Is North Korea really a problem?

[Space Commander Travis]

20 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Let's cut to the chase though, and imagine a world where the US takes a more isolationist position in world affairs - it's not hard to imagine, seeing as people were panicking about that very thing a few weeks ago, including the possibility of Trump turning his back on NATO.

You mean a world in which the American President might not pull out the guns as a kneejerk emotional response to a decidedly dodgy video released by a group that some would undoubtedly class as terrorists without even consulting Congress or calling for any kind of independent inquiry into it? And where he doesn't ring the current nominated Enemies with military forces and missile batteries and Carrier Strike Forces in a way that's clearly designed to be as provocative as possible, and if it succeeds, blame the Enemy country as the aggressor? I see your point, yes; that would never do.  

[imrunningthismonkeyfarm]

8 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

He said, "Get on with Russia" which is English phrasing, meaning 'getting along'.

"Get it on with Russia" is an Americanism, meaning quite the opposite.

Hahaha so Marvin Gay wanted to get it on in what way again? And I thought I rememberd him saying 'get along with Russia' we probably won't".

But does it matter anyway unless you're hellbent on cleaning the threads of any mistakes? **pats Likely Guy on back**

[Space Commander Travis]

Aren't we getting slightly distracted by what the meaning of is is here? 

[+susieice]

3 hours ago, LV-426 said:

It was an answer to SNR questioning military bases in Japan.

The simple answer is history.

The longer answer is obviously more complex, and involves strategic importance.

Let's cut to the chase though, and imagine a world where the US takes a more isolationist position in world affairs - it's not hard to imagine, seeing as people were panicking about that very thing a few weeks ago, including the possibility of Trump turning his back on NATO. Historically it's not that difficult to imagine either, as America was initially reluctant to directly engage in WWII until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Some people need to step back from preconceptions about America and ask themselves what the political map of the world would look like post-WWII without US involvement. Personally, I don't think it would paint a pretty picture.

Seems to me sometimes, the US is unfairly in a position of "Damned if they do, damned if they don't."

Trump has said he wants to put America first. A position of isolationism is indeed a possibility. WWI was also a case where the US stayed out of it until the sinking of the Lusitania. The War of 1812 was another case where the US wouldn't get involved with the war between England and France. Up until the end of WWII, we always followed a policy of not getting involved in other people's disputes.

http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/11713/awakening-the-sleeping-giant-the-birth-of-the-greatest-generation/Hence, we have the alleged quote from a Japanese Admiral.

Getting involved seems to have only gotten us blamed for all the ills in the world. I don't see how any country can carry a policy of true isolationism anymore. The world has gotten too small. However, a policy of taking care of ourselves first could be in the making after making sure people know to leave us alone. The world will turn without us. People are tired of being blamed for all the ills that affect the planet. We need to work on our own infrastructure instead of trying to solve all the problems.

Edited April 18, 2017 by susieice

[Thanato]

1 hour ago, susieice said:

The War of 1812 was another case where the US wouldn't get involved with the war between England and France.

The War of 1812 was a war of American Aggression, when it boils down to it it was all about Manifest Destiny, in the hopes of expelling British Influence over North America by 1813. Their hopes were to conquer Canada in 1812 and then march on Halifax the following Year. They used Impressment of British Citizens from American Ships as a core reason. The practice of Impressment was ordered stopped 2 days prior to the American Declaration of War in 1812. The US saw an opportunity when Britain was preoccupied in Europe and tried to take territory. That is what the War of 1812 was about.

The War ended with the British holding onto all their territories, and since they had no intention of conquest of the United States they did not hold any American Territory. The US Failed to conquer Canada or any part of British North America. It also basically solidified the current border lands between the United States and Canada. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Thanato

[+susieice]

5 minutes ago, Thanato said:

The War of 1812 was a war of American Aggression, when it boils down to it it was all about Manifest Destiny, in the hopes of expelling British Influence over North America by 1813. Their hopes were to conquer Canada in 1812 and then march on Halifax the following Year. They used Impressment of British Citizens from American Ships as a core reason. The practice of Impressment was ordered stopped 2 days prior to the American Declaration of War in 1812. 

The War ended with the British holding onto all their territories, and since they had no intention of conquest of the United States they did not hold any American Territory. The US Failed to conquer Canada or any part of British North America. It also basically solidified the current border lands between the United States and Canada. 

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/war-of-1812

https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-1812

There's a ton of google searches.

Edited April 18, 2017 by susieice

[Thanato]

Just now, susieice said:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/war-of-1812

I am quiet familiar with the War of 1812. Have studied it from the Canadian, US, and British side. The US Claims victory for some reason. The Canadians fought and won, and the British fought and won with a major hand tied behind their back. 

