CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,260
- United States
North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un
- Thread starter terminator363
- 3,319 comments
- 176,473 views
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Serious subject but I found this quote about hockey shedding it's sorrow in Korea quite amusing
Some of the SK players and the general public aren't happy aren't happy with the possibility of losing their positions on the team though:
Last edited:
- 28,422
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
That is understandable - to an extent.
On the one hand, they've put in years of dedication and effort to represent their nation at the highest level, and at a home Olympic Games as well - so to lose your place through what could turn out to be a (very) temporary diplomatic stunt would be personally devastating for the unlucky ones who might miss out. On the other hand, a relatively simple and small gesture like this could begin to repair relations between the North and South and solve one of the world's most vexing diplomatic/political stand-offs and avert what could (all too easily) end up in a nuclear holocaust.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- US stealth bombers in Guam appear to be readying for a tactical nuclear strike on North Korea
- The US recently sent nuclear bombers to Guam that can carry tactical nukes that would be perfect for taking out Kim Jong Un.
- Some have suggested that a quick tactical nuclear strike on North Korea could cripple the country's nuclear infrastructure with few casualties.
- Recent reports have suggested President Donald Trump considering a strike on North Korea, but some experts and politicians think the idea of a tactical nuclear strike is a recipe for disaster.
The US has been quietly amassing firepower in the Pacific during a lull in tensions with North Korea, but recent developments on an under-the-radar nuclear weapon suggest preparation for a potential tactical nuclear strike.
The US recently sent B-2 stealth bombers to Guam, where they joined B-1 and B-52s, the other bombers in the US's fleet.
While the B-2 and B-52 are known as the air leg of the US's nuclear triad, as they carry nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missiles, a smaller nuclear weapon that has undergone some upgrades may lend itself to a strike on North Korea.
Newly modified tactical nukes — a game changer?
A frontal view of four B-61 nuclear free-fall bombs on a bomb cart at Barksdale Air Force Base.United States Department of Defense SSGT Phil Schmitten
The B-61, a tactical nuclear gravity bomb that the B-2 can carry 16 of, has been modified in recent years to increase its accuracy and ability to hit underground targets, though that version has not yet been deployed.
Not only will the B-61's new modification make it ideal for destroying dug-in bunkers, the kind in which North Korean leader Kim Jong Un might hide during a conflict, but it has an adjustable nuclear yield that could limit harmful radioactive fallout after a nuclear attack.
Though the US has plenty of nuclear weapons that can easily hit North Korea from land, air, or sea, they're predominantly large ones meant to deter countries like Russia or China.
A 2017 paper in MIT's International Security journal suggested that recent advances in guidance systems and nuclear weapons could allow the US to destroy all of North Korea's nuclear infrastructure while causing 100 or so deaths, versus 2 million to 3 million deaths on both sides of the 38th parallel without them.
But Melissa Hanham, a senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, suggested the paper was flawed.
Hanham told Business Insider that the paper's supposition that only five sites would constitute the bulk or entirety of North Korea's nuclear infrastructure stood without merit.
North Korea has gone to great lengths to deter nuclear or conventional strikes by spreading its nuclear infrastructure across the country. The sites are shrouded in secrecy, and the US intelligence community, despite its best, concerted efforts, has been wrong about their locations before, a former State Department official told Business Insider.
Trump seems to like the idea of tactical nuke strikes and striking North Korea
B-2 Spirit bombers are part of a routine deployment providing global strike capability and extended deterrence against potential adversaries in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. US Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Joel Pfiester
Despite evidence that tactical nuclear weapons won't solve the North Korean military quagmire, President Donald Trump's administration has looked favorably on smaller nuclear weapons.
Trump's recent nuclear posture review recommended building more small nuclear weapons, as their size would make them easier to use in a conflict — something the International Security paper supports.
The B-61 bombs live in military bases spread across Europe and are much less visible than big bombers, whose movements are often publicized. For example, The Aviationist reported in October that a civilian with a handheld radio scanner intercepted B-2 and B-52 pilots over Kansas training to pull off a strike on North Korean VIP targets.
Recent reports have suggested Trump is considering a "bloody nose" strike on North Korea, or a move designed to embarrass Kim by responding to a missile launch or nuclear test with the limited use of force.
