North Korea

[Rayvin 5294]

6 minutes ago, Renton said:

Half life of an empire? Curious proposition, what would half an empire be? 

 

Think I know what you mean but surely Empire is dead in a conventional sense. I don't accept the USA compares to the Roman, Moorish, or British empires. Maybe the USSR was the last one. I can't see a chinese empire arising either. 

 

Well I'm being a bit dramatic there. I think you could convincingly argue that the US has a cultural empire though.

 

But in plainer terms, the global hegemon is what I mean. The US empire has been relatively short lived compared to its predecessors (if indeed we're witnessing its decline as seems likely). I'm not convinced that the Chinese position of global domination would be any longer lasting.

[Park Life 71]

As GB handed the baton over to the U.S. it will in time be passed to China.

[Park Life 71]

26 minutes ago, Ken said:

No, in the mid-term it is strictly regional. Firstly, the Chinese want America's influence in the Asia Pacific gone. Their aim long-term though, in decades to come, is to be the world's main power. They have a long way to go before they get there but it is there aim.

 

The nations that make up South-East Asia aren't capable enough to counter-act against China. They are powerless. The only countries capable of standing up to China are of course America and Japan. India have the potential and are currently in a border standoff with China but they are realistically so disorganised and inefficient in their attempts to modernise.

America with its 600 bases is too strung out. They are going to have to make a choice between carrying on meddling in the middle east or swinging properly to face China. The have been arming Vietnam and so on....But the strategists seem confused about how to move forward....China is China innit...

Edited August 9, 2017 by Park Life

[Alex 35567]

52 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think China will eventually surpass the US, but the half life for empires seems to shrink as each one goes by. I wondered to myself if the US of Eurasia might be the one that knocks China down, if Europe becomes more pro-Russian over time.

 

Equally, you could make a case that with China investing in Africa, it could be that we see the African continent take the reigns. Or South America (although they're rising at a similar time to China, so I think it's more likely they'll be enemies to the Chinese regime in the end).

Sure I read a book about this once.

[Rayvin 5294]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/10/north-korea-details-guam-strike-trump-load-of-nonsense

 

The North Koreans have released 'plans' to fire a missile 40km off the coast of Guam - the missile route will take it over Japan. If they do that, they're getting blown to hell IMO.

 

Having said that, they've told us they're going to do it, and have also told us that it won't be ready until mid-month, which suggests they're desperately hoping they won't have to.

 

Thank fuck we're nowhere near this.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Rayvin

[Renton 21978]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/10/north-korea-details-guam-strike-trump-load-of-nonsense

 

The North Koreans have released 'plans' to fire a missile 40km off the coast of Guam - the missile route will take it over Japan. If they do that, they're getting blown to hell IMO.

 

Having said that, they've told us they're going to do it, and have also told us that it won't be ready until mid-month, which suggests they're desperately hoping they won't have to.

 

Thank fuck we're nowhere near this.

 

If a nuclear exchange occurs, all bets are off. The precedent will have been set and who knows how it might escalate. We're only a few hundred miles from the nearest war zone, the Ukraine, where two nuclear super powers face each other (Russia and NATO).

 

I was practically laughed off this board about this time last year when I pointed out Trump was a dangerous liability for the safety of the world. He was still seen as preferable to Hilary "the Hawk" by many, you included iirc.

 

So now what do we have? Two narcissists with fragile egos facing off each other in the Korean peninsula, both apparently proclaiming they are willing to use nuclear weapons. Not a lot we could have done about Kim, other than behave in a mature, civilised, diplomatic way.

 

But on the other side we have Trump. A vain, conceited man of sub normal intelligence who can barely string two words together. A man who shows complete lack of respect and judgement regarding everything he does. A man borne of privilege who has never witnessed war or poverty himself, having avoided the draft. A man who has surrounded himself by like thinking yes men. A man desperate to prove how tough he is and a legacy no matter who that hurts, even the legacy is the Earth scorched in one way or another (if it's not this it will be climate change). A man with frankly terrifying executive powers.

 

I wish I shared your optimism that we will be safe here. Because if this kicks off, the best case scenario is it will remain localised, with may be only a few hundred thousand deaths, and an ensuing depression that will make the 2008 crash look like the smallest of blips. But the worst case scenario? 

[Renton 21978]

Just now, Ant said:

you'd think the Americans would have a "bump him off silenty" jack bauer type ready for Kim Jong-un 

 

 

Or Trump.

[Rayvin 5294]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

If a nuclear exchange occurs, all bets are off. The precedent will have been set and who knows how it might escalate. We're only a few hundred miles from the nearest war zone, the Ukraine, where two nuclear super powers face each other (Russia and NATO).

 

I was practically laughed off this board about this time last year when I pointed out Trump was a dangerous liability for the safety of the world. He was still seen as preferable to Hilary "the Hawk" by many, you included iirc.

