Sfdebris.net

No, not an exaggeration, unfortunately.

The ridiculous, bellicose rhetoric between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump (or as I call them, Fat Kim and Orange Kim) has reached a very dangerous level, with Kim Jong Un threatening a missile test in the vicinity of Guam (on August 15th, I believe, unless that's changed in the last day). It is generally expected that America will shoot the missiles down. What happens next is anyone's guess.

China has stated that if North Korea strikes first, it will not defend them against American retaliation, but that if the US or South Korea attempts to remove Kim Jong Un or attack him first, then they will intervene.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ch ... b325edf7ba

In other words, if America is perceived by China as the aggressor, we will likely be fighting World War III before the end of the month.

A few thoughts:

1. This would, even if it did not involve China, probably be the largest war we've fought, and the first nuclear warfare, since WWII. Millions will die. The economic and political damage will be catastrophic. Occupation of North Korea would almost certainly entail a draft.

2. Even if such a war were necessary, I would not remotely trust the perpetual train wreck that is the current White House and Congress to conduct it.

3.. All prior major wars in American history have seen a consolidation of executive power and suppression of civil liberties. I expect Trump to take full advantage of that.

4. Even if Kim Jong Un strikes first, America-backed regime change or nuclear retaliation could very well lead to war with China.

5. It might not be a bad idea to make sure your emergency supplies are fully stocked, to be aware of the precautions to take to limit radiation exposure, and if possible, to be somewhere that's away from any major cities, infrastructure, or military instillations.

6. If Trump, or Kim Jong Un, or anyone else, were to order a nuclear first strike, or take any action that could reasonably be expected to start a global nuclear war, I would consider that person guilty of attempted genocide, and their removal from power by force of arms justifiable.

7. To everyone who said things like "Trump's better than Clinton, because at least he's not a warmonger who will get us into nuclear war/WWIII"... how's that working out for you?

Anyway, fingers crossed. Maybe its all just bluster. Maybe more intelligent and rational people around Trump will manage to successfully control him for the first time ever.

If not, pray that Kim Jong Un is crazy enough to fire first, because that's the only way we might not end up at war with China too.

Coincedently I just rewatched the review on "The Day After"
http://sfdebris.com/videos/films/dayafter.php

it's all just bluster and macho posturing. I have my doubts China would actually back up any threat to intervene - at least not directly.

This is all a calculated distraction from failures on the domestic policy front - the last 6 administrations at least have always turned to a foreign policy red herring when their plans when awry and they wanted to force a change in conversation. partisan hacks and alarmists will buy into it and play right in because talking about domestic issues is hard - when you have to sell the policies of a ruling oligarchy to a rightly pissed off lower class. Any distraction is a welcome distraction.

We should be working on crafting single payer and UBI legislation because in the next few decades its going to be desperately needed. But why do productive things when the president pulls out a laser pointer we can bat at.

"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself nameless unreasoning unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

This has not been more true than in the last two decades and apparently that trend continues.

Rasp, I like the idea that both countries' leaders are blustery liars and all of this is meaningless.
We live in strange times that the thought, "The President is such a liar I don't even believe he will follow thru on his violent rhetoric" is comforting.

But we went to war in Iraq and they ended up not even having weapons and the American administration at the time was more competent than this one.

The Iraq war was a calculated endeavor though - orchestrated by the wealthy to achieve very specific goals against a foe with almost no ability to mount an effective counter-strike. This does not have the same smell to it. The Temperature in South Korea appears to be that there is no serious threat - Seoul marches on and they have more reason to be panicked than anyone else in the world if there was a real chance of war.

the high degree of economic interdependence between the usa & prc makes an actual shooting war unlikely. the far more likely thing to be afraid of is economic warfare. though given how costly that would be for both sides, china's first move would probably be to use personal leverage against trump via his business interests.

Rasp wrote:it's all just bluster and macho posturing. I have my doubts China would actually back up any threat to intervene - at least not directly.

It would be reassuring to think that, but at some point, when tensions reach a certain level, its entirely possible to blunder into a catastrophic war by accident. See WWI.

Also, their are genuine fanatical nationalists in every major government.

And if they are all just bluffing... well, that's incredibly stupid. You should never make a threat that you aren't prepared to carry out if you can avoid it, because if someone calls your bluff (and when tensions reach a certain point, and no one is willing to back down, someone's buff almost has to be called), then your only options are to follow through on the threat and damn the consequences, or lose credibility by backing down, which encourages your adversaries to attempt even more reckless actions in the future.

This is all a calculated distraction from failures on the domestic policy front - the last 6 administrations at least have always turned to a foreign policy red herring when their plans when awry and they wanted to force a change in conversation. partisan hacks and alarmists will buy into it and play right in because talking about domestic issues is hard - when you have to sell the policies of a ruling oligarchy to a rightly pissed off lower class. Any distraction is a welcome distraction.

I have grown very tired of people calling every issue except their personal crusades a "distraction" from the "real" issues as a way of, ironically, diverting people from the topic at hand.

