- 2,188
- Northwest Passage
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,553 comments
- 1,783,342 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I place a good deal of trust in Chuck Hagel, recipient of two Purple Hearts while an infantry squad leader in the Vietnam War, and a man whom I once supported for President.
...from your link
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If he wasn't assessing options he wouldn't be doing his job. If the military weren't constantly monitoring and assessing their options (not just in NK but in every potential conflict sphere) then they wouldn't be doing theirs. I don't see this as much of a story - President Actually Does Job
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It normally wouldn't be...
(I have to laugh to keep from completely losing it.)
- 6,068
- Simcoeace
Dana W. White, press secretary for the Pentagon, told The New York Times the defense secretary "regularly provides the president with a deep arsenal of military options," and claimed that the reports of reluctance in that regard were "false."
Surely, this is the point? The Pentagon must have explored, in great detail, multiple possible scenarios for a strike against NK. I don't doubt that Trump is probably pressuring the Pentagon to come up with a particular, single plan to put into operation ... even though with his great wisdom & military know-how
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."
he clearly doesn't really need their help.
- 2,188
- Northwest Passage
Say Trump did deal the "bloody-nose" attack, would that actually deter North Korea from retaliation, since Kim surely knows the risks of dueling with the top military superpower with subpar Cold War-era equipment (that may or may not work)? Or would he go all in, and fire everything he has at Tokyo and Seoul in a last ditch effort to go down in a blaze of glory. But if he does go all in, there's no way China can condone that, right?
But, he doesn't have to fire at Tokyo and Seoul. He could just go for the Navy in the Pacific and the bases near the DMZ. That way, China could potentially join in, since at that point North Korea is just defending itself. Though I doubt China would. At most China would throw equipment at North Korea. But they might not even do that. It's all just a guessing game. But whatever Kim does, if it involves returning fire on the US or any US ally, it is surely a mistake.
But, he doesn't have to fire at Tokyo and Seoul. He could just go for the Navy in the Pacific and the bases near the DMZ. That way, China could potentially join in, since at that point North Korea is just defending itself. Though I doubt China would. At most China would throw equipment at North Korea. But they might not even do that. It's all just a guessing game. But whatever Kim does, if it involves returning fire on the US or any US ally, it is surely a mistake.
- 13,905
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You'd be surprised how much of many "modern" countries militaries are made up of Cold War equipment or upgrades from. The F15/F16/F18 are Cold War era. Canada is buying some of Australia's surplus F18s when we replace them with F35s.
That said, you'd be surprised how much can be done with older equipment. Yugoslavia shot down an F117, at the time the pinnacle of technology, with "obsolete" radar equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
Technology is great and all, but how you use it and the numbers you can bring to bear have an impact also.
Probably not. But neither do they have to allow the US to occupy North Korea. It's one thing to destroy the Kim regime, but I suspect both Russia and China will be very wary of having a US occupied state on their doorsteps.
Whatever Trump does, if it involves starting a war with a target that hasn't fired first then it is surely a mistake. If Trump fires first, I think Kim's best move is to return fire on US targets but not SK or Japan unless units from those countries are specifically and clearly involved. That way NK can still cry for international support from Russia/China against an "illegal" invasion.
If the US doesn't have a rock solid justification for initiating hostilities, Russia and China may well decide to step in and play peacekeeper for the sake of safeguarding their own interests. And while the US military is massive, Russia and China have significantly easier supply lines to a North Korean war than the US does. If I was the US I wouldn't be just strolling into any conflict where there's the potential for those two to legitimately take the other side.
How much is that worth? I can't see a lot of people lining up to buy land that's just finished being filled with depleted uranium, land mines and unexploded ordnance. Assuming the US doesn't just nuke the place.
- 6,068
- Simcoeace
As Donald Rumsfeld put it:
"We ... know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
Of course, that didn't stop him & his crew from blundering into Iraq.
"We ... know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
Of course, that didn't stop him & his crew from blundering into Iraq.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Exactly!