 

So now what do we have? Two narcissists with fragile egos facing off each other in the Korean peninsula, both apparently proclaiming they are willing to use nuclear weapons. Not a lot we could have done about Kim, other than behave in a mature, civilised, diplomatic way.

 

But on the other side we have Trump. A vain, conceited man of sub normal intelligence who can barely string two words together. A man who shows complete lack of respect and judgement regarding everything he does. A man borne of privilege who has never witnessed war or poverty himself, having avoided the draft. A man who has surrounded himself by like thinking yes men. A man desperate to prove how tough he is and a legacy no matter who that hurts, even the legacy is the Earth scorched in one way or another (if it's not this it will be climate change). A man with frankly terrifying executive powers.

 

I wish I shared your optimism that we will be safe here. Because if this kicks off, the best case scenario is it will remain localised, with may be only a few hundred thousand deaths, and an ensuing depression that will make the 2008 crash look like the smallest of blips. But the worst case scenario? 

 

My view on Trump was that, as an isolationist in rhetoric, he wouldn't do this shit. Clearly I was wrong about that. I think it highly unlikely a nuclear war would kick off with Hillary at the helm, although I suspect she'd still have bloodied her hands considerably.

 

I don't think this will end up in a nuclear war though, I think the yanks could do this without nukes. And I don't think it's guaranteed that the rest of the world would suddenly kick off if NK and the US come to blows. Would Putin fancy his chances against Europe? I'm not sure Russia has that particular fight in them you know, the EU has the largest military in the world if considered to be a single entity. He'll not be blind to that.

 

But hey, maybe another world war would sort out a few problems as well. The economy would be sorted and population levels would decline - we'd probably also get One World Government at the other end of it to ensure that 'nothing like this can happen ever again'. Assuming the allies won, that is.

[Renton 21978]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

My view on Trump was that, as an isolationist in rhetoric, he wouldn't do this shit. Clearly I was wrong about that. I think it highly unlikely a nuclear war would kick off with Hillary at the helm, although I suspect she'd still have bloodied her hands considerably.

 

I don't think this will end up in a nuclear war though, I think the yanks could do this without nukes. And I don't think it's guaranteed that the rest of the world would suddenly kick off if NK and the US come to blows. Would Putin fancy his chances against Europe? I'm not sure Russia has that particular fight in them you know, the EU has the largest military in the world if considered to be a single entity. He'll not be blind to that.

 

But hey, maybe another world war would sort out a few problems as well. The economy would be sorted and population levels would decline - we'd probably also get One World Government at the other end of it to ensure that 'nothing like this can happen ever again'. Assuming the allies won, that is.

Aye, not getting at you in particular but I think most people underestimated how catastrophic Trump could be.

 

Hope you're right and this will de-escalate. I'm 99 percent sure we won't have a global nuclear war myself. Thing is, I'd still not like to have the 1 percent nagging doubt. Not with 2 young uns in tow. Thought we'd left this shit behind in the 80s.

 

I would rather reach a Roddenberry future through conventional means. The increasing isolationism we're seeing, epitomised through Brexit, suggests this is unlikely. 

[Rayvin 5294]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

Aye, not getting at you in particular but I think most people underestimated how catastrophic Trump could be.

 

Hope you're right and this will de-escalate. I'm 99 percent sure we won't have a global nuclear war myself. Thing is, I'd still not like to have the 1 percent nagging doubt. Not with 2 young uns in tow. Thought we'd left this shit behind in the 80s.

 

I would rather reach a Roddenberry future through conventional means. The increasing isolationism we're seeing, epitomised through Brexit, suggests this is unlikely. 

 

Unlikely without a global war, yes. Well, for now anyway. In actual fact, I suspect isolationism would make global conflict far more likely.

 

If this kicks off and the rest of the world doesn't descend into chaos, it's probably globalisation that we'll have to thank for that, for all its faults.

 

Also accept that having children will make you more concerned about this. I'm more of the view that if this is going to happen, I hope I'm nuked in the early stages

[Meenzer 15716]

I mean, we're all fucked anyway, so might as well accelerate the process for the planet's sake.

[Rayvin 5294]

4 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

I mean, we're all fucked anyway, so might as well accelerate the process for the planet's sake.

 

See, Trump is just planning to cancel that out with Nuclear winter. Sorted.

 

Have to say, that article makes grim reading... Elon Musk needs to get a fucking move on.

[Rayvin 5294]

Just reading that article, this struck me:

 

"But more than half of the carbon humanity has exhaled into the atmosphere in its entire history has been emitted in just the past three decades; since the end of World War II, the figure is 85 percent. Which means that, in the length of a single generation, global warming has brought us to the brink of planetary catastrophe, and that the story of the industrial world’s kamikaze mission is also the story of a single lifetime."