Their can be more than one legitimate issue at a time, you know.

And, as always, I dispute the implication that both sides in American politics are equally bad. Both at fault, perhaps, but "both guilty" does not mean "both equally guilty", and simplifying every criticism to "they're all just as bad" simply prevents any meaningful analysis or discussion.

We should be working on crafting single payer and UBI legislation because in the next few decades its going to be desperately needed. But why do productive things when the president pulls out a laser pointer we can bat at.

We absolutely should be working on those things. But none of them will happen if Orange Kim leads us into World War III. Both issues matter.

The issues we face today are complicated and often closely interwoven, because the world is closely interwoven. We cannot focus on one or two issues in isolation, and expect to ever accomplish anything of value.

Edit: Normally, I might just be able to pass this off as Kim being Kim again. But the difference now is that we have a "President" who, combining extreme egotism and narcisism to the point of sociopathy with political inexperience, is responding to Kim Jong Un in the same manner- ridiculously blustery posturing and threats, which is almost certainly intended more for domestic than foreign consumption, as a way of shoring up his own power.

Hence my referring to them as Fat Kim and Orange Kim. They're behaving as two sides of the same coin. This is unprecedented, and thus cause for greater concern than usual.

The Romulan Republic wrote: The issues we face today are complicated and often closely interwoven, because the world is closely interwoven. We cannot focus on one or two issues in isolation, and expect to ever accomplish anything of value.

Well that's the joke isn't it? we're not working on these things outside a very small minority of legislators that have been entirely marginalized by the reactionaries on both sides. I'd love to have more than one conversation at once - but its not happening with the current leadership on each side.

Nothing of grand value has been worked on in decades with the possible exception of the CFPB and the Iran deal - the latter of which a combined majorities in both parties just agreed to flagrantly violate.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Hence my referring to them as Fat Kim and Orange Kim. They're behaving as two sides of the same coin. This is unprecedented, and thus cause for greater concern than usual.

and I don't see it that way. Even if by some miracle I'm wrong fearmongering will not change the outcome. if you had more to your bow than ultimately destructive answers like stirring up fears and throwing around blame that would be something. Tell me something productive we can do about this? Are we actually trying to have a conversation or just get a rise out of people?

J!! wrote:the high degree of economic interdependence between the usa & prc makes an actual shooting war unlikely. the far more likely thing to be afraid of is economic warfare. though given how costly that would be for both sides, china's first move would probably be to use personal leverage against trump via his business interests.

Yeah I just don't see it. I need more evidence to buy into the idea there will actually be a war than "because Trump" - call me a skeptic. Until there is actual evidence or some major development I think we can safely shelve this for now.

Rasp wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote: The issues we face today are complicated and often closely interwoven, because the world is closely interwoven. We cannot focus on one or two issues in isolation, and expect to ever accomplish anything of value.

Well that's the joke isn't it? we're not working on these things outside a very small minority of legislators that have been entirely marginalized by the reactionaries on both sides. I'd love to have more than one conversation at once - but its not happening with the current leadership on each side.

Nothing of grand value has been worked on in decades with the possible exception of the CFPB and the Iran deal - the latter of which a combined majorities in both parties just agreed to flagrantly violate.

I'd add the ACA, thawing relations with Cuba, and the progress on LGBT rights under Obama off the top of my head, though Trump and his allies are working hard (albeit ineptly) to undo all of those.

Some of the space program too. It hasn't done nearly enough, but I would consider our work in searching for extra-solar planets and in interplanetary probes of tremendous long-term value.

And yes, I'm aware that the ACA as stands is not sufficient. It was an improvement on the status quo, but should not be regarded as "problem solved".

and I don't see it that way. Even if by some miracle I'm wrong fearmongering will not change the outcome. if you had more to your bow than ultimately destructive answers like stirring up fears and throwing around blame that would be something. Tell me something productive we can do about this? Are we actually trying to have a conversation or just get a rise out of people?

I don't mean it as fear-mongering, and I apologize if it came off that way. I'm concerned about the issues, and I feel that people should be informed. How they use that information is ultimately up to them. As I said, I would advise taking precautions such as stocking up on emergency supplies in case of war. Be prepared for financial upheavals, as well as you can. Keep in mind how individual politicians conduct themselves when determining who to support, or not support, in the future.

No one can individually solve these problems, of course. But any solution must begin with awareness.

Yeah I just don't see it. I need more evidence to buy into the idea there will actually be a war than "because Trump" - call me a skeptic.

Its not just because of Trump, no.

Its because we have two sides run by pompous egomaniacs who think they can get their way by dictatorial fiat, and neither seems willing to back off.

Korean War II is a war that needs to happen sooner rather than later. The geopolitics of having nukes changes things dramatically.
It is very likely that when NK finally develops miniaturization and sticks a nuke on a missile and then in a sub they will decide they are now untouchable and will decide to finally reunify the peninsula under Juche. At that time we will be faced with a choice. Allow the PRK take over the RoK or intervene and risk having a major coastal city be blown up.