Harris Blows an Easy Interview, Trump Pounces: She is Just Joe Biden Redux

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[thaihome]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There's a difference between casualty estimates for a North Korean artillery attack on Seoul, and the total casualty estimate for a full scale war. As I understood it, the original figure cited in your post referred to the former - which I still find exaggerated.

You will have to explain how  a "artillery attack on Seoul " is not the first phase of a full scale war. In addition you will note I said "greater Seoul " which if you have ever been to South Korea you would know that actually includes probably almost a third of the southern peninsula.  Have you ever driven from Seoul to Pusan? Not a lot of open country these days. 

 

I am also fascinated by the fact you insist on contradicting post you actually agree with the theme if there is a single insignificant part you don't buy into. This despite the fact you changed my post to from "million" to "milions" to support your disagreements and then claim  it was a "typo" and then say you were discussing only a artillery attack (thpugh I did say short range missiles as well) which also include attacks on Japan.

 

Nobody knows what the casualties would be in a chemical or biological agent attack on a mega city as nobody as dropped a couple of tons on such a location. A million is not an exaggeration,  it is based on estimates by war planing experts.  I also note you have not further mentioned the fact it could take weeks to take out the artillery and missile sites according to actual field level military experts.

 

Again, I'm unclear exactly what your point is in this discussion. Do you agree that hundreds of thousands (Maybe as much as ten hundreds of thousands) will die if an attempt is made to take out N. Korea's ICBM sites? Do you disagree that N. Korea is now a nuclear power with a deliver system and the only rational policy at this point is deterrence?  

 

Exactly what is your point other then to disagree? In most threads, particularly about the ME, I agree with you, but continue to be puzzled when you pick fights when we actually agree. I'm sure the word "pedantic" has come up once or twice in your lifetime. 

?

 

TH 

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, thaihome said:

You will have to explain how  a "artillery attack on Seoul " is not the first phase of a full scale war. In addition you will note I said "greater Seoul " which if you have ever been to South Korea you would know that actually includes probably almost a third of the southern peninsula.  Have you ever driven from Seoul to Pusan? Not a lot of open country these days. 

 

I am also fascinated by the fact you insist on contradicting post you actually agree with the theme if there is a single insignificant part you don't buy into. This despite the fact you changed my post to from "million" to "milions" to support your disagreements and then claim  it was a "typo" and then say you were discussing only a artillery attack (thpugh I did say short range missiles as well) which also include attacks on Japan.

 

Nobody knows what the casualties would be in a chemical or biological agent attack on a mega city as nobody as dropped a couple of tons on such a location. A million is not an exaggeration,  it is based on estimates by war planing experts.  I also note you have not further mentioned the fact it could take weeks to take out the artillery and missile sites according to actual field level military experts.

 

Again, I'm unclear exactly what your point is in this discussion. Do you agree that hundreds of thousands (Maybe as much as ten hundreds of thousands) will die if an attempt is made to take out N. Korea's ICBM sites? Do you disagree that N. Korea is now a nuclear power with a deliver system and the only rational policy at this point is deterrence?  

 

Exactly what is your point other then to disagree? In most threads, particularly about the ME, I agree with you, but continue to be puzzled when you pick fights when we actually agree. I'm sure the word "pedantic" has come up once or twice in your lifetime. 

?

 

TH 

 

Give it a rest, will you? It wasn't deliberate, and it does change the point much.

 

Your original post was about NK's "conventional artillery and short range missiles embedded along the DMZ", and the estimated casualty figure you gave ("million") was related to that.

 

I did not say anything about an "artillery attack on Seoul" not being the "first phase of a full scale war". An estimated casualty figure of 1 million directly related only to attacks such as described in your original post (which referenced "greater Seoul")seems exaggerated, whereas if it referred to an estimate pertaining to a full scale war, it is sadly more realistic.

 

What falls under the label "greater Seoul", may be debated, but doubt that the bulk of Kim's "conventional artillery and short range missiles embedded along the DMZ" have enough range to threaten Pusan. The way the threat is presented the main target would be Seoul. Targeting cities further afield, or Japan, will not necessarily (or even likely, with regard to the latter) be carried out from the DMZ.

 

Use of chemical or biological weapons was mentioned, but the focus of my post was indeed on conventional weapons, as per your original post. 

 

With regard to the length of time it will take to address such a threat - I think it would depend on initial circumstances under which the conflict is initiated. If this is to be undertaken while SK is already under full attack, as opposed to a limited strike (retaliatory or otherwise) by NK, or even a preemptive strike against NK - it will obviously take considerably more effort and time. As the scenario discussed (the way I understood your post) was more related to the latter possibilities, I think dealing with this is more feasible, if by no means easy.

 

I think that some elements of how the conflict is discussed and presented have developed into axioms and truisms, not always with good enough reasoning and cause. This is more prevalent in media coverage and public debate. Relevant examples would be a supposed inability to deal with NK's threat on Seoul, NK's army performance being top notch, North Korea having a reliable delivery system for nuclear weapons, NK automatically attacking Seoul and Japan in response to....well, anything. And so on and so forth.