But experts and politicians have characterized the idea of a nuclear strike as destabilizing and frankly crazy. Rep. John Garamendi, a California Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, questioned the wisdom of it in an interview with Business Insider.
"Certainly, North Korea understands that the US is pretty tough," Garamendi said. "The US is prepared and willing to respond to aggression by North Korea."
He added: "But we must assume that if we were to do a bloody-nose attack, that North Korea would respond in some way. Then what?"
Update: This article has been updated to reflect that the modified B-61 is not yet deployed.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Let it be know this is just my opinion!
Our political investors need to see dividends on their lobbying contributions. If there is no war, Halliburton, Lockheed, Boeing, Oshkosh and all the rest of the war machine companies arent making money selling our military, and the enemies, their wares.
Our political investors need to see dividends on their lobbying contributions. If there is no war, Halliburton, Lockheed, Boeing, Oshkosh and all the rest of the war machine companies arent making money selling our military, and the enemies, their wares.
Last edited:
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
It's also a fact!
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I know. I'm just sick right now and don't have the energy to deal with the eventual "got proof of that." I'm all for it, just can't do it today
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That's not entirely true. Even without active conflicts, militaries continue to exist and require upkeep. Australia is buying F35s just to keep the air force up to date, not because they have an active use for them right now.
Likewise there's considerable consumption of ammunition and other expendables during peacetime in training. It depends a bit exactly what you talk about, but for some things I believe it's rather less than 10% of items purchased ever get used in an active conflict. The rest go to training or are simply disposed of after their shelf life expired after being stockpiled in case of need.
There's a valid business to be had supplying the militaries of the world even when there are no active conflicts in place. It's just not as large a business.
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
No they don't, because they have plenty of stuff to do that isn't war based. So instead of shooting from the hip you could ask people one these boards that actually are in the know. @Imari is correct, and even if we only focused on military projects from these groups, you'd still see that without war plenty of operations happen that pay very massively to them. Stating "let it be know this is just my opinion", once again doesn't save him from the fact that he gets his opinion from some place. If it was his opinion that blue was the nicest looking color compared to all others, that is in fact an opinion one can't dispute due to subjectivity. Stating that certain groups only function as a byproduct mechanism of war and building war machines, and would cease without war, is an opinion grown from misinformation at best.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I didn't interpret it as that. There is a key line.
The war on ISIS seems to be slowing down so starting some crap with NK will keep the investors happy.
Which is a logical thought. Let's be honest they ARE a big business that's only worried about money the government side too...
A war is easy to start...
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,531
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I am being honest here. Do you know how much a group like Boeing makes from a black project contract like that of the X-37 space plane or the XS-1 space plane, all from military contracting experimentation without a war being ongoing or on the horizon. Or how much the government pays them to launch rockets with various payloads through their ULA operations, or drone projects that aren't space based, and then the inter workings with other contractors on massive projects like the X-35/F-35. This is before we get into their other engineering endeavors with one of their biggest if not the biggest, being the commercial side of aviation.
Also I think you neglect the operational ceiling many of the departments budgets work on, and that's without war, and that's without always getting a return on investment.
Also it's kind of counter productive, you build up for wars in case they happen, not to just have them, actually having wars cost even more money than the subsequent preparations.
If that's how you interpret it, since that MW2 line is a general ref to the figure of speech known as "shooting from the hip"
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Not really. We don't have conscription any more in most countries, and certainly not in the US.
The point that when there's not an active conflict the business is smaller is one that I made.
And that key line is wrong. The investors don't need a war. At best they want a war, because it potentially improves their business. Although that's sort of debatable depending on the level of conflict and US engagement.
Production of large items like tanks, planes etc doesn't just suddenly scale up. The plant and engineering to produce these is very complex and very expensive. That's why militaries build their armies even in times of peace, because you can't sudden pump out a thousand F35s in a year or two. The US has been in several wars since the F22 was produced in 2005 and it wasn't until 2014 that it was actually used in a combat mission.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...tors-combat-mission-success/story?id=25709236
Small arms and munitions I could see being somewhat flexible. And certainly with the US tactic of invading and installing friendly regimes like in Iraq there's a need to recreate those militaries which is to the advantage of defense contractors. But the idea that the defense contractors need war to continue to exist is a flawed one. They benefit from it, but they would continue to exist even in a world with no active conflicts (a world that will never exist as long as it has humans on it). R&D is ever ongoing, stockpiles need to be built and renewed, and maintenance and training are non-trivial costs.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I just want to take this time to point out that i am a veteran. I am one of those "in the know" types. I was stationed at Ft. Bliss with 1AD, often trained in white sands and had a number of buddies in ADA. During active war, especially if we are running a missile campaign, we will defintely spend way more than during peace time. Aside from qualifying, when we trained, it was typically with miles gear and blanks. When ADA trains, they will use dummy missiles, which are far and away cheaper than the actual missiles. We are talking between 500k to 1.5 million per missile depending.
