• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:29
CEST 21:29
KST 04:29
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202550RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams5Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 1v1 Fastest Support! BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 838 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8756

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8754 8755 8756 8757 8758 10093 Next
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.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
September 17 2017 18:21 GMT
#175101
On September 18 2017 03:04 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?

Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.

On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.

this is wrong

no

What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?

...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?

Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.

The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?

In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.

So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.

So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?

Negotiating with NK and with its closest diplomatic partners - most notably China and to a lesser but important extent Russia. Yes, it's true that neither of them really have control over the rogue country that is China, but influence they do have. NK may be rogue but it is definitely not suicidal; they do want to ensure the stability of their own country, even if that just means keeping the Kim dynasty alive for another century. Defending against the US threat, even if it makes them a bit more of a pariah than they already are, is a reasonable decision from the part of both NK and its partners. But if they were to tell NK to stuff it with enough threat of force then it just might lead to results.

The best way to get them to ease off is by removing that threat. Unfortunately that "threat" is also US presence in the region and its ability to deploy its military tech close to the border of China, so the US is not so willing to do that. The result ends up being that there is little reason to negotiate and it's best to just tell the US to fuck off. And while I can see why everyone put it off, now it's going to take one hell of a concession to get NK to give up its nukes. Again, you reap what you sow.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42651 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 18:27:43
September 17 2017 18:27 GMT
#175102
On September 18 2017 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 03:04 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?

Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.

On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.

this is wrong

no

What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?

...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?

Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.

The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?

In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.

So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.

So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?

Negotiating with NK and with its closest diplomatic partners - most notably China and to a lesser but important extent Russia. Yes, it's true that neither of them really have control over the rogue country that is China, but influence they do have. NK may be rogue but it is definitely not suicidal; they do want to ensure the stability of their own country, even if that just means keeping the Kim dynasty alive for another century. Defending against the US threat, even if it makes them a bit more of a pariah than they already are, is a reasonable decision from the part of both NK and its partners. But if they were to tell NK to stuff it with enough threat of force then it just might lead to results.

The best way to get them to ease off is by removing that threat. Unfortunately that "threat" is also US presence in the region and its ability to deploy its military tech close to the border of China, so the US is not so willing to do that. The result ends up being that there is little reason to negotiate and it's best to just tell the US to fuck off. And while I can see why everyone put it off, now it's going to take one hell of a concession to get NK to give up its nukes. Again, you reap what you sow.

no, your analysis is all wrong, as are your starting premises and assumptions.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
September 17 2017 18:29 GMT
#175103
On September 18 2017 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 03:04 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?

Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.

On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.

this is wrong

no

What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?

...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?

Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.

The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?

In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.

So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.

So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?

Negotiating with NK and with its closest diplomatic partners - most notably China and to a lesser but important extent Russia. Yes, it's true that neither of them really have control over the rogue country that is China, but influence they do have. NK may be rogue but it is definitely not suicidal; they do want to ensure the stability of their own country, even if that just means keeping the Kim dynasty alive for another century. Defending against the US threat, even if it makes them a bit more of a pariah than they already are, is a reasonable decision from the part of both NK and its partners. But if they were to tell NK to stuff it with enough threat of force then it just might lead to results.

The best way to get them to ease off is by removing that threat. Unfortunately that "threat" is also US presence in the region and its ability to deploy its military tech close to the border of China, so the US is not so willing to do that. The result ends up being that there is little reason to negotiate and it's best to just tell the US to fuck off. And while I can see why everyone put it off, now it's going to take one hell of a concession to get NK to give up its nukes. Again, you reap what you sow.

You keep ignoring the situation of South Korea, bordering a hostile militarized nation being backed by the regional 'super' power...
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 18:32:03
September 17 2017 18:31 GMT
#175104
On September 18 2017 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 03:04 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?

Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.

On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.

this is wrong

no

What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?

...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?

Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.

The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?

In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.

So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.

So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?

