|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2017 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:07 LightSpectra wrote:
Nobody's nuking North Korea unless both China and South Korea give the OK for it, and I don't see that happening. Would it be possible to nuke NK without irradiating South Korea?
And Japan. Fall out is carried by wind.
|
On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions?
I couldn't say, that's pretty disheartening to hear though :O
|
On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out.
I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly?
|
On April 06 2017 02:12 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions? I couldn't say, that's pretty disheartening to hear though :O
You don't win wars when trading nukes. There is no "winning" a war with NK in any traditional sense of the word.
|
On April 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out. I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly?
I'm not sure that you can "mass evacuate" tens of a millions of people with any kind of efficiency or timeliness.
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:54 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:50 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 01:37 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document  Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. Bullshit. WWI was an inevitable consequence of the inability of the imperial system to accept the German superpower. The 18th Century powers divided the world between them. Then suddenly Germany appears as a superpower with industrial capacity and population that exceed that of the existing powers. The existing powers won't concede their position without war and Germany won't be relegated to an inferior status when it was quite clearly the dominant power in Europe. And so the only way Germany can realize its destiny as the premier European power is through a general European reset at the expense of the existing powers and the only way that can be done is through war. Recent historiography has come down pretty heavily on the side that everyone wanted to avoid WWI except Germany and that everyone made a good faith effort to avoid it except Germany and that it would have easily been avoided if Germany had made even the slightest effort to do so. But Germany could never be a global power without conflict with Britain and France, and she knew it, and therefore deliberately sought to push the continent into war. Did you read the article I linked, KwarK? It has pretty solid evidence that the government saw the invasion of Belgium as a convenient excuse to avert a civil war over the Home Rule Bill. It's wrong. Britain made multiple attempts to defuse the crisis which were deliberately ignored by Germany who pushed for a wider war as a matter of policy. Had Russia not stood with Serbia and Serbia been absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire the German Empire would still have invaded France. It was never about Serbia, it was about Africa, India and China. The cause of the war was, quite simply, that Germany had a deliberate policy of seeking war with France and Britain. That's what it comes down to. You've completely ignored the article and repeated your own assertions (which are not strictly contradictory with the article's thesis, by the way). If you're not going to bother even taking a peak to see what it's about then I'm not going to waste my time by responding.
The article is not an actual article by an actual historian, its conjecture by some random on a gaming forum that flies in the face of not only the consensus of actual historians but also basic historical evidence. As a random on a gaming forum myself I have sufficient authority (none, but nor does the author) to simply dispute it. If you want a better answer then offer a better article.
|
On April 06 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out. I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly? I'm not sure that you can "mass evacuate" tens of a millions of people with any kind of efficiency or timeliness.
There's also the issue of "where the fuck do you store 10 million people temporarily?"
Just tell Trudeau they are refugees and he'll take the entire lot.
|
On April 06 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out. I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly? I'm not sure that you can "mass evacuate" tens of a millions of people with any kind of efficiency or timeliness.
Maybe not. But what would NK do if you just slowly but surely did it? Launch bombs in their panic?
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:08 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I'm not sure that the US would win a war with North Korea. I don't think that the US would be willing to spend the blood and resources necessary to win.
China would do the fighting on the ground. The US doesn't want to rule NK, they just want it to go away.
|
On April 06 2017 01:47 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:40 IgnE wrote:On April 06 2017 01:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:
That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. On April 06 2017 01:02 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote:No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. every court ruling on a set of unique facts (by virtue of being singular) in some sense creates "new law". let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that any constitution can be a "contract" that anticipates all contigencies. justice is the only social contract that judges should ultimately appeal to. There is no universally agreed definition of "justice", nor a scientific way to guarantee it in all circumstances. If there was, everybody would clamor for enlightened despotism. I say again that the judiciary's role (as envisioned by the Founding Fathers) is only to nullify legislation/executive acts that it deems to be unconstitutional, similar to the veto power that the President of Germany has. It's true that the SCOTUS has invented many good things by having more power to do so, but that's the thing about absolute power; if you applaud it for when it's well-used, you also leave no checks for when it's abused. SCOTUS Justices are life-time appointees and the only check on their power is impeachment or constitutional amendment. Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:16 Plansix wrote:
Dred Scott lead to the 14th amendment, which I consider a net gain. It is a clear case of the legislature hoping the court will resolve a problem for them and it backfiring in spectacular fashion. Sorry, what exactly is your argument here? That terrible SCOTUS decisions are good because they lead to good Constitutional amendments?
yeah no shit there is no universally agreed upon "definition" of justice. social contracts aren't laws of nature. you've imputed some kind of mechanical rational order that my comments never presupposed. implict in my conclusions are a kind of nietzschean will to power: justice is relational and is always becoming. it doesn't exist outside of us as a noumenal object, let alone as a positivistic object of science
this may not be obvious to the non-lawyers out there but there are two ways of making reality "fit" into our juridical systems. you either create fictions of law or fictions of fact. it's the only way to overcome the impasse of deciding individual cases in a general framework. that is how you get things like "deeming" where the court decides to treat A like B even though it is demonstrably not B. so geese become "beasts" for the purposes of the writ even though everyone knows geese are not beasts, but justice demands it.
|
On April 06 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:12 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions? I couldn't say, that's pretty disheartening to hear though :O You don't win wars when trading nukes. There is no "winning" a war with NK in any traditional sense of the word.