 

That generation has a lot to answer for. Almost fucking everything, in fact.

[Ken 119]

Global warming intermingled with this situation?!? WTF?!? No I won't bother reading the article

 

Nothing to see here. Move on...

[Ken 119]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

 

My view on Trump was that, as an isolationist in rhetoric, he wouldn't do this shit. Clearly I was wrong about that. I think it highly unlikely a nuclear war would kick off with Hillary at the helm, although I suspect she'd still have bloodied her hands considerably.

 

 

It won't with Trump either man. Relax, chill. Enjoy a Pims...

[Rayvin 5294]

2 minutes ago, Ken said:

Global warming intermingled with this situation?!? WTF?!? No I won't bother reading the article

 

Nothing to see here. Move on...

 

Tbf, Meenz just threw it in there to demonstrate that it doesn't really matter if we wipe ourselves out through Nukes since it's in the post anyway.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5294]

1 minute ago, Ken said:

It won't with Trump either man. Relax, chill. Enjoy a Pims...

 

It's currently looking more likely with Trump than it would with Hillary, and out of respect to honest debate, I have to acknowledge that I was wrong in my assessment of Trump as isolationist in his outlook. He has baited North Korea into this escalating stand off in a way Clinton never would have.

 

But that said, I also noted that I didn't think it would come to nuclear war, so I assure you I'm not worrying

[Ken 119]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

It's currently looking more likely with Trump than it would with Hillary, and out of respect to honest debate, I have to acknowledge that I was wrong in my assessment of Trump as isolationist in his outlook. He has baited North Korea into this escalating stand off in a way Clinton never would have.

 

But that said, I also noted that I didn't think it would come to nuclear war, so I assure you I'm not worrying

That's good to know. Timely assurance. Foreign affairs like military interventions are beyond a President. Trump can say what he wants, he doesn't call the shots.

[Rayvin 5294]

1 minute ago, Ant said:

This is what i've been training my entire life for

 

when the world turns into some sort of Resident Evil/Fallout combination i'm going be unstoppable 

 

 

Some friends and I have a zombie apocalypse survival plan in place. I guess we need to work on a nuclear holocaust one as well.

[Rayvin 5294]

2 minutes ago, Ken said:

That's good to know. Timely assurance. Foreign affairs like military interventions are beyond a President. Trump can say what he wants, he doesn't call the shots.

 

Well, that's true - but if North Korea fire a missile over Japan that lands within uncomfortable distance of US territory, is congress going to stand in his way? I don't think they (NK) are that crazy, but you never know.

[TheGingerQuiff 2412]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

It's currently looking more likely with Trump than it would with Hillary, and out of respect to honest debate, I have to acknowledge that I was wrong in my assessment of Trump as isolationist in his outlook. He has baited North Korea into this escalating stand off in a way Clinton never would have.

 

But that said, I also noted that I didn't think it would come to nuclear war, so I assure you I'm not worrying

 

Can't agree with that like. They've backed themselves into a corner. How do you think should Trump deal with them? 

[Rayvin 5294]

North Korea?

 

I dunno man, I think Clinton would have gone the same route as Trump, sanctions and all, right up until he threatened them with 'fire and fury'. Clinton wouldn't have done that, and that's what they're currently responding to. He's made it difficult for either side to step down without losing face now. I doubt Clinton would have done the same thing.

[Ken 119]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Well, that's true - but if North Korea fire a missile over Japan that lands within uncomfortable distance of US territory, is congress going to stand in his way? I don't think they (NK) are that crazy, but you never know.

NK wouldn't dare. Japan have PAC-3 missile defences to blow it out of the sky. They have 20 AEGIS destroyers that can do the job too. Should that happen, NK would have been the instigator and a full blown intervention against it would be required.

[Rayvin 5294]

Just now, Ken said:

NK wouldn't dare. Japan have PAC-3 missile defences to blow it out of the sky. They have 20 AEGIS destroyers that can do the job too. Should that happen, NK would have been the instigator and a full blown intervention against it would be required.

 

Well, I agree - but they said they were going to do it just this afternoon. Granted, it's likely an empty threat... but I don't think they've made such a threat before. It's apparently planned for mid-month.

[Dr Gloom 22141]

my take on all of this is the traditional US position hasn't really changed. the North Koreans always get a bit lairy when the yanks and the Japanese do these annual military exercises on their doorstep. The difference this time is Trump speaks in language which isn't exactly what you'd call typical of a US president. Plenty of officials have since backtracked on his fire and fury comments. It's as you are basically, except there's an orange moron with a big mouth running the show. is he stupid enough to talk himself into an accidental war that no one wants? possibly, but the stakes are high with china not wanting to see instability on its doorstep. the real powers behind the presidency are unlikely to let things escalate to that point. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Dr Gloom