Negotiating with NK and with its closest diplomatic partners - most notably China and to a lesser but important extent Russia. Yes, it's true that neither of them really have control over the rogue country that is China, but influence they do have. NK may be rogue but it is definitely not suicidal; they do want to ensure the stability of their own country, even if that just means keeping the Kim dynasty alive for another century. Defending against the US threat, even if it makes them a bit more of a pariah than they already are, is a reasonable decision from the part of both NK and its partners. But if they were to tell NK to stuff it with enough threat of force then it just might lead to results.

The best way to get them to ease off is by removing that threat. Unfortunately that "threat" is also US presence in the region and its ability to deploy its military tech close to the border of China, so the US is not so willing to do that. The result ends up being that there is little reason to negotiate and it's best to just tell the US to fuck off. And while I can see why everyone put it off, now it's going to take one hell of a concession to get NK to give up its nukes. Again, you reap what you sow.

You keep ignoring the situation of South Korea, bordering a hostile militarized nation being backed by the regional 'super' power...

Do you mean that in a feels-based "we can't let anything happen to SK" sense or some other sense? Frankly, when nukes are involved and potentially going to be fired rather than just kept for deterrence, Seoul getting leveled is the least of my concerns. But it does fall under the general range of problems involving reducing the NK threat.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 18:39:59
September 17 2017 18:38 GMT
#175105
On September 18 2017 03:31 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 03:29 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 18 2017 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 03:04 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?

Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.

On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.

this is wrong

no

What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?

...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?

Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.

The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?

In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.

So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.

So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?

Negotiating with NK and with its closest diplomatic partners - most notably China and to a lesser but important extent Russia. Yes, it's true that neither of them really have control over the rogue country that is China, but influence they do have. NK may be rogue but it is definitely not suicidal; they do want to ensure the stability of their own country, even if that just means keeping the Kim dynasty alive for another century. Defending against the US threat, even if it makes them a bit more of a pariah than they already are, is a reasonable decision from the part of both NK and its partners. But if they were to tell NK to stuff it with enough threat of force then it just might lead to results.

The best way to get them to ease off is by removing that threat. Unfortunately that "threat" is also US presence in the region and its ability to deploy its military tech close to the border of China, so the US is not so willing to do that. The result ends up being that there is little reason to negotiate and it's best to just tell the US to fuck off. And while I can see why everyone put it off, now it's going to take one hell of a concession to get NK to give up its nukes. Again, you reap what you sow.

You keep ignoring the situation of South Korea, bordering a hostile militarized nation being backed by the regional 'super' power...

Do you mean that in a feels-based "we can't let anything happen to SK" sense or some other sense? Frankly, when nukes are involved and potentially going to be fired rather than just kept for deterrence, Seoul getting leveled is the least of my concerns. But it does fall under the general range of problems involving reducing the NK threat.

So we are back to 'fuck South Korea'. Only in your scenario it is significantly more likely to get fucked and for no foreseeable gain since North Korea would not stop its weapon programs as it is a requirement for their own protection.

Additionally a brutal dictatorship will always find a looming powerful enemy that must be opposed in order to keep their subjects in line. So they will still be openly hostile to everyone around them, including the US. Be in their Japan bases or anywhere else.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 18:48:07
September 17 2017 18:47 GMT
#175106




ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
September 17 2017 19:07 GMT
#175107
On September 18 2017 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 03:04 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?

Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.

On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.

this is wrong

no

What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?

...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?

Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.

The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.

On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?

In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.

So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.

So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?

Negotiating with NK and with its closest diplomatic partners - most notably China and to a lesser but important extent Russia. Yes, it's true that neither of them really have control over the rogue country that is China, but influence they do have. NK may be rogue but it is definitely not suicidal; they do want to ensure the stability of their own country, even if that just means keeping the Kim dynasty alive for another century. Defending against the US threat, even if it makes them a bit more of a pariah than they already are, is a reasonable decision from the part of both NK and its partners. But if they were to tell NK to stuff it with enough threat of force then it just might lead to results.