No winning for South Korea or for North Korea. But China or the US can 'win' fine. As for the Kim dynasty, all they care about is staying in power. If that involved losing a war, they might be willing to. I wouldn't dare to call their bluff.
|
On April 06 2017 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out. I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly? I'm not sure that you can "mass evacuate" tens of a millions of people with any kind of efficiency or timeliness. There's also the issue of "where the fuck do you store 10 million people temporarily?"
How do you feed 10 million people without the infrastructure and economy created by your capital? And how do they not see this all coming a mile off?
On April 06 2017 02:16 Philoctetes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2017 02:12 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions? I couldn't say, that's pretty disheartening to hear though :O You don't win wars when trading nukes. There is no "winning" a war with NK in any traditional sense of the word. No winning for South Korea or for North Korea. But China or the US can 'win' fine. As for the Kim dynasty, all they care about is staying in power. If that involved losing a war, they might be willing to. I wouldn't dare to call their bluff.
That war would upend our economy in ways we can't even understand right now. Our currently relationship with China would be obliterated and we would have to deal with the aftermath of atomic fall out. There are only losers from that exchange.
|
On April 06 2017 02:12 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions? I couldn't say, that's pretty disheartening to hear though :O
Pft, if any major nuclear nation wanted to go the MAD route, they could detonate all the nukes in their country on home soil and probably cause a mass extinction event from that alone.
|
United States44203 Posts
On April 06 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out. I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly? I'm not sure that you can "mass evacuate" tens of a millions of people with any kind of efficiency or timeliness. There's also the issue of "where the fuck do you store 10 million people temporarily?" How do you feed 10 million people without the infrastructure and economy created by your capital? And how do they not see this all coming a mile off?
Alpha strike could still be viable. The problem is that the time to do that was the late 90s. But we gambled that it would collapse in on itself before it became a rogue nuclear state and we lost.
|
On April 06 2017 01:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:21 Plansix wrote:
That is some high level spin if I ever saw it. I'll raise you this: Blaming Susan Rice seems to be the new hot fad for team Trump.
What does de-operationalize mean in this context?
Anyway I'm very happy McMaster prevailed over Bannon (it seems at least) since he's seemed like a well read and decent guy while Bannon is the polar opposite of that.
|
On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out.
Millions is unlikely, unless the North nukes the South. This article says, "tens of thousands of people", which is a far cry from millions. Turns out artillery isn't as destructive as thought either, and I believe South Koreans are trained in drills in case of a sudden invasion or attack from the North, and subways also function as shelters.
|
On April 06 2017 02:12 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions? I couldn't say, that's pretty disheartening to hear though :O
Here's an older post where I talked about it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5731#114604
|
On April 06 2017 02:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2017 02:16 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2017 01:52 xDaunt wrote:If you wanted to take a more conspiratorial outlook, consider this: Trump may be removing Bannon from the NSC in anticipation of some kind of military action against North Korea, which Bannon likely opposes. My less than enormous understanding of in-depth details regarding Korea has led me to believe: There is essentially zero support anywhere in the military for actually trying to take out NK. Am I wrong here? My understanding is that there are no scenarios in which millions of South Koreans don't die. Well there's the ones where we kill all of the North Koreans (civilians included) in one swoop. I thought NK had a bunch of artillery in mountains that are essentially unreachable. My understanding is that even if the US was to wipe out the entirety of NK, it would be less than instantaneous and that NK would have enough time to kill a few million in Seoul on their way out. I've always wondered how NK would react if there were a sudden mass evacuation of Seoul. Would they go insane and start letting the bombs fly? I'm not sure that you can "mass evacuate" tens of a millions of people with any kind of efficiency or timeliness. There's also the issue of "where the fuck do you store 10 million people temporarily?" How do you feed 10 million people without the infrastructure and economy created by your capital? And how do they not see this all coming a mile off? Alpha strike could still be viable. The problem is that the time to do that was the late 90s. But we gambled that it would collapse in on itself before it became a rogue nuclear state and we lost.
China has been banking on a non-unified Korea for so long and now they have this as a neighbor. But they really didn't' want more US influence in the region. Woops.
|
As of a few years ago (6? whenever that shelling of SK islands attack happened) China has been looking for a way to create a unified Korea. Kind of tough considering relations between the US and China are not exactly that of allies.
|
On April 06 2017 02:09 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 02:04 Tachion wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
This is about the time that we pretty much have to take care of NK. Any later and they will probably have ICBMs that the US has no means to defend against. And it's a rogue nation that can't be trusted to secure them. The US has a military agency specifically devoted to defense against ballistic missiles, and has interceptors ready to be deployed in California and Alaska. Last I read, didn't those have a 70% success rating in perfect conditions?
There is a reason we haven't shot down any of these test missles shot into Japanese water and the like. I tend to lean towards the idea that we are afraid we will miss, which would be pretty catastrophic news. Still, against NK level missles we have a good chance of hitting. It's the Russian types that leave the atmosphere which are hardest to hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