- 415
- UK
- Monni72
Please explain your premise of free market lol as economics is all "made up" to promote consumerism et al. It isn't a science as such and its just theory. America allows monopolies (Drug manufacture and medicare) this isn't free trade it protects multinationals which isn't free market enterprise its protectionism ...in fact the practices carried out now are in line with the mafia but at least they were labelled as criminal organisations. It protects the domestic market to the detriment of the consumer this isn't free market economics its anything but. The idea that there is a choice anymore is a myth you maske do with whats availabl;e or go without
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I'm not familiar with the concept of "free market lol". A brief summary would be appreciated.
- 31,701
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Who knew!
- 13,905
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'm not so sure that they blundered into Iraq, so much as the justifications given were not actually those driving the decision making.
And if they're putting "invading a country and installing a friendly regime is harder than it sounds" into the unknown unknowns basket they really haven't been paying attention to the last hundred years or so.
- 13,905
- Adelaide
- Neomone
But it's not an unknown unknown. It's at best a known unknown.
In the recent past we have Afghanistan and Sudan at the very least to show that you can't just destroy a country's legitimate government and call it good. Also, anyone with a basic knowledge of history or politics would know that. It takes Nazi Germany and Cambodia levels of genocide to actually justify an invasion on humanitarian grounds simply because of how many casualties there will be in any open war.
While no one ever knows what would happen in that specific situation (hence known unknown), a lot of people would have given the administration the advice that it would probably go pretty poorly in Iraq (if anyone bothered to ask the question). Much more poorly than simply accepting the offer to leave Saddam in power and send a few thousand inspectors into the country to clear up the WMD claims. Plus all the US soldiers that died in that war for no particularly good reason, which I think is the part I find the most distressing. Those are good people who believed they were doing the right thing.
The fact that Trump and the US seem to be gearing up to do this all over again means that either there is significant ulterior motives or a lot of the top people are basically insane. A sane person does not commit to a war where thousands of people die at minimum, many of them citizens of the country they were elected to rule and protect, without staggeringly solid justifications. "Kim Jong Un made fun of me" does not even count as a wobbly justification.
Commandment One of Governance: Thou shalt not throw away the lives of your citizens.
- 6,068
- Simcoeace
I think we're getting caught up in the weird world of US military semantics here. I'm not sure, in normal-speak, that there's much of a meaningful distinction between something that's unknown, something that's known to be unknown & something that's not known to be unknown. What we're really talking about is unintended consequences, or unanticipated consequences. All countries have experienced this. The US seems especially prone to it, however, due to the pervasive influence of American Exceptionalism.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,481
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
So if people praise Trump for the the stock market's rise, will they also blame him when it falls off a cliff? Especially when it falls off a cliff in one day?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42942921
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42942921
Joey D
Premium
- 47,481
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I say it more as a rhetorical question than anything. I still maintain that the president has little bearing over the stock market.
Today's "crash" is probably a result of speculation the government will raise interest rates. The market is also vastly overvalued, so really it's probably just coming down to where it should be.
- 13,905
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's not military semantics. The idea of known unknowns and unknown unknowns is primarily philosophical, but it gets a fair workout in any moderately scientific endeavour. It's important to understand the difference between information that you know exists but that you don't have access to, and information that you had no idea even existed.
For a military example, a known unknown might be the size of the enemy's force. You know that he has a force, you've seen parts of it, but you don't have enough information to gauge it's true strength. You know that you don't know this, and so you make your plans flexible to account for this known deficiency in your intelligence.
The nuclear weapons used against Japan were very close to an unknown unknown. Japan and the rest of the scientific community had known for years that it was theoretically possible to make a nuclear bomb, but Japan assumed that the resources necessary to make one were so great as to render it essentially impossible (other countries did not assume this). Japan didn't even really bother to check that it's enemies weren't working on one, and so they were taken almost completely by surprise when they had two dropped on the country.
That's the difference. A known unknown is something where you recognise your own information deficiencies and take them into account. An unknown unknown is when you're not even aware that there's something else that you should be taking into consideration.
I'm not. You might be.
Do you think Iraq being civilly unstable after it's legitimate government was deposed by force is something that would reasonably be unintended or unanticipated by an occupying force? Given that these forces are led by generals and leaders who are required to study military and political history. These are not people who have the luxury of being ignorant of the aftermath of a military campaign, it is their precise job to study these situations for the benefit of their country on offense and defense.