The best way to get them to ease off is by removing that threat. Unfortunately that "threat" is also US presence in the region and its ability to deploy its military tech close to the border of China, so the US is not so willing to do that. The result ends up being that there is little reason to negotiate and it's best to just tell the US to fuck off. And while I can see why everyone put it off, now it's going to take one hell of a concession to get NK to give up its nukes. Again, you reap what you sow.

I mean, so you're Monday morning quarterbacking the last 70 years of US Asian Pacific FP, but even aside from that, I'm just trying to figure out what this negotiation stance would have looked like. Because your claim is that a peaceful resolution to the conflict was totally possible, but the US wasn't prepared to pursue it, therefore you're laying all the blame for the present situation at the US's feet.

But what does that hypothetical resolution look like? Suppose we somehow convinced China to fully agree with us that NK was dangerous and needed to be kept in check. Then China threatens force against NK... then what? Even if we pulled all our military bases out of the Asian Pacific and pushed through all the critics crying "appeasement," do you really think NK would stop wanting nukes? That China could convince them to stop pursuing them?

Every indication I've seen is that NK's desire for world-ending military power isn't conditional on a US threat, it's ideologically central to their state's philosophy. A hypothetical US-China coalition could have beat them in a conventional war even more easily than we could have alone, but not without the same destruction to their enemies we were unwilling to accept. Unless you mean that we should have negotiated with China to prevent NK from existing in the first place, it still boils down to the fact that if we offer a carrot they don't want it nearly as much as they want nukes, if we threaten with a stick it just reinforces the need for nukes, and if we invade them they blow up SK on their way out. That equation doesn't fundamentally change if China is also pressuring them.

The US made plenty of FP mistakes in the 20th century, you're just not making a very compelling case that this is among them.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
September 17 2017 19:20 GMT
#175108
On September 18 2017 04:07 ChristianS wrote:
Every indication I've seen is that NK's desire for world-ending military power isn't conditional on a US threat, it's ideologically central to their state's philosophy.

I suppose that's really the core dispute here, and everything else is just dependent on the answer to the question of what NK and its leadership is actually after. It would perhaps be interesting to discuss that motivation. But for now I'd rather leave it for another time; it seems a bit too speculative and convoluted a discussion to be something I'm in the mood for engaging in right now.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
September 17 2017 19:27 GMT
#175109
On September 18 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 04:07 ChristianS wrote:
Every indication I've seen is that NK's desire for world-ending military power isn't conditional on a US threat, it's ideologically central to their state's philosophy.

I suppose that's really the core dispute here, and everything else is just dependent on the answer to the question of what NK and its leadership is actually after. It would perhaps be interesting to discuss that motivation. But for now I'd rather leave it for another time; it seems a bit too speculative and convoluted a discussion to be something I'm in the mood for engaging in right now.

Let me just clarify this. Your hypothetical agreement the US could/should have pursued involved placating China by giving up some geopolitical influence in the Asian Pacific, thus prompting them to join with us in threatening NK if they don't back off their nuclear program. Then they either agree to stop pursuing nukes, or the US and China join together to go kick their ass, with whatever damage they manage to inflict on SK before they're defeated being collateral damage.

Do I at least have you approximately right here?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 20:07:41
September 17 2017 19:42 GMT
#175110
Sort of. That account of events sort of lessens the emphasis on providing diplomatic incentives to NK to stop their program, in terms of economic support being given or withheld based on active cooperation, and perhaps in terms of non-nuclear technological support towards nuclear disarmament. No illusions that the result would be anything but painful and difficult for all sides involved, but less dangerous than a nuclear ICBM equipped North Korea.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
September 17 2017 20:19 GMT
#175111
America celebrates constitution day today.