Ultimately, we easily spend an extra 100 billion+ a year when we are at war than when we aren't. Further, we waste A LOT when we decide we are done war mongering. We typically leave our "cheaper" equipment behind either for our "allies" or we destroy it. And that is just on our side. Most other countries don't put even a third of the budget into their militaries that the US does. All that money on all these weapons systems, vehicles as troops just to sit around in maritime status? Yeah, sure... cause that's what the investment is for right? That's why we started a war with Iraq in 03 under the pretense we were retaliating for 9/11, despite evidence that the terrorist were Saudi backed. We weren't there for 911, we were there to protect oil from Saddam cause we want playing nicely with the US after we installed him into power. But there is no doubt we were, and continue to, war monger at the behest and grand benefit of these war machine companies. If we weren't, we wouldnt need a military budget bigger than the next 7 militaries combined.
Consider this, our military was spending just a bit above 200 billion a year before desert storm, since then it has more than doubled up to 568 billion, with a sustained "war against terrorism." That doesnt even include the trillions wasted on the f35 program, the trillions "lost" twice by the pentagon, and the billions spent in military aid to our allies. All to support war efforts.
What is interesting, and i think a bit telling, is that after ODS but before OIF, our military spending dropped to below 300 billion again, then sky rocketed to 500+ billion. Through all of our conflicts, only WWII has cost the US more at near 800 billion. Its quite clear that if we aren't at war, we are not spending even half of the budget we do today.
Ultimately, we easily spend an extra 100 billion+ a year when we are at war than when we aren't. Further, we waste A LOT when we decide we are done war mongering. We typically leave our "cheaper" equipment behind either for our "allies" or we destroy it. And that is just on our side. Most other countries don't put even a third of the budget into their militaries that the US does. All that money on all these weapons systems, vehicles as troops just to sit around in maritime status? Yeah, sure... cause that's what the investment is for right? That's why we started a war with Iraq in 03 under the pretense we were retaliating for 9/11, despite evidence that the terrorist were Saudi backed. We weren't there for 911, we were there to protect oil from Saddam cause we want playing nicely with the US after we installed him into power. But there is no doubt we were, and continue to, war monger at the behest and grand benefit of these war machine companies. If we weren't, we wouldnt need a military budget bigger than the next 7 militaries combined.
Consider this, our military was spending just a bit above 200 billion a year before desert storm, since then it has more than doubled up to 568 billion, with a sustained "war against terrorism." That doesnt even include the trillions wasted on the f35 program, the trillions "lost" twice by the pentagon, and the billions spent in military aid to our allies. All to support war efforts.
What is interesting, and i think a bit telling, is that after ODS but before OIF, our military spending dropped to below 300 billion again, then sky rocketed to 500+ billion. Through all of our conflicts, only WWII has cost the US more at near 800 billion. Its quite clear that if we aren't at war, we are not spending even half of the budget we do today.
Last edited:
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Certainly if a capability exists there's a temptation to use it when an opportunity arises. I think however there's a difference between deciding to engage in a war that benefits your country because you can, and deciding to engage in a war that has no real benefit simply to give your military a justification to exist.
Tracking the history of US military spending is actually very interesting. And what I find most interesting is that it doesn't entirely track with the scale of the conflicts that are going on. Sometimes it sort of does, sometimes it's sort of doesn't. I imagine some things have a lag on them before spending increases (like ammo and munitions) and other things have none (like fuel and supplies).
I absolutely agree that military spending is higher during wars and periods of conflict. No question. I'd buy anywhere from double to an order of magnitude greater. What I don't agree with is that conflict is required to keep the military companies running. And that's not even taking into account that most of them have civilian sidelines to use the extra production capacity they have, that's me saying that in peacetime I think the vast majority of the military manufacturers would continue to exist and make a profit. They might have to downscale, but they don't disappear.