 

With regard to North Korea's (or rather, Kim's) actions and reactions, there are no assurances. Whether he goes for a full scale war under each and every scenario is not a given. Whether he uses nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is not a given. Attacking Japan, same. IMO, Kim response to an attack would depend on which targets are hit and how badly. As some opined, suicidal he is not. And most assessments' bottom line doesn't spell anything personally positive for him if a full scale war is on.

 

Deterrence works if the two sides (back to that in a sec) have some common ground to relate to. Hard to say that  communication between NK and its adversaries is top notch, and that everyone understands each other very well. The potential for mistakes, misunderstandings and miscalculation is rather high compared to other instances. That's without factoring in NK being about Kim, hence harder to predict and assess. And as this isn't a two-party scenario, compounds the above significantly.

[hawker9000]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt very much that them "conventional artillery and short range missiles" are not accounted for and constantly monitored. Finding and targeting them will not take "several weeks", especially as each salvo tends to expose the location further. The point is that even a partial activation of such an artillery attack will result in mass casualties and quite a lot of damage. That's just figuring conventional armaments - can easily be more complicated if chemical or biological weapons are used. As for casualty figures estimated at "millions" - I think that's exaggerating things, not that it's really the point, though.

 

North Korea does have a nuclear weapons and apparently got a delivery system. Whether or not they achieved a marriage of the two is another matter, although just a question of time anyway.

 

Kim being suicidal or not is off mark. How much can he be trusted to comply with "accepted" norms of nuclear deterrence? What happens if he gets spooked? There are no easy solutions, indeed - but ignoring issues pertaining to such a deterrence situation is not helpful either.

 

 

Correct.  The person you're replying to is completely misinformed.

 

There are literally thousands of artillery pieces involved here, the majority sighted on Seoul, many are rail-mobile.  Finding and eliminating them may not take "several weeks", but it won't be done in a day or two either.  If the shelling starts, Seoul WILL suffer massively.   As for expected casualty counts, given Seoul's standing as possibly the most densely populated capital city in the world, inability to do much about an artillery bombardment in the short-term, lack of evacuation alternatives (it's half a peninsula and been all but overrun once before!), casualties - including dead, wounded and dying from being buried under the rubble and lack of water & food - numbering a million or more is definitely not completely outside the realm of possibility.

 

I don't think Kim is any more suicidal than Hitler was, prior, that is, to those final months with the Allies closing in on Berlin from all directions.   (But then again, Hitler's response to impending defeat was not only to take his own life, but to bring down all of Germany - whom he blamed for his defeat - with him.  'Something to think about...)  Kim is as dangerous as psychos can possibly get.  Those who insist on just continuing to whine about Trump standing up to him, or who defend Kim's obvious paranoia, or are trying to rewrite the history of the Korean War, or downplay the threat, might as well find their own way to Pyongyang and enlist as they are part of the problem anyway. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by hawker9000

[Ruffian Dick]

On 11/29/2017 at 9:12 PM, Morch said:

 

Most countries don't. And spin it as much as you like, this isn't just about the USA.

Well, to be fair, Kim isn't targeting Luxembourg.

[Ruffian Dick]

27 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

I don't think Kim is any more suicidal than Hitler was, prior, that is, to those final months with the Allies closing in on Berlin from all directions. 

I'm not sure if the issue is being suicidal (or more suicidal?); rather, it's being locked into an echo chamber where the people who tell you that you are headed for your doom, you swiftly execute them in the name of silence. Then all you have left is yes-men who are afraid to contradict you.... However the end result is similar to a suicide, so I'll give you that.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, Ruffian Dick said:

Well, to be fair, Kim isn't targeting Luxembourg.

But the EU, which includes Luxembourg, is supporting all the actions against North Korea.

 

This comes from Luxembourg. LOL

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-eu/eu-imposes-oil-embargo-on-north-korea-in-symbolic-gesture-idUSKBN1CL25X

EU imposes oil embargo on North Korea in symbolic gesture

 

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union banned the sale of oil and oil products to North Korea on Monday, in a largely symbolic move aimed at encouraging countries that have more significant levels of trade with the country to follow suit.

 

 

[Morch]

 

@hawker9000

 

Well, guess we'll have to disagree about the part relating how Trump "stands up to" Kim. Can't see anything Trump did that could not have been done with less bluster, less antagonizing of actual and potential allies, or that anything spectacular was achieved. What he does manage, quite aptly, is painting the USA into a corner - thus limiting options at hand.

 

[Morch]

17 hours ago, Ruffian Dick said:

Well, to be fair, Kim isn't targeting Luxembourg.

 

Well, to be fair, he is targeting South Korea and Japan, for starters. And them sanctions were not unilaterally decided by the USA or solely enforced by the USA. 

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:14 AM, Ruffian Dick said:

Well, to be fair, Kim isn't targeting Luxembourg.