We're largely in a post-constitutional society, but the part that survives sustains us still. It was signed on September 17th, 1787.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42651 Posts
September 17 2017 20:21 GMT
#175112
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
We're largely in a post-constitutional society

in your opinion
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4748 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 20:40:04
September 17 2017 20:39 GMT
#175113
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
America celebrates constitution day today.
https://twitter.com/molratty/status/909505897218666498

We're largely in a post-constitutional society, but the part that survives sustains us still. It was signed on September 17th, 1787.


With all this talk of statues and history, maybe we can compromise and swap out Columbus Day with Constitution Day as a federal holiday.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
September 17 2017 20:46 GMT
#175114
On September 18 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
America celebrates constitution day today.
https://twitter.com/molratty/status/909505897218666498

We're largely in a post-constitutional society, but the part that survives sustains us still. It was signed on September 17th, 1787.


With all this talk of statues and history, maybe we can compromise and swap out Columbus Day with Constitution Day as a federal holiday.

constitution day sounds potentially better; doubtful it's really worth an actual day off holiday though.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 20:49:16
September 17 2017 20:48 GMT
#175115
On September 18 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
America celebrates constitution day today.
https://twitter.com/molratty/status/909505897218666498

We're largely in a post-constitutional society, but the part that survives sustains us still. It was signed on September 17th, 1787.


With all this talk of statues and history, maybe we can compromise and swap out Columbus Day with Constitution Day as a federal holiday.


Indigenous Peoples' Day works as a good substitute for Columbus, I think Constitution Day doesn't need to be a federal holiday, particularly when it still doesn't seem to be applying to everyone.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Falling
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada11349 Posts
September 17 2017 20:53 GMT
#175116
Change Columbus Day to Viking Day: Vikings are cooler, and they made landfall in North America much earlier than Columbus.
Moderator"In Trump We Trust," says the Golden Goat of Mars Lago. Have faith and believe! Trump moves in mysterious ways. Like the wind he blows where he pleases...
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8982 Posts
September 17 2017 21:13 GMT
#175117
Did we already discuss TIllerson looking to closing the US Embassy in Cuba?
Karis Vas Ryaar
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States4396 Posts
September 17 2017 21:18 GMT
#175118
On September 18 2017 05:21 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
We're largely in a post-constitutional society

in your opinion


well we clearly don't care about article one section 9 clause 8 anymore.
"I'm not agreeing with a lot of Virus's decisions but they are working" Tasteless. Ipl4 Losers Bracket Virus 2-1 Maru
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
September 17 2017 21:26 GMT
#175119
On September 18 2017 05:21 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
We're largely in a post-constitutional society

in your opinion

I should've added "my posts do not represent the opinion of Victor or any other member of TeamLiquid."
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42651 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-09-17 21:42:32
September 17 2017 21:33 GMT
#175120
On September 18 2017 06:26 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 18 2017 05:21 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2017 05:19 Danglars wrote:
We're largely in a post-constitutional society

in your opinion

I should've added "my posts do not represent the opinion of Victor or any other member of TeamLiquid."

Or the opinion of, say, the SCOTUS who probably know a little more about the constitution than you do.

It was a really outlandish statement you made which is why I specifically qualified it for you.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Prev 1 8754 8755 8756 8757 8758 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 15h 31m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .293
BRAT_OK 104
ProTech73
ForJumy 36
MindelVK 34
Nathanias 26
StarCraft: Brood War
Mini 624
Mind 129
ivOry 4
Dota 2
420jenkins499
Counter-Strike
fl0m5413
sgares495
Foxcn250
oskar192
Fnx 108
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu396
Other Games
FrodaN3312
Gorgc2964
qojqva805
Dendi753
Trikslyr82
QueenE73
ArmadaUGS56
Sick46
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV34
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• iHatsuTV 10
• Adnapsc2 7
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22019
• WagamamaTV517
League of Legends
• Jankos2265
Other Games
• imaqtpie1634
• Shiphtur365
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
15h 31m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
18h 31m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 14h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 18h
CSO Cup
1d 20h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 22h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.