority of the population.

But it would be The End of the World as We Know It. 

[Mikebert]

(01-24-2017, 04:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Seriously, detail me the scenario that leads directly from something like Taiwan to either country launching their missiles at the other in the full knowledge of a corresponding attack on their own facilities and populations, and explain to me why it would be the only outcome.

The issue is simple. What is the point of engaging in a military conflict in which you cannot win?  Suppose Trump decided to blockcade these islands.  Can you show a path where he can win?  I don't see it, and if I see this, so do the Chinese.  They can keep pushing until Trump gives up, after all, is he going to end civilization over some fucking islands in the South China Sea?  The US considers the Carribean an American lake--what's the difference?

And this is the problem.  In the old days such issues would be resolved by all-out great power coalition wars (read Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).  You can't do that now, an all-out conflict would go nuclear. So the great powers resorted to a minuet, with proxy wars to make their point.  Most of the great powers, (except for the strongest two) got a clue and pulled out, seeing it was a fools game.  Does China want to play this game?  No!  They want what I would want, sure things--like the Spratley's.  (The islands no, the principle, yes).

[Mikebert]

(01-25-2017, 01:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:People have done the math with no agenda aforethought. Guess what. WW3 would not be the end of the world.

Correct.  Nuclear winter is grossly overhyped, studies done by RAND, Kahn, and others have shown that casualties, while horrific, would not kill the majority of the population.

But it would be The End of the World as We Know It. 

It depends on the scale. Most calculations assumed a counterforce model.  But counterforce isn't a real strategy against an external enemy--it was directed against and internal opponent--the US Navy.

[SomeGuy]

(01-25-2017, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:People have done the math with no agenda aforethought. Guess what. WW3 would not be the end of the world.

Correct.  Nuclear winter is grossly overhyped, studies done by RAND, Kahn, and others have shown that casualties, while horrific, would not kill the majority of the population.

But it would be The End of the World as We Know It. 

It depends on the scale. Most calculations assumed a counterforce model.  But counterforce isn't a real strategy against an external enemy--it was directed against and internal opponent--the US Navy.

WHAT!?!

Counterforce targets THE EXTERNAL ENEMY's launch sites and other nuclear facilities.  What are you talking about?   

Also, even countervalue targets wouldn't generate the firestorms predicted, because concrete doesn't burn the way, say, Dresden or Tokyo did.  And even those weren't sufficient to waft that smoke into the stratosphere at the levels required.  You'd basically need a volcano to do that, and even then a real big one.  The Year without A Summer was bad, but it wasn't end of life as we know it bad, even back in 1816.

Some of the same clowns who wrote the TTAPS report claimed that the burning of the oil wells during the Gulf War would cause nuclear winter.  How did that turn out?

[David Horn]

SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:People have done the math with no agenda aforethought. Guess what. WW3 would not be the end of the world.

Correct.  Nuclear winter is grossly overhyped, studies done by RAND, Kahn, and others have shown that casualties, while horrific, would not kill the majority of the population.

But it would be The End of the World as We Know It. 

Albert Einstein was asked about this.  He responded, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 05:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:People have done the math with no agenda aforethought. Guess what. WW3 would not be the end of the world.

Correct.  Nuclear winter is grossly overhyped, studies done by RAND, Kahn, and others have shown that casualties, while horrific, would not kill the majority of the population.

But it would be The End of the World as We Know It. 

It depends on the scale. Most calculations assumed a counterforce model.  But counterforce isn't a real strategy against an external enemy--it was directed against and internal opponent--the US Navy.

Let's agree that none of use really knows how many war scenarios exist, and, of that number, how many involve nukes.  Let's also agree that we have too many strategists on the DoD staff to assume the number is 1.  What we can assume is the restraint we would feel as one of 3 major nuclear powers.  If we engage either the Chinese or the Russians, the other will then have the nuclear advantage of a full stockpile and no collateral damage. 

So a nuclear war is unthinkable, unless the one doing the war making is devoid of thought.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 05:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: WHAT!?!

Counterforce targets THE EXTERNAL ENEMY's launch sites and other nuclear facilities.  What are you talking about?   

Also, even countervalue targets wouldn't generate the firestorms predicted, because concrete doesn't burn the way, say, Dresden or Tokyo did.  And even those weren't sufficient to waft that smoke into the stratosphere at the levels required.  You'd basically need a volcano to do that, and even then a real big one.  The Year without A Summer was bad, but it wasn't end of life as we know it bad, even back in 1816.

Some of the same clowns who wrote the TTAPS report claimed that the burning of the oil wells during the Gulf War would cause nuclear winter.  How did that turn out?

You selectively discount the nuclear effects.  Many persist for decades, and are highly dangerous in minute quantities.  I remember the Strontium 90 concern in the '50s, and that was due solely to testing.