What it brakes down to is that the US Used Ipressment of British Citizens off US Ships to work up popular support for a war of Manifest Destiny that failed resulting the sacking of Washington, the burning of the White House, and the resulting solidification of British US Borders. The unfortunate thing is that the US Crushed the British backed Native Nation that was being formed. 

The battle of New Orleans was a victory that is not as great as it is laid out in American History books. Those same soldiers and sailors just sailed down the coast. Captured Fort Bowyer protecting Mobile Bay and were preparing to attack Mobile Alabama. That is until word came that the Treaty was signed and the war was over. The only thing that makes New Orleans seem like a great victory was the disproportionate casualties that the British took compared to the Americans. But as I stated those Casualties did not really effect the combat effectiveness of those soldiers and sailors, as they were preparing to sack Mobile just a few weeks after the battle of New Orleans.

[+susieice]

I will have to assume the US had no right to defense. This is why a policy of non-interference seems the best way to go again.

Edited April 18, 2017 by susieice

[Gromdor]

 

7 minutes ago, Thanato said:

I am quiet familiar with the War of 1812. Have studied it from the Canadian, US, and British side. The US Claims victory for some reason. The Canadians fought and won, and the British fought and won with a major hand tied behind their back. 
 

The US claimed victory because in the end the British and Canadians did withdraw.  There is a great psychological blow to publicly admitting defeat.  We still have a great many Americans that feel that the US has never lost any wars.  We just have things that we didn't "finish".  Korea and Vietnam were often two cases of "unfinished" business in many war discussions. 

Losing a war and admitting it publicly would be also be devastating blow to those that firmly believe in "American Exceptionalism".   

[+susieice]

Just now, Gromdor said:

 

The US claimed victory because in the end the British and Canadians did withdraw.  There is a great psychological blow to publicly admitting defeat.  We still have a great many Americans that feel that the US has never lost any wars.  We just have things that we didn't "finish".  Korea and Vietnam were often two cases of "unfinished" business in many war discussions. 

Losing a war and admitting it publicly would be also be devastating blow to those that firmly believe in "American Exceptionalism".   

Just proves the point. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. We need to go back to concentrating on our own and not doing unless provoked.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

 

The US claimed victory because in the end the British and Canadians did withdraw.  There is a great psychological blow to publicly admitting defeat.  We still have a great many Americans that feel that the US has never lost any wars.  We just have things that we didn't "finish".  Korea and Vietnam were often two cases of "unfinished" business in many war discussions. 

Losing a war and admitting it publicly would be also be devastating blow to those that firmly believe in "American Exceptionalism".   

Well I think Vietnam - the war against Hanoi - was a victory. It certainly made Hanoi seek out peace, and the attempted invasions of the South in '72-'73 were comprehensively defeated. It was South Vietnam that lost, when the North invaded again two years later, by which time all American personnel had been pulled out. (the fabled "last evacuation of Saigon" was mostly civil diplomatic personnel, not combat troops.) 

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, susieice said:

Just proves the point. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. We need to go back to concentrating on our own and not doing unless provoked.

I kind of feel that the whole attitude of "unfinished business" is what is making North Korea so problematic for us.  If we were truly "America First" and anti-globalist like many posters here claim, we wouldn't care about North Korea at all.  We would make ourselves non-dependent on Japan, Korea, and China for trade and let them deal with the kid with the bomb in their own midst. 

[+susieice]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

I kind of feel that the whole attitude of "unfinished business" is what is making North Korea so problematic for us.  If we were truly "America First" and anti-globalist like many posters here claim, we wouldn't care about North Korea at all.  We would make ourselves non-dependent on Japan, Korea, and China for trade and let them deal with the kid with the bomb in their own midst. 

N. Korea has made direct threats to us. That being addressed, I hope we do follow a policy of America first. People are going to complain either way so it really shouldn't matter to us. As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it previously in this thread, I don't care how China deals with this. It's up to them. Trade and interference are two different animals. Of course we would continue trading globally, but we can't solve all the problems. 

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, susieice said:

N. Korea has made direct threats to us. That being addressed, I hope we do follow a policy of America first. People are going to complain either way so it really shouldn't matter to us. As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it previously in this thread, I don't care how China deals with this. It's up to them. Trade and interference are two different animals. Of course we would continue trading globally, but we can't solve all the problems. 

They have made direct threats to our troops during exercises right outside their border, while they are doing said exercises.  We don't hear a peep from North Korea during the rest of the year.  If we were to stay in Hawaii and tell North Korea how awesome they are once a year or so, I am betting all threats would cease.  And if/when something does go down in SE Asia, Japan, S. Korea, and China can deal with it. 