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Oh, no, dont mistake me, clearly thise companies will do just fine without conflict, but when does a company not want more money? What company would rather make 5 billion instead of 40? They may make money during peaceful times, but its definitely in their best interests when there is war.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Alas, events on the Korean peninsula have gone beyond North/South relations, or even routine pocket wars for reasons of regional hegemony and commercial exploitation. US officials have now branded North Korea "as a threat to the US mainland instead, which might be used by US hawks to argue that such a (preemptive nuclear) war could be prosecuted irrespective of South Korea’s wishes."
https://news.antiwar.com/2018/01/25/south-korea-fm-attacking-north-korea-not-an-option/South Korea FM: Attacking North Korea ‘Not an Option’
Says 'Certain' US Would Consult South Korea Before Attacking
Jason Ditz Posted on January 25, 2018Categories NewsTags North Korea, South Korea, Trump
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday, South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-Wha downplayed the chances of a new conflict on the Korean Peninsula, saying the situation must be solved diplomatically, and attacking is not an option.
South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-Wha
Kang appeared to dismiss the risk of a war out of hand, saying that she is “certain” the United States would consult with South Korea before carrying out any unilateral attack on the North, and that they’d consider such an attack “unacceptable.”
Historically, South Korea has viewed itself as having veto power over any US attack on North Korea, though US officials recently have not made clear if they still consider that the case, or if they believe they could sneak attack without a southern imprimatur.
The old view may have been a product of North Korea being seen as almost exclusively a threat to South Korea, while US officials now brand them as a threat to the US mainland instead, which might be used by US hawks to argue that such a war could be prosecuted irrespective of South Korea’s wishes.
Daniel Ellsberg, an enduring counterculture hero to my generation (charged with leaking top-secret Pentagon Papers worth 115 years in federal prison) says,
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2018/01/2...sberg-to-talk-about-anything-but-nuclear-war/
Yesterday the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock to the closest point to global catastrophe since 1953, the height of the Cold War.
https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Isn't the point partly that during a conflict the military generally expends a lot of its stockpile of weapons, munitions, missiles - even planes, helicopters, armored vehicles etc. These all get to be replaced, which subsequently leads to a big boost in military purchasing from defense contractors. Blowing **** up periodically helps keep the whole MIC humming along.
- 28,422
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
North and South Korean officials have met for the first time since Kim Jong-Un came to power, and already there are some hopeful noises coming out of the meeting, including (apparently) a promise from the DPRK to not use nuclear or conventional weapons against South Korea:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...not-use-nuclear-weapons-against-south-border/
The DPRK also added that "there was no need to keep its nuclear programme as long as there was no military threat against it and the safety of its regime was secured". Potential talks between the DPRK and the US have been mooted but the issue of the DPRK's nuclear weapons programme have proved an obvious sticking point - however it appears that it may be possible for talks to commence if the DPRK are willing to discuss their nuclear capabilities and the US are willing to agree to talks.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...not-use-nuclear-weapons-against-south-border/
The DPRK also added that "there was no need to keep its nuclear programme as long as there was no military threat against it and the safety of its regime was secured". Potential talks between the DPRK and the US have been mooted but the issue of the DPRK's nuclear weapons programme have proved an obvious sticking point - however it appears that it may be possible for talks to commence if the DPRK are willing to discuss their nuclear capabilities and the US are willing to agree to talks.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
I mean, if you look at the timeline since the early 90s, how can you assume anything else? Its a crap show of doing just enough to avoid sanctions, then going right back to ignoring the agreements made. But.... what is there to do about it? We certainly wont go bashing on the DPRK while SK is making headway. As ignorant as Trump appears to be on foreign relations, i doubt the military side of his cabinet would agree to any aggressions at the moment.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Thank you Mr. Trump:tup:👍
- 24,608
- Anoka, MN
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Rattling the sabres, sanctions, tightening the chokehold on the NK economy. Things that actually work in cowing dictators. Let's face it, if it works and everyone gets to the table and there is a satisfactory outcome, Trump should get a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one for far less, just for making speeches really.For outcrazying Lil' Kim to the point he is willing to talk?