But, who am I kidding.  America is globalist, Trump is a globalist, and we are the world police.  We don't want little Kim making waves and disrupting Asia and the status quo. 

[CJ1983]

North Korea is a problem. However, their army is outfitted with outdated gear that was never top of the line in the first place.  But if they ever made it to American soil, they would cause huge problems.

[+susieice]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They have made direct threats to our troops during exercises right outside their border, while they are doing said exercises.  We don't hear a peep from North Korea during the rest of the year.  If we were to stay in Hawaii and tell North Korea how awesome they are once a year or so, I am betting all threats would cease.  And if/when something does go down in SE Asia, Japan, S. Korea, and China can deal with it. 

But, who am I kidding.  America is globalist, Trump is a globalist, and we are the world police.  We don't want little Kim making waves and disrupting Asia and the status quo. 

I know Gromdor. I don't want to be the World's police. Going back to our pre-WWII existence does seem to be a difficult thing to do. 

[+susieice]

2 minutes ago, CJ1983 said:

North Korea is a problem. However, their army is outfitted with outdated gear that was never top of the line in the first place.  But if they ever made it to American soil, they would cause huge problems.

Hawaii would be a huge problem if they made it there. Our involvement in SE Asia is all post WWII. We had no territories or bases there before that. It was British Commonwealth and French Indo-China. The attack by Japan on Hawaii was the start. 

[Space Commander Travis]

7 minutes ago, susieice said:

Hawaii would be a huge problem if they made it there. Our involvement in SE Asia is all post WWII. We had no territories or bases there before that. It was British Commonwealth and French Indo-China. The attack by Japan on Hawaii was the start. 

How would they be remotely likely to make it to Hawaii? Unlike Admiral Yamamoto, they don't have a carrier fleet, or ocean-going amphibious forces, and in fact this is what their navy consists of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_North_Korean_ships

 

[Gromdor]

Just now, susieice said:

I know Gromdor. I don't want to be the World's police. Going back to our pre-WWII existence does seem to be a difficult thing to do. 

My wife works for the Paraguay office of a Brazilian insurance company that insures cargo going from places like China to South America.  The company has offices and affiliates in US cities like Miami, New York, and Iowa.  The financial backers of the policies are a pair of big banks in Europe.  The wife also started a second company doing GPS tracking for said cargo with trackers designed and serviced in Israel, made in Taiwan, and distributed from here in Iowa.  The cargo she insures originate globally and are shipped globally.

So having seen first hand how intertwined the world is, I would say that the only thing that would break those ties would be a catastrophic global event like WWIII.  We could slowly scale back, but we refuse to do so. 

[Space Commander Travis]

And here, ou tof interest, is the N. Korean AF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army_Air_Force#Current_inventory

[Gromdor]

The idea of a North Korean invasion of US soil is ludicrous.  The Korean Peninsula is where the bulk of the bleeding will occur.

[+susieice]

The US and China are currently working together to try and solve the problem. Let's see what comes of it first. There are no immediate plans other than our fleet being present which shouldn't be any big surprise considering all the bases we have there now. 

The economy is global Gromdor. There's no issue with that. We need to try and achieve growth there and not be pulled into every argument everyone has with someone. Only in defense.

[Gromdor]

Just now, susieice said:

The US and China are currently working together to try and solve the problem. Let's see what comes of it first. There are no immediate plans other than our fleet being present which shouldn't be any big surprise considering all the bases we have there now. 

The economy is global Gromdor. There's no issue with that. We need to try and achieve growth there and not be pulled into every argument everyone has with someone. Only in defense.

Economics is just another form of warfare.  That's the reason why we don't hesitate to use real guns when it comes to resources.

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Oh come on, attacking Iran has been a constant in his foreign policy ever since he announced he was going to stand. And while destroying Syria may not have been a campaign promise, it's certainly his policy now isn't it. And how else could he remove an existential menace to the world (i.e. N. Korea) except by destroying it? Of course his policy is to destroy all of them. And yes, of course Kim is blustering as he is because America's current president is blustering at him; that's obvious isn't it? That's how it always is.

, Well that's exactly how NK sees Trump, surely that's obvious.  

You do realize that you are giving the appearance of supporting three of the worst despotic regimes on the planet, over the U.S., right?  When your statements stray as far as obvious hyperbole, written as serious opinion, you lose credibility.  

[Bama13]

On 4/15/2017 at 3:32 PM, fred_mc said:

Unfortunately, there is a lunatic with nuclear weapons in the White House as well. Many people feared that Trump would win the presidential elections, at least here in Sweden. They couldn't imagine such a lunatic to be in control of the US nuclear weapons, and now it is a fact that he is in control.

I heard this same talk when Reagan was elected. Yet we're still here and the world didn't end.